andrewjohnson
17-06-2009, 11:23 PM
http://www.prlog.org/10260429-911-qui-tam-case-will-have-its-day-in-court.html
9/11 Qui Tam Case Will Have Its Day in Court
23rd June 2009 – Manhattan, New York – The Qui Tam Case of Dr. Judy Wood - Docket Number 08-3799-cv), DC Docket Number: 07-cv-3314 is to have an Oral Hearing.
In 2005, a number of reports were issued by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) which were the result of a study, mandated by congress, to "Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed ...". In April 2007, Dr. Wood, with the help of a Connecticut Attorney Jerry Leaphart, lodged a “Qui Tam” complaint against some of the contractors employed by NIST. This complaint followed an earlier "Request For Correction" (RFC) with regard to the same NIST WTC reports, establishing her as the first to address the fact that this report did not even contain an analysis of the collapse of the WTC towers. Dr. Wood’s original RFC defined how NCSTAR1 is “fraudulent and deceptive” because it does not address the profound level of destruction of the WTC towers that seemed to violate the laws of physics. NIST denied Dr. Wood’s RFC, admitting they did not analyze the collapse. That is, the spokesperson for NIST admitted that they did not fulfil the mandate by congress. (The title of the report is “NIST NCSTAR 1 – Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers,” yet they did not analyze the "collapse" or even determine if it actually did collapse.) Dr. Wood's subsequent appeal to NIST was also denied, though the Qui Tam case - against some of the contractors that NIST employed - went forward.
In the original RFC, Dr. Wood stated that “NIST cannot make a statement that the World Trade Center towers came down in ‘free fall’ on one hand”, and then say “that doing so is a form of collapse.” Wood also stated that “Use of the descriptive word ‘collapse’” is incorrect and points out that according to NIST’s own data, their explanation of how the towers were “dustified” does not satisfy the laws of Physics. Dr. Wood uses the word “dustify” because she has identified a new phenomenon where the building was turned to dust - it was not vaporised by high heat nor was it smashed by kinetic energy. She concludes from her study, that a new type of Directed Energy Weapon was used to destroy most of the WTC buildings. This weapon appears to utilise “field effects” in its operation and so is fundamentally different to known types of directed energy weapons such as lasers and masers. Contrary to what Dr Wood’s critics say, her Qui Tam submissions do not discuss the use of “ray beams from space”, but they focus on a number of pieces of evidence which indicate the presence of field effects in and around the WTC complex on 9/11.
Dr. Wood also points out that Applied Research Associates (ARA) – one of the defendants in the Qui Tam action - were one of the contractors for the NCSTAR reports and that they are a significant developer and manufacturer of Directed Energy Weapons and/or components of same. This therefore would be one example of where there was a “conflict of interest” in producing a truthful report.
Dr. Wood’s Qui Tam documents include a study of additional evidence to illustrate that NIST’s contractors exhibited “wilful blindness” when they produced their part of the NCSTAR reports. For example, the contractors’ own explanations did not address the fact that much of the steel in the towers turned to dust before it reached the ground. Dr. Wood’s submissions include a study of some of the effects seen in the aftermath of the WTC destruction (anomalous dust effects, anomalous rusting) and anomalous effects seen on some of the surviving WTC steel girders, pictures of which were included in the original NIST reports. The girders are bent and deformed in unusual ways – and because the towers turned to dust, the effects on the girders cannot be explained as being caused by a “gravity-driven collapse”. In Dr. Wood’s submission, certain effects on metals and on objects near the WTC are also considered – such as inverted or flipped cars, and cars which are “toasted” – but show damage inconsistent with a hot fire. Dr. Wood’s later research has also documented the presence of Hurricane Erin, which was closest to NYC at about 8am on 9/11.
Though Judge George Daniels initially dismissed Dr. Wood’s case in June 2008, his ruling did not address the evidence that Dr. Wood’s Qui Tam case was based on. A decision was therefore made to lodge an appeal and another round of submissions took place. This appeal is now scheduled for oral argument on 23rd June 2009, in the Ceremonial Courtroom (9th Floor), Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Manhattan, New York City, and is open to attendance by the general public.
For more information, please use the details below.
Jerry Leaphart, Jerry V. Leaphart & Assoc., P.C. 8 West Street, Suite 203 Danbury, CT 06810 phone - (203) 825-6265 , fax – (203) 825-6256, e-mail: jsleaphart@cs.com
Dr. Judy Wood/Qui Tam Case: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml
NIST’s filings of the RFC’s and responses can be found at:
http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619
9/11 Qui Tam Case Will Have Its Day in Court
23rd June 2009 – Manhattan, New York – The Qui Tam Case of Dr. Judy Wood - Docket Number 08-3799-cv), DC Docket Number: 07-cv-3314 is to have an Oral Hearing.
In 2005, a number of reports were issued by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) which were the result of a study, mandated by congress, to "Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed ...". In April 2007, Dr. Wood, with the help of a Connecticut Attorney Jerry Leaphart, lodged a “Qui Tam” complaint against some of the contractors employed by NIST. This complaint followed an earlier "Request For Correction" (RFC) with regard to the same NIST WTC reports, establishing her as the first to address the fact that this report did not even contain an analysis of the collapse of the WTC towers. Dr. Wood’s original RFC defined how NCSTAR1 is “fraudulent and deceptive” because it does not address the profound level of destruction of the WTC towers that seemed to violate the laws of physics. NIST denied Dr. Wood’s RFC, admitting they did not analyze the collapse. That is, the spokesperson for NIST admitted that they did not fulfil the mandate by congress. (The title of the report is “NIST NCSTAR 1 – Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers,” yet they did not analyze the "collapse" or even determine if it actually did collapse.) Dr. Wood's subsequent appeal to NIST was also denied, though the Qui Tam case - against some of the contractors that NIST employed - went forward.
In the original RFC, Dr. Wood stated that “NIST cannot make a statement that the World Trade Center towers came down in ‘free fall’ on one hand”, and then say “that doing so is a form of collapse.” Wood also stated that “Use of the descriptive word ‘collapse’” is incorrect and points out that according to NIST’s own data, their explanation of how the towers were “dustified” does not satisfy the laws of Physics. Dr. Wood uses the word “dustify” because she has identified a new phenomenon where the building was turned to dust - it was not vaporised by high heat nor was it smashed by kinetic energy. She concludes from her study, that a new type of Directed Energy Weapon was used to destroy most of the WTC buildings. This weapon appears to utilise “field effects” in its operation and so is fundamentally different to known types of directed energy weapons such as lasers and masers. Contrary to what Dr Wood’s critics say, her Qui Tam submissions do not discuss the use of “ray beams from space”, but they focus on a number of pieces of evidence which indicate the presence of field effects in and around the WTC complex on 9/11.
Dr. Wood also points out that Applied Research Associates (ARA) – one of the defendants in the Qui Tam action - were one of the contractors for the NCSTAR reports and that they are a significant developer and manufacturer of Directed Energy Weapons and/or components of same. This therefore would be one example of where there was a “conflict of interest” in producing a truthful report.
Dr. Wood’s Qui Tam documents include a study of additional evidence to illustrate that NIST’s contractors exhibited “wilful blindness” when they produced their part of the NCSTAR reports. For example, the contractors’ own explanations did not address the fact that much of the steel in the towers turned to dust before it reached the ground. Dr. Wood’s submissions include a study of some of the effects seen in the aftermath of the WTC destruction (anomalous dust effects, anomalous rusting) and anomalous effects seen on some of the surviving WTC steel girders, pictures of which were included in the original NIST reports. The girders are bent and deformed in unusual ways – and because the towers turned to dust, the effects on the girders cannot be explained as being caused by a “gravity-driven collapse”. In Dr. Wood’s submission, certain effects on metals and on objects near the WTC are also considered – such as inverted or flipped cars, and cars which are “toasted” – but show damage inconsistent with a hot fire. Dr. Wood’s later research has also documented the presence of Hurricane Erin, which was closest to NYC at about 8am on 9/11.
Though Judge George Daniels initially dismissed Dr. Wood’s case in June 2008, his ruling did not address the evidence that Dr. Wood’s Qui Tam case was based on. A decision was therefore made to lodge an appeal and another round of submissions took place. This appeal is now scheduled for oral argument on 23rd June 2009, in the Ceremonial Courtroom (9th Floor), Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Manhattan, New York City, and is open to attendance by the general public.
For more information, please use the details below.
Jerry Leaphart, Jerry V. Leaphart & Assoc., P.C. 8 West Street, Suite 203 Danbury, CT 06810 phone - (203) 825-6265 , fax – (203) 825-6256, e-mail: jsleaphart@cs.com
Dr. Judy Wood/Qui Tam Case: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml
NIST’s filings of the RFC’s and responses can be found at:
http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619