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
17th 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 fulfill 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 "willful
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