With little fanfare, Dr Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds Qui-Tam complaints made on behalf of the U.S. Government were dismissed "with prejudice" at the end of June. While there was no surprise at the dismissals of what can only be termed frivolous law suits, the "with prejudice" was a fitting touch by the presiding judge – The Honorable George Daniels. In his ruling, Judge Daniels states:
"Their lawsuits simply rely upon their own theoretical examination of information already within the public domain. Plaintiffs' attempted analysis of that information constitutes pure speculation that the NIST participants were involved in a cover-up to conceal the true cause for the towers' collapse. They merely disagree with NIST's investigative findings, and specifically wish to reject the basic factual premise that terrorist destroyed the Twin Towers using passenger-filled airplanes as missile-like weapons. Plaintiffs, understandably, offer nothing more than conjecture and supposition to support their claim that the towers were struck by high powered energy beams," (pp. 7-8) - click here .
Well, thankfully, someone still had their wits about themselves. Notice the words, though, - "speculation", "conjecture", and "supposition". This is how the non-Truther world views the Movement's differing theories. As I've mentioned on numerous occasions, a healthy dose and application of "faith" is needed to accept any one of the competing Truther theories, although the Movement's practitioners decry otherwise and fail repeatedly to even acknowledge the necessity of faith.
Just to be clear, though, Judge Daniels warned Dr. Wood and her attorney about continuing their "Quixotic Crusade through the Courts" when he stated as a Footnote 19:
"A belief, no matter how incredible, that the WTC was destroyed using secret exotic weaponry, does not give rise to even a colorable claim for relief. All plaintiffs, as well as the attorney for the plaintiff here, are hereby warned that filing further successive untenable actions may result in the imposition of monetary or other serious sanctions," (p. 19).
Now, this is all well and fine and to be expected (i.e., Truthers do Truther things and non-Truthers do non-Truthers things – especially the courts when their patience has been tested). But... after getting their heads slapped (legally-speaking, of course) by the "with prejudice" labeling and stern warning, do Wood and Reynolds stop? Nope! They file Motions to Reconsider based upon the court's – let's be candid here – "ignorance of the Law". Truly, though, the good Doctors are just labeling Judge Daniels as one of America's "sheeple" when they state:
"...[R]elief is... appropriate when a legal error has been committed due to inadvertence or misapprehension." (p. 3)
When you tickle the tail of the tiger, you'd better have an escape plan established. But did they? No. The two are compelled to see this silly dance through now to the end and (no doubt) will file appeal after appeal.
But did Dr. Wood offer any new compelling evidence in her Motion that would demonstrate "how" the court erred in its review of her evidence? Well, aside from stating that the court called the energy source a "United States secret military directed energy weapon [DEW]" where Dr. Wood in her original complaint called it a "directed energy weapon" and then implied heavily that the U.S. military is in possession of such devices and the complaint is directed a U.S. military defense contractors, she did not proffer one scrap of new evidence and remained entrenched in her (now legally dismissed) ignorance.
But... Just to add insult to injury, Dr. Wood further whined (yes, actually whined in a court document) that a needed conclusion in her Motion to Reconsider was that:
"At a bare minimum, removal of language from the Memorandum Decision that goes far beyond that which is necessary for purposes of rendering a decision in this case, and/or which concerns issues that are not properly before this court," (p. 5) - click here .
And this little ditty on p. 16, "It is respectfully submitted that based on the fundamental misapprehension of plaintiff's claims... the quoted portion of Footnote 19 [see above quote from p. 19] should be deleted from the court's Memorandum Decision. The plaintiff is a materials engineering scientist who articulated in forensic detail the nature of her claims."
This reminds me of the quote by Dr. Venkman in the movie "Ghostbusters":
Dr. Peter Venkman: ...Are you, Alice, menstruating right now?
Library Administrator: What's has that got to do with it?
Dr. Peter Venkman: Back off, man. I'm a scientist.
I thought it time for a revision to the biography. Where I seem to have "disturbed" a fair number of posters here at OEN to the point they've asked me not to write about their comments, feel free to call me "troll", "shill", "neo-con lapdog", "jack-booted thug", or "bad hat Harry". They've all been applied to me over the past year because I have challenged people to think beyond the emotions of an issue and review all the available data – not just the cherry-picked stuff. Of course, this approach makes me (to many of those posters) a practitioner of cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization. And hey, when you have those going for you, how can you EVER be wrong?
Hey Tom! Good deliberation. Funky weapons can ruin a person's day. As you know, when something goes awry, breaks down, goes kaput, blows up in your face, it's usually SSS (something simple, stupid, or KISS, whatever). Any good mechanic knows the rule, same with lots of disciplines. No spark -- probably a loose connection (was it HAARP?!), program won't load properly (probably didn't read the directions and follow the damn protocols, eh?), etc., etc.
9/11 -- SSS or KISS? NIST? Administration's version of cause/effect/events?
"When men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities," – David Hume. Excellent quote -- it should be good for the gander as well as the goose. Go one more, and make it good for the moose.
Tommasso! It is the grossest absurdities weighed against the improbabilities, coupled with the impossibilities, resting on the ironies of Iraqis becoming our enemies,
inhale...,
while our economies get shredded by monopolies, and games played by a minority of the powers that be, making the most off the least who now have virtually nothing...incredibly.
Don't you see? It's a game. Played with fiat money. Someone's getting rich and it's not you or me. Well, I'm not.
Let's have a "real" investigation. The taxpayers deserve it.
by
boomerang (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 306 comments)
on Wednesday, August 6, 2008 at 11:35:43 AM
I should have seen it early on, before she was denied tenure at Clemson. Her proposed collapse model assumes the floors collide elastically.
However, just because her hypothesis that directed energy beams brought down the buildings is ridiculous doesn't mean the alternative hypothesis that heat from the fires induced failure in the structures such that they collapsed suddenly and uniformly isn't also ridiculous.
by
Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 273 comments)
on Wednesday, August 6, 2008 at 1:06:30 PM
Wood documents that the towers were reduced to less than two stories of debris and no debris in the basements, no debris surrounding the WTC area, missing spaces in the other buildings, 3 and art of 4 gone. Flipped cars with no reason to be flipped. Oxidation of steel (not iron). The breakdown of Bankers Trust building.
The Judge did not even address her points. Her case was evidence based on physical proof, not hearsay and termites. Heavy Watergate - Google it.
by
RuGBYZHG (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments)
on Wednesday, August 6, 2008 at 4:46:30 PM
"Wood documents that the towers were reduced to less than two stories of debris and no debris in the basements, no debris surrounding the WTC area, missing spaces in the other buildings, 3 and art of 4 gone. Flipped cars with no reason to be flipped. Oxidation of steel (not iron). The breakdown of Bankers Trust building."
The following pictures where taken at the WTC complex on September 11, 2001. What do the pictures tell you, RuGBYZHG?
click here - what is the debris scattered about in the image and its most likely source? Please note that the image is looking down and includes portions of the underlying ground level.
click here - Plase note the height of the excavator in relationship to the height of the debris pile at the image's center. Does this represent a two-story (approximately 25 feet) pile?
click here - Please note the height of the person in the image's center and compare it to the debris pile immediately behind him and then the more distant pile behind that. Oh, yeah. Two-stories here!
click here - Please note that the windows in the pile of debris are about 12 feet apart between openings. That's a BIG chunk of WTC 7.
click here . Which way does the debris fall - up or down? Which way is the resulting dust cloud moving - up, down, laterally?
Dr. Wood used conjecture and speculation - only.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1767 comments)
on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 10:30:07 AM
"Wood documents that the towers were reduced to less than two stories of debris and no debris in the basements, no debris surrounding the WTC area, missing spaces in the other buildings, 3 and art of 4 gone. Flipped cars with no reason to be flipped. Oxidation of steel (not iron). The breakdown of Bankers Trust building."
The following pictures where taken at the WTC complex on September 11, 2001. What do the pictures tell you, RuGBYZHG?
click here - what is the debris scattered about in the image and its most likely source? Please note that the image is looking down and includes portions of the underlying ground level.
click here - Plase note the height of the excavator in relationship to the height of the debris pile at the image's center. Does this represent a two-story (approximately 25 feet) pile?
click here - Please note the height of the person in the image's center and compare it to the debris pile immediately behind him and then the more distant pile behind that. Oh, yeah. Two-stories here!
click here - Please note that the windows in the pile of debris are about 12 feet apart between openings. That's a BIG chunk of WTC 7.
click here . Which way does the debris fall - up or down? Which way is the resulting dust cloud moving - up, down, laterally?
Dr. Wood used conjecture and speculation - only.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1767 comments)
on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 11:13:52 AM
An interesting article from the prodigiously active Tom Murphy(s)?
Look at the total number of comments he's made, folks! Does he deserve an award???
But anyway, back to the evidence, look at Tom's comments on my referenced article - which OpEd News posted as a diary page, for some reason. Compare the number of insults in the referenced article to the one Mr Murphy has posted.
Can you see a pattern yet? You'd think, now that the strategy is so obvious, it would change - but oh no, the evidence-free postings continue a-pace...
Peace, People!
by
Andrew Johnson (2 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 66 comments)
on Wednesday, August 6, 2008 at 4:51:15 PM
"This quote below is insulting and degrading... Only someone afraid of something would stoop so low as to put this sexist quote in a serious commentary."
Is fear the only reason why the quote be used or is it possible (just possible, mind you) that there's another reason why the quote is used? Could it have been referenced to highlight the ridiculousness that a person's title (e.g., scientist OR materials enginner) automatically renders them immune from questioning or criticism?
Hmmm... Well, it's possible that the quote COULD be viewed from this perspective, as opposed to the alleged and sole filter of sexism. But whether or not the non-sexist view is adopted is entirely up to the reader and no one else. Therefore, I believe the comment above speaks far more about the commenter than myself.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1767 comments)
on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 9:20:52 AM
These stupid people tend to ignore evidence just to suit their predetermined conclusions. They take things out of context. Those who insult Dr Wood or Dr Reynolds are the stupid people. But the perpetrators of 9/11 are counting on the stupid sheeple to distract other sheeple from the truth. Will the stupid sheeple prevail? No they won't.
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 423 comments)
on Wednesday, August 6, 2008 at 11:24:33 PM
However, I disagree with the Truther mandate that all past investigations be discarded and start anew from Square One. For some issues, this is impossible, while for others is unecessary and largely duplicative. My concern is that once you have two invesitagtions of essentially the same issue, the two will forever be pitted against one another - whether the comparison is real or not and whether we like pitting or not. This can only be viewed as unproduction and non-progressive.
Even the 9/11 Commission recommended that, "New information inevitably will come to light. We present this report as a foundation for a better understanding of a landmark in the history of our nation," - http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/preface.pdf (Preface, p. xvii).
I also disagree with the assessment that the "taxpayers", a subset of America, deserve yet another investigation more so than Americans themselves. Emphasizing the financial over the humanity is gauche.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1767 comments)
on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 9:50:30 AM
13 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
