Home
Refresh   Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ;  (less...)
Add to My Group
March 25, 2007 at 09:05:07

View Ratings | Rate It

Requests for Correction of NIST Report of WTC Filed

submit to twitter
submit to reddit
submit to digg
Tell A Friend

By on behalf of Dr. Judy Wood, Posted by Cathy Garger (about the submitter)

opednews.com     Permalink

For OpEdNews: Posted by Cathy Garger - Writer

REQUESTS FOR CORRECTION OF NIST REPORT ON DESTRUCTION OF WORLD TRADE CENTER FILED

FRAUD AND DECEPTION CITED AS REASONS FOR CORRECTION REQUEST

March 22, 2007

CONTACT: Dr. Judy Wood or Attorney Jerry Leaphart 203-825-6265

For Immediate Release:

Basic Facts:

A Request for Correction (RFC) submitted under the Data Quality Act (DQA) was filed with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on March 16, 2007


NIST acknowledged receipt of RFC in writing on March 19, 2007, via its Acting Chief of Management and Organization Division, Stephen Willett.

RFC challenges the integrity of NIST document NCSTAR 1 (National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee), Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, issued in September 2005

See www.wtc.nist.gov

A full copy of the RFC filed by DR. Wood can be viewed at

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/NIST_RFC.html



Dr. Judy Wood (with degrees in Civil Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, and Materials Engineering Science), widely acknowledged as the leading proponent of the theory that Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) were used to destroy the World Trade Center (WTC) complex, has filed a Request for Correction under the Data Quality Act with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), located in Gaithersburg, MD.

Dr. Wood is represented in this effort by Attorney Jerry Leaphart, a Connecticut-based trial lawyer, who states that NIST now has 60 days to respond to the RFC. After that, an appeal can be taken and/or other legal action may then follow.

Leaphart further states that Dr. Wood knows that the implications of her theory that DEW were used to destroy the WTC complex shatter certain key beliefs that Americans as a whole cherish and hold dear. Her theory has generated a lot of interest and commentary within the 9/11 Truth Movement that relies primarily upon the Internet as its media source. Mainstream print and broadcast media do not cover the 9/11 Truth Movement, but may need to take heed of this administrative action filed by Dr. Wood, according to Attorney Leaphart.

Leaphart said that to his knowledge, only three RFCs concerning NIST's WTC report have been filed to date. One by Dr. Morgan Reynolds, another by Edward F. Haas and the one filed by Dr. Wood. All three are currently pending.

The 43 page RFC filed by Wood asserts that the basic integrity of NCSTAR 1 is lacking because, by its own admission, it did not investigate the actual destruction of the World Trade Center Towers.

NCSTAR 1 admits:

"The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." [See NCSTAR 1, pgs xxxvii, footnote 2 and/or 82, footnote 13]

E.1 Genesis of this investigation

p. xxxv-xxxvi (pp. 37-38): "The specific objectives were:

1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed; ..."

E.2 Approach

p. xxxvii (p. 39) footnote2 "The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.

Thus, to this day, Americans have not been given any explanation whatsoever for the destruction of the WTC complex that comports with information and quality standards.

In contrast, Dr. Wood's RFC contains a stunning array of visual evidence confirming highly unusual energy effects seen by all as the twin towers were almost instantaneously destroyed in less time than it would take a billiard ball to hit the ground if dropped from the height of the twin towers.

That fact is assessed on the basis of the two other laws of physics in Wood's RFC, thus confirming its scientific rigor. Wood also points to other compelling evidence that NIST ignored. Wood's RFC shows visual evidence of unusual and unexplained blast effects on vehicles parked blocks away from the complex. Wood also demonstrates unexplained visual damage in the form of perpendicular gouges in WTC 3, and WTC 4,5,6 and the near disappearance of WTC 3, all of which remain unexplained by NIST to this day. Wood goes further and points out that the incredible amount of dust resulting from the visible process of steel disintegrating before our very eyes all point to the use of directed energy weapons. One other element of Wood's proof is the almost complete lack of even a rubble pile at the WTC complex. Wood asks: Where did it go?

Added to all of that is the fact that whatever the energy and heat source was, it had no effect upon paper that was seen floating everywhere and not burning very much, if at all.

Dr. Wood's RFC demonstrates all of the above mentioned effects in its 43 pages of text and pictorial proof. The combined effects of gravity, jet fuel (a form of kerosene) and plane damage could not possibly have caused the massive destruction that occurred on September 11, 2001, in New York City, according to Dr. Wood. The wonder of it all is that more engineers and scientists have not come forward to challenge the woeful, scientific inadequacies of the official explanation.

Dr. Wood invites her peers and colleagues to set aside their emotional attachments and to view the evidence objectively. Then and only then can America come to grips with what happened on 9/11/01, according to Dr. Wood.


http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/070322_PR.html




 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Editor

 

Book Recommendations for "Bergen"
War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust, Second Edition (Critical Issues in World and International History)
by Doris L. Bergen

$24.95
Lowest New Price $19.79

Number of pages: 296
Publisher: Rowman

Points Schmoints!: Bergen's Winning Bridge Secrets
by Marty A. Bergen

$19.95
Lowest New Price $15.95

Number of pages: 210
Publisher: Bergen Books

The Holocaust: A Concise History
by Doris Bergen

$26.95
Lowest New Price $13.45

Number of pages: 296
Publisher: Rowman

Better Rebidding with Bergen (Points Schmoints Series)
by Marty Bergen

$7.95

Number of pages: 72
Publisher: Bergen Books

View All Book Recommendations

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

FACEBOOK      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      NETSCAPE      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
47 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
 

All very well, but - by Geraldo on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 12:20:42 PM
Study the Evidence by Ace Baker on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 8:55:01 PM
Haas, Wood and Reynolds by Better World Order on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 1:03:35 PM
A Suggestion by Cathy Garger on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 2:01:22 PM
A desperate attempt to poison the well. by jpsmith123 on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 3:39:22 PM
Don't take the posters' word for it. Look for yourself. by RuGBYZHG on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 5:37:58 PM
Yes, take the poster's word for it. by jpsmith123 on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 9:34:03 PM
How do you know? by CB Brooklyn on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 4:14:18 AM
Tell me this... by RuGBYZHG on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 11:01:38 AM
It's Bullshit. by jpsmith123 on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 4:06:56 PM
Give me your qualifications. by RuGBYZHG on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 5:17:37 PM
I don't really care what you think. by jpsmith123 on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 7:56:16 PM
Here's a telling paragraph from her site. by jpsmith123 on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 8:55:40 PM
Thanks JP by Tony Forest on Tuesday, Mar 27, 2007 at 12:59:58 AM
3 camps actually by Toni on Monday, Apr 2, 2007 at 9:36:24 PM
Andrew Johnson by Andrew Johnson on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 6:30:05 PM
Truth has a price by Halo on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 7:03:04 PM
Judy Wood, PhD, Great American Hero. by Ace Baker on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 9:12:20 PM
Muddying the waters by gravity32 on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 11:39:36 PM
I disagree by CB Brooklyn on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 2:53:41 AM
How do conventional explosives explain the data? by Ace Baker on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 8:49:27 AM
The present need by gravity32 on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 11:53:24 PM
Directed-Energy Weapons is Very Believable! by CB Brooklyn on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 3:09:53 AM
Yes, it should be believeable by Ace Baker on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 8:55:34 AM
A Straw Man Will Not Help the Truth by RuGBYZHG on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 11:06:36 AM
Shifting the burden of proof . . . by Jim Fetzer on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 2:48:43 AM
Well said, Jim ! by Tony Forest on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 5:36:27 AM
Well said!! by RuGBYZHG on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 11:13:07 AM
I at least welcome the presence by Steven Leser on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 7:39:27 AM
Star Wars Weapons by Cathy Garger on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 8:05:51 AM
Study all the material... by RuGBYZHG on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 11:18:22 AM
OK, I have read it all and I think she is full of garbage... by Steven Leser on Tuesday, Mar 27, 2007 at 5:58:13 PM
Your one goal in life by CB Brooklyn on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 6:05:49 AM
You guys asked me to read it with an open mind and I did by Steven Leser on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 8:05:29 AM
Do you acknowledge... by CB Brooklyn on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 12:09:10 PM
Why am I trying to convince people?!?! by Steven Leser on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 8:07:06 AM
Leser's lesser lesson by Jim Fetzer on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 1:36:20 AM
Jim, by Tony Forest on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 4:57:36 AM
I will throw mustard in any theory that is garbage... by Steven Leser on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 8:30:45 AM
Throw Mustard in the Gravity Theory by Ace Baker on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 9:50:09 AM
Nist's Competence? by Toni on Monday, Apr 2, 2007 at 10:08:55 PM
Steven by Tony Forest on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 9:50:08 AM
Whatever that means... by Steven Leser on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 10:37:05 AM
Ah, but Steven... by Tony Forest on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 1:09:51 PM
Conspiracy is all around you. by jpsmith123 on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 4:45:33 PM
Let's all count em.. by Toni on Monday, Apr 2, 2007 at 9:33:43 PM
This is NOT new Science, Read Tesla by cliff567 on Tuesday, Apr 3, 2007 at 1:35:26 PM

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment


 

 

 

Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum