 |
|
Add to My Group
|
March 25, 2007 at 09:05:07
Requests for Correction of NIST Report of WTC Filed by on behalf of Dr. Judy Wood (Posted by Cathy Garger) |
|
|
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 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.
REQUESTS FOR CORRECTION OF NIST REPORT ON DESTRUCTION OF WORLD TRADE CENTER FILED
FRAUD AND DECEPTION CITED AS REASONS FOR CORRECTION REQUEST
March 22, 2007CONTACT: 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]
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.
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 |
|
|
|
|
| 47 comments |
|
All very well, but -
All very well. But let's not get diverted from the simple visual evidence of the steel columns cut diagonally to make the building 'walk' as in classic routine demolition work, and the yellow stains caused by the inclusion of sulphur to make thermate of thermite. And let's not forget the schlepping away of the evidence so it could not be examined, nor by whom it was so schlepped. And let's not forget the classic inward collapse of said buildings, nor the reports of explosions from the firemen before and during the collapses. Let's not throw out what is obvious for the sake of something more complex and maybe questionable, just because it seems more technically sweet. Correction, by all means, but not with any red herrings. by Geraldo (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 105 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 12:20:42 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Study the Evidence
Sulfur could be from many sources, the angle cuts could be from the clean up. There was a lot less schlepping away of debris than first thought, because there was a lot less debris than first thought. Dr. Wood has the real scoop, you should read her paper. by Ace Baker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 8:55:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Haas, Wood and Reynolds
Wood and Reynolds filing these ridiculous copycat requests right after Haas' serious one is just going to add to the speculation they're disinfo agents. by
Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 1:03:35 PM
|
|
A Suggestion
Three brave individuals have stepped forth in order to challenge the fraud and deceptions of the NIST report. They should be thanked, not ridiculed. Whether or not one believes in every facet of each of their positions and research, the simple fact remains is that NIST is a bogus effort. And finally someone is doing more than talk. I do not see any other major 9/11 organizations - or even individuals - filing legal actions. Why is that? Will they still be "collecting information" even after the statute of limitations runs out? I suspect so. Cathy Garger, Associate Member S911T by Cathy Garger (23 articles, 7 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 111 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 2:01:22 PM (0+)
|
|
A desperate attempt to poison the well.
Let's see, so far we have "micro-nukes" and "directed energy weapons"; what's next, maybe aliens from outer space? This is a deliberate, desperate attempt at "poisoning the well", a propaganda technique used to smear anyone who disagrees with the official conspiracy theory. by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 3:39:22 PM (0+)
|
|
Don't take the posters' word for it. Look for yourself.
Wood and Reynolds don't ask you to follow along like a bunch of children following the Pied Piper. They present their material, draw conclusions and let you decide what to think. They have been repeatedly attacked for their work, yet the attackers typically have not even looked at their work. Take a look. If you wish to know the truth about the anomalies found at GZ, you have to look at the evidence, and that means all of the evidence. Request for Correction with NIST DEW Weapon Source Information by RuGBYZHG (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 5:37:58 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Yes, take the poster's word for it.
Yo, rugbyzhg, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but there are no "Directed Energy Weapons" presently available that can do what she is proposing. There is simply no technology anywhere near advanced enough to be able to deposit the requisite hundreds to thousands of MJ of energy, quickly and accurately enough, not to mention surreptitiously enough, and not to mention from a great distance. Do you follow? It is, on its face, an outlandish proposition, and it will have no effect but to discredit the people who are making reasonable suggestions. by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 9:34:03 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: How do you know?
How would you know whether these weapons exist or not? DEWs obviously do exist, as they are the only explanation of what happened. Try looking at the information instead of jumping to conclusions. by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 4:14:18 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Tell me this...
Did the government hide the truth about 9/11? Has the military/US Gov't ever hidden technology from the public (Los Alamos seems to be a good place to start)? Is it not typical that technological advances are 15-20 years ahead of what is public knowledge? How ridiculous is the argument made here? Oh yes, does Steven Jones have a connection to Los Alamos? Could that be the reason he has such a beef with what Wood is learning? Does his connections to the government seem to be a conflict of interests (Google Heavy Watergate)? It's pretty easy to see that his pattern of behavior is very consistent with his previous work. Wood is providing data and allowing the users to decide. Jones seems to present the answer, withholds his data, and asks everyone to "trust" him. Now, who are the sheep? by RuGBYZHG (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 11:01:38 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: It's Bullshit.
She's either totally and embarrassingly naive, or she's part of a deliberate smear job. She should've had her ideas peer-reviewed by subject matter experts before going forward with something like this. Had she done so, she'd have been immediately shot down, and justifiably so. As an EE with laser experience, who's been following U.S. DEW programs with interest for the last 20 years, I can tell you: there is no laser, particle beam, or any other "mysterious" DEW presently available (or even in the forseeable future), that comes anywhere near being capable of what she's claiming. I personally believe 9/11 was an inside job, as that's obviously the way the clues point, but conventional methods would have done the job nicely. by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 4:06:56 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Give me your qualifications.
Anyone can say what you're saying. Show me the goods. Are you an insider of the military industrial complex? If so, show me the proof or go away. Tell me what disappeared all the materials? Where is the proof of the volume of explosives needed to create the level of missing steel that we cannot see after the destructions? How could it possibly all have been placed inconspicuously in the number of places it would have to have been placed? How did it burn the cars in the ways shown? I think you are laughable and a fraud. No one can make statements like you are and be serious. by RuGBYZHG (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 5:17:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I don't really care what you think.
You expect me to give you an education in the relevant physics here in this forum? You are apparently completely naive on the subject matter, and you expect me to bring you up to speed on the various technical obstacles that make the claims absurd? In fact, the characteristics the proposed DEW would have to have, to do the damage Wood is suggesting, are so far outside the realm of plausibility, that you don't need any specialized knowledge of lasers, for example, but only basic physics (which you obviously lack), to realize the absurdity of the issue. Call me names if you like, call me a "fraud", whatever, it really doesn't matter; the fact that Wood apparently sought no critical input from anyone qualified to comment is all that's needed to seriously damage her credibility. by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 7:56:16 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Here's a telling paragraph from her site.
"Nor do we make any claim about what wavelength(s) was used, what the source(s) of energy was, whether it involved interference of multiple beams, whether it involved sound waves, whether it involved sonoluminescence, whether it was HAARP, what kind of acelerator was used, nor do we claim to know what the serial numbers of the parts were in the weapon." This is the kind of silly, utterly naive statement you might expect from a high school student. For example what kind of "acelerator" [sic] is she talking about? And HAARP? And perhaps most laughably, "sonoluminescence"? She's just throwing irrelevant "technical terms" around meaninglessly here. Moreover, she mentions things like the "instant disappearance of people by 'unexplained' waves". ROTFL! Now there's a real gem. First, a laser, even a very powerful one, wouldn't just make somebody "disappear" in the first place. That only happens on Star Trek. And what "waves"? Something she or someone else saw? Maybe like on the "Outer Limits"? There are some types of chemical lasers that can produce megawatt level outputs, but to do the type of damage she's alluding to, would require far more power than anything presently available. by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 8:55:40 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thanks JP
I can see by your entries here that nothing, but absolutely nothing has changed on v911t. Question : have you had or have you ever considered having a debate over this with Jim ? As we both know, Judy's theory split the truth movement into two camps. Which actions has your camp (v911t.org) undertook to remedy the split ? r by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 27, 2007 at 12:59:58 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: 3 camps actually
No-planners Plane-huggers Disinfo-employees by Toni (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 30 comments) on Monday, Apr 2, 2007 at 9:36:24 PM (0+)
|
|
Andrew Johnson
See this page http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/ to hear Judy Wood and Jerry Leaphart (Separate audios) discussion the issues leading up to this submission. I can confirm Ed Haas has worked with Judy, Morgan and Jerry to make these submissions. Readers are encouraged to submit FOIA requests to NIST to get them to send copies of the RFC's they have submitted (which will confirm NIST have filed them properly): http://www.nist.gov/admin/foia/foia.htm by Andrew Johnson (2 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 97 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 6:30:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Truth has a price
Having undergone threats and scorn, not for espousing any particular theory for what caused the collapses, but merely suggesting that both the NIST and 911 Commission reports raise more questions than they answer, I can understand the reluctance that people might have who have more to lose than myself. The true patriot is not to be found among the "support the troops" crowd, nor even among the foolis young troops themselves who have been unwittingly been duped into believing they are in Iraq or Afghanistan to fight for freedom, but Judy Woods. Thank you Judy by Halo (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 7:03:04 PM (0+)
|
|
Judy Wood, PhD, Great American Hero.
If future generations of Amercians manage to avoid the looming police state, they will have Dr. Wood to thank, above all others. She has both the courage and expertise to present the overwhelming evidence on 9/11. Bulding upon the research of others who came before, Dr. Wood's work has proven beyond any doubt that the official story of the twin tower "collapses" is false. More to the point, Dr. Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds have proven that not only were the twin towers blown up, but that exotic weaponry must have been used. The Request for Corrections filed now will be nothing less than a test of Constitutional government. Can the executive branch really investigate itself? Will the governing bodies respond to this complaint, as they are required to do? We shall see. by Ace Baker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 9:12:20 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Muddying the waters
Certainly the official explanation of the collapse of all three buildings as set out by NIST is incorrect in many essential points. Certainly the behaviour of the US admin in hiding, destroying and removing evidence, indicates complicity. Certainly the behaviour of the media in pushing the official line and failing to address scientific evidence also indicated complicity. It is regrettable however that this attack on NIST by Judy Wood should be based on exotic weapons. All observations can be accounted for by the use of some combination of conventional explosives and some variants of thermite. For Wood to go it alone with this theory instead of working with others to develop a proper science based attack will muddy the waters and is likely to postpone a successful outcome. by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 11:39:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I disagree
Thermite/thermate/conventional demolitions cannot account for..... round cylindrical holes in WTC 5 and WTC 6. this police car - The front half of car 2723 is toasted, but check out the new wax job on the back. Notice the missing front door handle and the untouched back door handle. Nor can it explain the steel spire turning to dust. by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 2:53:41 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: How do conventional explosives explain the data?
Can you link us to studies that attempt to explain the 9/11 data via conventional explosives and thermite? I have reviewed Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman, et al. While some of this work is good as far as it goes, I find that it ignores crucial observational data. by Ace Baker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 8:49:27 AM (0+)
|
|
The present need
We are all aware how difficult it is to get politicians to do anything. Much was promised before the recent election but little is happening about 9/11. Before politicians will act they must know their seats are in danger if they don't act. For their seats to be in danger a large majority of the voters must want change. It is important therefore to present to the public believable information about 9/11. All will be aware that demolition is possible and many can be persuaded to view the evidence. Of these many will see that explosives could account for the observations and will become supporters. Many will be turned away by reference to exotic weapons, a tragic misdirection of personal energy. by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 25, 2007 at 11:53:24 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Directed-Energy Weapons is Very Believable!
Take this collection of readily available material that I have collected, for example. DEW is not hard to grasp. Also examine the animation on this page. Where'd the buildings and its contents go?? People are a lot smarter than you think. They can, will, and do see it. I'm sure you'll agree, the information above is a lot more convincing than thermite. by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 3:09:53 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Yes, it should be believeable
Can thermite turn the spire to dust? No, I don't believe it. Can RDX melt firetruck engines at a distance, while leaving paper unburned? No, I don't believe it. by Ace Baker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 8:55:34 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: A Straw Man Will Not Help the Truth
So if Jones' theory is presented and it has already been shot down by NIST, the entire Truth Movement is discredited. That is what Jones is doing. Why else is nothing coming out of his research (other than attacks of reasonable research by Wood and Reynolds)? How does his theory explain everything? It should be discarded as not credible. by RuGBYZHG (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 11:06:36 AM (0+)
|
|
Shifting the burden of proof . . .
The Jones clique (Frank Legge, Jim Hoffman, Kevin Ryan, Victoria Ashley, and others) are astoundingly inconsistent in demanding a level of proof from Judy Wood that they cannot satisfy themselves. Where is the proof--any proof--that thermite/thermate in combination with other conventional kinds of explosives or not could possibly account for the hard evidence that Judy has displayed on her web site? How can their approach explain (a) the destruction of WTC-1 and WTC-2 with respect to the rate of devastation, the amount of pulverization, and their very modest remains after the "collapse"? Moreover, how can their approach explain (b) the damage to WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 based upon their perferred mechanism of destruction? Does thermite/thermate in the Twin Towers begin to explain the massive gouge in WTC-6? the cookie-cutter holes in WTC-5? the devastation of half of WTC-4? the odd gash in WTC-3? If that can be done, then why has it not been done? If we fault the NIST for its failure to provide a simulation of the "collapse", then surely, in consistency, we must also fault the Jones clique for its failure to satisfy that same constraint. Absent proof that conventional explosives, including "cutter charges", can perform the feats required in this instance, it is scientifically ridiculous and logically absurd to be making demands of more promising alternatives. And it should be obvious on its face that the kinds of claims that gravity32 is advancing are arbitrary and indefensible. He has offered a single claim about the quantity of energy required. But that would be appropriate only if there were a single alternative under consideration. He does not specify whether 80% or 70% or 60% or whatever of the buildings was turned to dust. In the absence of such a specificiation, no single number can possible be adequate to cover the alternatives. Moreover, who knows how he came up with this figure, or the kinds of energy that might be produced by a solar cooker in space, for example, or by various kinds of lasers, masers, or plasmoids? The conventional clique has not even been able to account for (c) the non-functional destruction of the bathtub, much less (d) the "toasted car" phenomenon, other than to suggest that some of them may have been towed! Well, that might matter if they could explain how thermite/thermate could warp and mangle vehicles into so many odd shapes or how it could destroy the front of a car but leave its back half intact! The whole conventional story is a fraud and a farce absent proof that it can actually perform the explanatory feats that are attributed to it. They are truly miraculous. That may satisfy those who support a scientist who believes that Jesus Christ returned to North America after his resurrection--which was a miracle itself, of course!--but those who are looking for serious answers to the greatest mystery of recent history may be forgiven for looking elsewhere. Until they satisfy the same demands they are imposing upon others, this conventional clique cannot claim standing beyond propounding a pseudo-scientific theory which has yet to be proven, one that has been supported in the past by photos and videos that are highly suspect on their face, as I explained during my exchange in Chandler with Steven Jones. I do not want to be unkind, but too much intellectual rubbish is being shoveled by the other side, which bears the burden of proof. They should put up or shut up and let those of us who are convinced that, even if some of these conventional explosives were part of the causal mechanism that brought about the demolition of the Twin Towers, accounting for the devastation to the World Trade Center, including (a), (b), (c), and (d), requires much more. Let them satisfy their burden of proof and then they and their approach should be taken seriously, but not until then. Not until then! by Jim Fetzer (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 2:48:43 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Well said, Jim !
by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 5:36:27 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Well said!!
Sheep can be sheep in any effort. The last thing this movement needs is more sheep. Folks need to read everything they can get their hands on. See the evidence, the proofs and make up their own minds. Trust no one. See who is being up front and who is treating us like idiots. The enlightened person is the one that continues to learn, not stop when they think they know enough. That is dangerous to us all!! by RuGBYZHG (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 11:13:07 AM (0+)
|
|
I at least welcome the presence
of someone with the requisite background to challenge the current accepted theory. That being said, DEW and micro-fusion devices? Why not say aliens did it? I'll read and listen to her full report over the next two days or so. Perhaps that will change my mind, but the above is my initial impression. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 7:39:27 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Star Wars Weapons
Dear Steven Leser, I hear ya loud and clear! This IS, admittedly, tough to swallow! I am an Associate Member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and in the beginning I did not want to believe in any high-energy weapon stuff, either! All that changed, however, after I learned that the "aliens" in power (I swear they are *not* human) - who hide under the cloak of the almighty eagle and the red, white, and blue - have already been using high-energy weapons in Iraq upon the people there. So if you believe the mighty eagle would take down the towers using conventional explosives, thermate, or mini-nukes? Then why not believe that they might use something...shall we say... a bit more effective in order to take care of the matter... Just the same as they are using this type of weapon technology currently in combat within Iraq? These high-energy weapons are certainly no secret. Even Amy Goodman on Democracy Now covered the issue of "Star Wars in Iraq". AMY GOODMAN: Today, in another U.S. broadcast exclusive, we bring you an excerpt. It's called Star Wars in Iraq, produced by Maurizio Torrealta and Sigfrido Ranucci for RAI Television. MAJID AL GHEZALI: They used incredible weapons, absolutely. PATRICK DILLON: Experimental weapons? MAJID AL GHEZALI: Yes. Yes, I think. Yeah, they shoot the bus. We saw the bus like a cloth, like a wet cloth. It seems like a Volkswagen, a big bus like a Volkswagen. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/25/1442252 Also, Rumsfeld was very explicit about the use of these weapons as not *just* a possibility...but as reality, as in the here and now: Donald Rumsfeld in the normal order of things, when you invest in research and development and begin a developmental project, you don't have any intention or expectations that one would use it. On the other hand, the real world intervenes from time to time, and you reach in there and take something out that is still in a developmental stage, and you might use it. So the -- your question's not answerable. It is -- depends on what happens in the future and how well things move along the track and whether or not someone feels it's appropriate to reach into a development stage and see if something might be useful, as was the case with the unmanned aerial vehicles. In this other test we see the laser beam identify and destroy two missiles at the same time. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13129.htm One last thing. A highly prominent member of the US military who used to be in charge of the Star Wars/high energy weaponry program is highly visible at many of the major 9/11 events all throughout the country. Why might this be? Just another interested activist for truth? Is this pure coincidence only between his old job and his current activities? And what about the fellow who firmly sold us all (well, most of us, that is) on thermate-only-cased-closed... who happen to work formerly with a national weapons lab? Coincidence only yet again? Hmmm.... Yes, Steven, it is hard to believe that our domestic aliens are capable of such atrocious behavior. Keep an open mind and keep reading. Best wishes, Cathy Garger by Cathy Garger (23 articles, 7 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 111 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 8:05:51 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Study all the material...
It is quite convincing. I appreciate your willingness to educate yourself. At the end of it all, there must be specific reasons for what has been pointed out is not the most reasonable theory to date. If the only thing to hang one's hat on is that it seems outrageous is not reasonable (recall the billions we have invested in SDI and our military industrial complex). Reason is based on fact and applying understanding to the facts discovered. That is the only thing Wood and Reynolds are trying to do. The want us all to make up our own minds. by RuGBYZHG (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Monday, Mar 26, 2007 at 11:18:22 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: OK, I have read it all and I think she is full of garbage...
... She presents no compelling evidence that the DEW she believes were used exist. She presents no evidence at all at what power source would have been used to power them. I had a serious problem with JPSmith on an earlier 911 thread but in this one he is spot on. Let's forget, for a moment, that there is no evidence that DEW that even approach what would have been required have ever been developed or tested. To power such a DEW would require a MASSIVE power source. You wouldnt just plug something like that into your basic 110 volt outlet. The power source and the housing for what would be an enormous (In size) weapon would have had to be within line of sight of the WTC complex. When you are talking DEW, you are talking Lasers or Particle Beams or Masers or the like (Masers being Microwaves instead of Light). The USAF is experimenting with Microwaves that might, again I say MIGHT be able to do what you are suggesting at short ranges and within line of sight. The problem is, it requires a massive facility like the one at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico. http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/Factsheets/HPM.pdf It also has disastrous effects on nearby electronics. You could pretty much guarantee that the use of such a device capable of destroying two massive buildings would wipe out the electronics for several blocks. That, of course, did not happen or it would have been reported. Similarly, Particle Beams http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1984/jul-aug/roberds.html and Lasers http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/systems/THEL.html Require MASSIVE power sources and large platforms. Particle beams are no where near ready for use and as you can see from the article on Lasers, sure, you can theoretically create a very powerful laser, but it needs a ton of power and cooling the laser so that it doesnt burn itself up after a few microseconds becomes a huge problem. Lower Manhattan is a poor place to operate a massive weapons platform that has cooling problems. Folks, if the destruction we saw on 9/11 was not caused by the airplanes, this 'explanation' is not it. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 27, 2007 at 5:58:13 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Your one goal in life
If you really believe it's garbage, why are you investing so much time trying to convince others she is wrong? Are you afraid they don't share your opinion? Hmmm.... If a high-tech weapon couldn't have done it, how could gravity? If you cannot come up with the exact explanation of what happened and how it was done, with absolute proof, why should what you said carry more value than what Dr. Wood has said? After all, Dr. Wood has presented evidence -- which is more than what you presented. Are you arguing that the buildings are still standing? Dr. Wood doesn't have the burden of proof to show exactly how it was done nor to provide the serial numbers of the gizmo that did it. This was NIST's job and they failed. That is what she is pointing out. So, by attacking Dr. Wood for pointing out that NIST's report is faulty, it appears you're attempting to defend NIST's report. What is your motivation for doing this? Why are you so invested into convincing folk that there is no way a DEW could have done it? Why does this one issue seem to be your goal in life to attack? Why are you desperately fighting off a suggestion that DEW was used on 9/11? Hmmmm... by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 6:05:49 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You guys asked me to read it with an open mind and I did
now you are upset with my conclusions. I think it is crap. There is, in my opinion, no current theory out there that bests NIST's initial report. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 8:05:29 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Do you acknowledge...
that NIST did not even analyze the so-called "collapses"? by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 12:09:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Why am I trying to convince people?!?!
Do you even know what an OpEd is? The whole goal of this site is to write opinion pieces that influence opinion. That is why I am here and not just on this topic. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 8:07:06 AM (0+)
|
|
Leser's lesser lesson
If high-tech weapons could not bring about these effects, then how in the world does Leser think conventional explosives could have done it? Give me a break! More sophisticated sources of energy can do more damage in less time than less sophisticated sources of energy. That's why they create them. That's what it's all about! To listen to this guy, you would think these R&D programs are moving backward! Has he been participating in the "brain trust" that brought us thermite and thermate? Has he done any calculations of the amount of energy/quantity of cutters/placements that would be required to bring about these effects? Has ANYONE on that side of the street made a serious effort to related the purported cause (thermite/thermate) to the established effects (massive pulverization/rapid destruction of the Twin Towers, enormous devastation/peculiar features of the damage to the World Trade Center, non-functional damage to the bathtub/toasted cars)? Leser's standards seem lesser for thermite and thermate. The non-conventional, high-tech (lasers, masers, plasmoids) route appears to be far more likely to be capable of explaining the phenomena than the alternative, which is wimpy in the extreme. Does Leser seriously think that all of this could have been brought about by conventional explosives? If so, how much? Five times the world's energy output? Does he think the buildings are still standing? I cannot abide these attacks on those who are making a serious effort to figure out how this was done when they are content with those who are not. Where are the simulations of the effects on the Twin Towers of thermite and thermate? Where are the studies of the effects of their use on WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, WTC-6? Sometimes I think they believe only the towers have to be explained. Why does Leser feel compelled to shift the burden of proof? What he writes smacks of bias. It is lacking in objectivity. PROVE that thermite/thermate can do what has been claimed on its behalf and THEN you can be taken seriously. But NOT until then! And while he's at it, he should ask Steve Jones why he has not responded in writing to the articles Judy and Morgan have written about his work. He faults them for not responding to writings about them, when he is not responding to writings about him, which are more pointed and more relevant. He claims to have the answer to the question, after all, while Judy and Morgan are still sorting things out. He bears the burden of proof, not them. He is creating the impression that he is not responding because he can't, which is how I read it. Others, I suspect, are starting to catch on, even if Leser is having trouble absorbing the lesson. I encourage him to consider how conventional explosives can account for the hard evidence. No one has made a serious effort to do that, including Steve Jones. We've been hearing the song and dance for at least a year. Surely he's figured it out by now. I think it's about time to share the results of his research program. Tap into his thinking. Put up or shut up! by Jim Fetzer (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 1:36:20 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Jim,
Leser, as I see him, is on neither side of the fence, a by-stander or better put, a non-truth-seeker. One who readily throws in a scoop of his mustard any time the subject of 9/11 is brought up. It's the real truth-seekers who refuse to see the issue with the aforementioned objectivity who really deserve our attention. In particular, I'm referring to our friends at v911t...JP et al. On the whole, my impression of persons arguing against Judy's and Morgan's ideas are the ones clinging to the best explanation they can accept as probable and possible. It's kinda like closing your eyes and saying 'there is no lion on the roof' ; as long as you don't see the lion, none exists. You mentioned R&D. I'd like to know just how many of us here have complete and total insight into the most modern R&D programms ? And if anyone here does, just what the hell are they doing here shooting off at the mouth when they know damned well the programms are top top secret ? curtis in Frankfurt, Germany by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 4:57:36 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I will throw mustard in any theory that is garbage...
... and you can count on that. I am very anti-conspiracy theory by nature and need to see scientifically sound evidence. Similarly, I do not accept any current conspiracy theories that Oswald had help simply because there is a "magic" bullet that had an unlikely trajectory. That isnt enough. Our very existences are extremely unlikely on many levels (one of several thousand of our mother's eggs, one of several million of our father's sperm, one of several billion planets orbiting several billion or more stars), does that mean we do not exist? When I think the collapse of the towers, here are some of the things that go through my mind. 1. Why would the head NIST scientist and the hundreds of others who worked with him on the project, lie? Not suppositions, I want to hear from someone who knows him and the rest of them and knows his and their beliefs and trustworthyness. If I am going to call someone a liar, I want a good reason particular to the person why I am going to do that. I dont want to hear "Well, he worked for a government agency". That is not enough. 2. I cannot get past the fact of the towers collapse originating at the impact point of the planes. That happened. That does not bode well for the conventional explosives or thermite theory. 3. The DEW and MicroFusion device theories have so many obvious problems that are not explained. Use of Microwave DEW devices and MicroFusion devices (again, making the huge leap that such devices exist) would have caused widespread destruction to nearby electronic devices. MicroFusion devices would certainly have caused the deaths of everyone within a quarter mile. Someone said that not only do these exist but they have been developed such that they do not emit Alpha, Beta or Gamma radiation. So, are you now going to tell me that they also do not emit EMP? 4. With the billions of people who watched on TV and all the people on the ground in Manhattan, no laser beams were seen, no nuclear blast was heard or nuclear light flash seen. Television coverage and satellite transmissions were not interrupted or damaged or destroyed by emissions of particles from either DEWs or MicroFusion devices. If I use a hair dryer in my house, it has a noticeable effect on the electronic devices in my home, yet people here are willing to accept the use of devices that use unimaginable amounts of energy and direct that energy in ways that would have certainly had obvious, measurable and far reaching consequences. Folks, I am willing to listen to the theories. I am just not going to make positively ecclesiastical leaps to accept them like those of you in these threads. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 8:30:45 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Throw Mustard in the Gravity Theory
Mr. Leser - Gravity could not possibly have rendered the twin towers into dust. The subject of the Wood complaint is that NIST's report is false, NOT to prove up the positive case for DEW. As Dr. Fetzer has repeatedly pointed out, there is a world of difference between proving the official story false, and proving an alternative theory true. Please, Mr. Leser, apply your scientific skepicism to the NIST report. Attempting to convince us that the NIST guys were too nice to lie, well, that just isn't going to hold any weight. by Ace Baker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 9:50:09 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Nist's Competence?
NIST engineer, John Gross, denies the existance of Molten Steel. by Toni (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 30 comments) on Monday, Apr 2, 2007 at 10:08:55 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Steven
by using the term "conspiracy theories", you actually disqualify yourself. by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 9:50:08 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Whatever that means...
and you just included it in your response, so I guess everyone should ignore you too. Is it that hard to come up with an intellectually honest argument that you respond with a nonsensical one line response like this? by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 10:37:05 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ah, but Steven...
I've quoted the phrase to make a point. No need to sling mud. Please re-read Jim's "Shifting the burden of proof . . ." by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 1:09:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Conspiracy is all around you.
Wherever there exists a concentration of power, government or corporate, you will have wrong-doing. Let's face it, the very nature of government is such as to most attract those least suited to wield its power. In a sense, government itself is one big conspiracy. So why shouldn't we expect "bad" people to get together and make plans in pursuit of a common goal? Only "good" people sit down and plan things? That doesn't make sense. We know better because we know from history that conspiracies do in fact happen; e.g., the "Lavon affair", the "Enron" affair, etc., In any case, the government's "conspiracy theory" of 9/11 (which is exactly what it is) is certainly far less plausible than any controlled demolition theory (involving conventional technology). And one of the weakest parts of the government's theory is the anomalous collapse of WTC7. There are quite a few examples of modern steel framed high-rise buildings that have endured very intense, long-burning fires, and yet did not collapse. http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html http://web.archive.org/web/20040216014121/http://www.sgh.com/expertise/hazardsconsulting/meridian/meridian.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4263667.stm And then, on 09/11/2001, three modern steel frame buildings collapse from fire over a span of a few hours? I don't think so. The 9/11 attacks were an act of false-flag terrorism, and were likely a joint effort between the Bush-Cheney terror team, and the Israeli Mossad. The 9/11 attacks have what may be the best camouflage possible: sheer audacity. Almost everything seems hidden in plain sight, but the breathtaking audacity of the whole thing prevents most people from going where the clues plainly lead. by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007 at 4:45:33 PM (0+)
|
|
Let's all count em..
Disinfo employees.. they're so blatantly obvious anymore. by Toni (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 30 comments) on Monday, Apr 2, 2007 at 9:33:43 PM (0+)
|
|
This is NOT new Science, Read Tesla
by cliff567 (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 165 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 3, 2007 at 1:35:26 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
