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
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.
"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.
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)
on Sunday, March 25, 2007 at 12:20:42 PM
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.
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.
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, 6 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 101 comments)
on Sunday, March 25, 2007 at 2:01:22 PM
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)
on Sunday, March 25, 2007 at 3:39:22 PM
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.
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)
on Sunday, March 25, 2007 at 9:34:03 PM
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, 417 comments)
on Monday, March 26, 2007 at 4:14:18 AM
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, March 26, 2007 at 11:01:38 AM
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)
on Monday, March 26, 2007 at 4:06:56 PM
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, March 26, 2007 at 5:17:37 PM
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)
on Monday, March 26, 2007 at 7:56:16 PM
"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)
on Monday, March 26, 2007 at 8:55:40 PM
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):
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, March 25, 2007 at 7:03:04 PM
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, March 25, 2007 at 9:12:20 PM
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, 157 comments)
on Sunday, March 25, 2007 at 11:39:36 PM
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.
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, March 26, 2007 at 8:49:27 AM
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, 157 comments)
on Sunday, March 25, 2007 at 11:53:24 PM
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, March 26, 2007 at 8:55:34 AM
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, March 26, 2007 at 11:06:36 AM
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
