 |
|
Add to My Group
|
September 29, 2007 at 08:47:43
Scholars' WTC Report Appeal acknowledged by NIST by Jim Fetzer Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
NIST also acknowledged that it understood that Dr. Wood was asserting that some of NIST’s contractors were in a position to confirm the use of DEW precisely because they, themselves, were manufacturers and developers of such weaponry. Among the contractors that NIST utilized to help it prepare the NCSTAR 1 report, for which corrections were sought, was Applied Research Associates, Inc., which, it turns out, is a founding sponsor of the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).
Other sponsors of DEPS were also substantially involved in the preparation of NCSTAR 1 for NIST, including Science Applications International Corp (SAIC). NIST indicated that while it did a background check to assure there were no conflicts of interest, it did not know that ARA was a manufacturer of DEW. In her appeal, Dr. Wood presents ample information confirming that NIST should have known of ARA’s involvement with DEW. Significantly, NIST has acknowledged Dr. Wood’s appeal by posting a copy on its Website. James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, observed, “This means they are taking it seriously.”
In 2005, a number of reports were issued by NIST that were meant to explain how the Twin Towers were completely destroyed. Its basic report, designated NCSTAR 1, runs around 298 pages. She was able to pursue these issues under the DQA, because it directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue government-wide guidelines that “provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies.”
On July 27, 2007, Attorney Jerry Leaphart observed on “The Dynamic Duo”, a radio program hosted by Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., on GCN (gcnlive.com), “What I can tell you and the listeners, Kevin, is this. There is more admissible evidence associated with the theory that the World Trade Center was destroyed by directed energy weapons than there is admissible evidence for any single other theory out there that has been promulgated.” Go to http://drjudywood.com/media/070727_JerryLeaphartRFC_Adm.mp3 . Fetzer, who co-hosts the program with Barrett, emphasized that this is a very important step on behalf of an alternative account of the mode of destruction of the WTC. “Indeed,” he said, “the official account now hangs by very slender threads.”
The first action initiated by Dr. Wood occurred in March 2007 in the form of an RFC declaring that NCSTAR 1 is “fraudulent and deceptive” because it cannot account for the profound destruction of the World Trade Center, including the massive pulverization of the towers, which she has documented on her web site, http://drjudywood.com . She observes, “NIST cannot make a statement that the World Trade Center towers came down in ‘free fall,’ on the one hand, and then say that doing so is a form of ‘collapse,’ on the other.” According to Fetzer, not only is the use of the word “collapse” inaccurate but the official account does not satisfy the laws of physics and of engineering.
Several studies demonstrating that The 9/11 Commission Report (2004) is not true have been published in The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), which Fetzer edited. From her analysis of the breadth and the depth of damage inflicted upon the WTC, Dr. Wood has concluded that some type of directed energy weapon (DEW) was involved in the destruction of the WTC buildings. She has also pointed out that Applied Research Associates (ARA) was a contractor in the preparation of some aspects of the NCSTAR reports and that ARA is also a manufacturer of directed energy weapons, which constitutes a probable “conflict of interest” in producing a truthful account of what happened here.
In a letter dated July 27, 2007, Catherine Fletcher of NIST commented on Dr. Wood’s original RFC, stating, “NIST has examined the photographs you provided in conjunction with all the other evidence and has found that the evidence does not support a theory involving directed energy weapons.” She also stated, “ARA was determined not to have an organizational conflict of interest”. Finally, she added, “NIST is denying your request for correction because the NIST analysis of the initiation of the collapse of the WTC towers was thorough and based on all of the available evidence, and NIST continues to believe that the report is not fraudulent, deceptive or misleading.”
The Data Quality Act, however, includes a “right of appeal” of NIST’s response and Dr. Wood has worked to further document a significant conflict of interest between ARA and some of the analyses NIST used in its reports. In her appeal of August 22, 2007, Dr. Wood makes six key assertions, including that NIST should have known that Applied Research Associates (ARA) is “a significant manufacturer of directed energy weapons and/or components thereof.” Additionally, Dr. Wood states, “NIST should have detected evidence of the use of such weaponry even in the context of NIST’s intentional and, I assert, improper limitation of its investigation into ‘the sequence of events leading up to the ‘collapse’ of the Twin Towers.’”
Fetzer said that a formal acknowledgement of the appeal has been posted in two parts at http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619 , which is the government’s official web site. Due to technical issues, some of the documents are not available in their entirety. These will be corrected in time. Meanwhile the documents are available at http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_RFC.html#wood . The posted versions, however, do not reproduce the evidence Dr. Wood has submitted, but only inferior black-and-white versions of photos. These photos may be viewed in higher resolution on her site, http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_RFC.html#wood . “It is unfortunate that NIST has chosen to post a version with low quality pictures and in black and white,” she observed. “Some of the data referenced in the appeal can only be properly evaluated when viewed in color and with good quality reproduction.”
The appeal may be found at http://drjudywood.com/pdf/070822_RFC_Appeal17a_JW.pdf .
“I don’t know why NIST did not simply post the higher quality color images,” Fetzer said, “but they are available to the agency and to the public by means of her web site. The course of this appeal should be interesting.” According to him, Dr. Wood is the leading scientist who is investigating the destruction of the WTC. “Judy’s credentials are impeccable,” he said. “She is an admirable example of what an expert can produce. Anyone who wants to understand what happened to the WTC should visit her web site. NIST has a great deal to learn from her.”
www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
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 Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 14 comments |
|
Is NIST even covering up the RFC?
The question has to be asked: why has NIST made such a sloppy job of posting the copies of Dr Wood's appeal. I can't really think of a good excuse. I run a website myself and if someone sent me a PDF file for posting, all I'd need to do is read through it and post it. If they'd sent me the same thing by e-mail, I'd just check the 2 versions were the same (for 54 pages it may take a couple of days maybe), then I'd post it. So what's the problem? I think some of us know the answer to this question. by Andrew Johnson (2 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 97 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 29, 2007 at 10:57:51 AM  (0+)
|
|
Directed Energy Weapons and the Evidence
The Evidence for Directed Energy Weapons is Very Strong! (click links for pictures) **Has anyone noticed... the WTC 4 cut is in the same path as the South Tower's north wall? The South Tower is also "missing". **How about these Round Cylindrical Holes in WTC 5 and WTC 6? What, if not a beam weapon, could make these? **How about this video of the WTC Steel Core Turning to Dust and trickling down? **What type of weapon could disintegrate car engine blocks, yet leave unexploded gas tanks? **This police car certainly looks weird. **These cleanup workers certainly look puzzled. What happened here? **About 20 minutes before the South Tower is destroyed, the FAA orders all aircraft to land. Two minutes after the North Tower is destroyed, the FAA allows military craft back up. Why? One must wonder... where did the towers go? What the heck happened? by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 29, 2007 at 12:36:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Science fiction
That sloppy and incoherent article could not have been written by a scientist. You don’t call things “fuzzyblobs” when they are obviously dust clouds, and then say the fuzzyblobs are making people sick because one person in the picture is sitting down. by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 30, 2007 at 7:35:55 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Are your comments supposed to be silly?
You said: "...You don’t call things “fuzzyblobs” when they are obviously dust clouds..." Dr Wood uses generic terms to describe phenomena that has not yet been defined, so as to not bias the observations. This is what scientists do! You said: "The entire “article” is filled with non-sequitur arguments. I love the way she states “a nine second collapse time for WTC2 is impossible. It violates the laws of physics.” (p50)." Here's something for you to try: (And I'm sure you'll get a kick out of it!) Drop something from 1368 feet and time how long it takes for it to reach the ground. Assuming you do the experiment in reality and not in a video game, you'll find the time to exceed 9.22 seconds. In a vacuum (no air resistance) the time will be 9.22 seconds. You said: "Any scientist who stated the exact opposite of what everyone saw with their own lying eyes is disingenuous at best, and delusional at worst." You said: "Fire phazers Scotty" For you to make associations between the 9/11 DEW evidence and Star Trek shows where your thinking is. Talk about science fiction! by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 30, 2007 at 3:48:49 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: correction
by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 30, 2007 at 4:44:55 PM (0+)
|
|
Every hypothesis and theory should be examined
If it is possible to have an investigation that isn't rigged from the start, every theory and hypothesis should be investigated as a possibility. by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1760 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 30, 2007 at 5:56:32 PM (0+)
|
|
DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPO DESIGNED TO DISCREDIT 9/11TRUTH
What power source could provide the directed energy weapon with enough energy to pulverize all the concrete in the twin towers to a fine dust? And cut through the supporting steel girders of the WTC at the precise angle produced in controlled building demolitions. A directed energy beam focused on the whole WTC to pulverize all its concrete could not also be so precisely focused as to cut through the steel girders at just the right precise angle. The directed energy weapon would have simultaneously have to have been focused on the WTC buildings (WCT 1, WCT 2, and WTC 7 separately) to pulverize the concrete but at thousand of precise points to cut the girders. And where is the nuclear power plant that would have been needed to provide the necessary energy? No nearby nuclear power plant close enough to destroy the towers has been found. An any satellite big enough to contain a nuclear power plant would be easily seen by eryone on earth. A plane hitting the towers could not have pulverized their concrete and cause them to fall on their footprints at nearly free fall speed. Controlled demolitions could have done the job. I recognize that people can sincerely hold different opinions but this law suit designed to replace a rational explication of the WTC dissaster with one smacking of Buck Rodgers and Star Treck is suspiciously like what one would expect of government agents trying to discredit 9/11 truth just as it comes near to breaking through the media blackout. Robert Halfhill rhalfhill@juno.com by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 325 comments) on Monday, Oct 1, 2007 at 12:01:05 AM (0+)
|
|
Legal Challenges
Let's focus our attentions on legal challenges. Drs Wood and Reynolds have filed legal challenges, which provides an excellent opportunity for a new investigation. They stand behind their work and have submitted through proper legal channels. If you have scientific proof, you should follow through. If you have a smoking gun, you should submit to proper governmental agencies as Drs Wood/Reynolds already have. However, if you do not have smoking gun proof, you should NOT submit it the way Drs Wood/Reynolds have. Anyone knowingly submitting false information to a governmental agency can be prosecuted for defrauding the government and treason! Obviously, Drs Wood and Reynolds stand by their research 100%! An interesting item to note: if Jones/Legge/Jenkins/etc had provable evidence for thermite and molten metal, why the heck didn't they mention it in their RFC to NIST? It's puzzling why they would hide evidence they claim to have. Hmmm..... by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 1, 2007 at 2:17:45 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Deck of Cards
CB, Again you make some excellent points. Only way for the "anonymous ones" to deal with them is to "hand wave" and deflect attention away from your flawless logic. It really does sound to me like they're running out of cards to play. So, we'll just keep posting the evidence - and making the legal cases and doing the press releases, thanks very much! Enjoy! by Andrew Johnson (2 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 97 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 2, 2007 at 3:05:46 PM (0+)
|
|
seriously
Jim Fetzer says: "Significantly, NIST has acknowledged Dr. Wood’s appeal by posting a copy on its Website. James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, observed, “This means they are taking it seriously.”" Yes they are taking it seriously all right. A wonderful opportunity to rubbish the serious scientists. Just how are those space beams supposed to work? It is clear from the videos that they can pass harmelssly through many floors, then suddenly destroy one floor near the plane impact site, then suddenly go back up and destroy one a bit higher, then go down, pass harmlessly though a few floors below the impact site, then knock one out, then down a few more floors, knock one out, etc. You've got to be joking Jim. We could take you seriously once - what happened? Luckily there are other sources of reliable information about 9/11, explosives and demolition. by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 1, 2007 at 2:44:52 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Chemical Clouds
Dr Wood's theory has been refined to include the following: The DEW didn't destroy the towers themselves, but instead activated chemical clouds that were released from within the buildings, much like how light activates photographic film. Wood has evidence supporting this. Not only for the towers, but also WTC 7. See her "Dust to Dirt" paper for photos. The 9/11 perps plan to blame explosives on Al Qaeda, as Bush does in this video. by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 5, 2007 at 1:07:35 PM (0+)
|
|
This stinks like a misdirection.
Energy rays? More likely DISINFO planted as distraction. Especially when it would be rather easy for the agents of destruction in the company in charge of the WTC security to plant more reliable demolition charges on empty floors of the building. Awfully coincidental that Marvin Bush, brother of the President was on the Board of the company contracted to provide security for the World Trade Center complex up until the day of the September 11, 2001. Why do we need to investigate "Energy rays" when much more incriminating connections have yet to dragged into the light of day. Why was George HW Bush meeting with a prominent bin Laden family member on the day of the attacks and why were bin Laden family members allowed to fly out of the country without even questioning when all other flights were grounded? Let the disinfo stir up more interest, so that we can publicize more of these tidbits every time these stinky red herrings surface. by Tim Riley (7 articles, 5 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 148 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 1, 2007 at 2:56:14 AM (0+)
|
|
A Summary of Uncle Fester's Disinfo Team Activities
[Copy&Pasted from http://www.truthaction.org :] by Myra99 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 2, 2007 at 1:14:20 AM (0+)
|
|
A Summary of Uncle Fester's Disinfo Team Activities
[Copy&Pasted from http://www.truthaction.org :] by Myra99 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 2, 2007 at 1:14:53 AM (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 |
