Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 4 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing

Two 9/11-related Qui Tam Cases Filed in U.S. District Court, SDNY

Become a Premium Member Would you like to know how many people have read this article? Or how reputable the author is? Simply sign up for a Advocate premium membership and you'll automatically see this data on every article. Plus a lot more, too.
Author 5407
Message Russell Gerst


Toxic effects from 9/11 Continue at Ground Zero

Two 9/11-related Qui Tam Cases Filed in U.S. District Court, SDNY


Jerry V. Leaphart,

Attorney for Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds

p -- 203-825-6265

f -- 203-825-6256

e --

See also:

Website of Dr. Judy Wood:

Website of Dr. Morgan Reynolds

Date: March 10, 2008

Danbury CT

Cases entitled:

Wood v ARA 1:07cv3314 (GBD)

Reynolds v SAIC 1:07cv4612 (GBD)


Two citizen-plaintiffs on behalf of the United States of America have claimed fraud by several companies led by Applied Research Associates Inc. (ARA) and Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) in preparation of the September 2005 "Final Report on the Collapses of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center” (NCSTAR 1) under contracts with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Key issue:

Reynolds’ case claims that No Planes hit the Twin Towers. Wood’s case claims that Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) destroyed the Twin Towers and some of the effects are ongoing.

The first step in so-called Qui Tam lawsuits involves determining whether the court has proper jurisdiction over the claims, not their validity. The pending lawsuits are brought under the False Claims Act and are designated as Qui Tam cases. The only way to find out whether a case can pass muster under the False Claims Act is to put it before the court to decide.


A nearly complete set of briefs and affidavits have been filed in U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, by the attorney for Dr. Judy Wood in the case entitled Dr. Judy Wood ex rel. USA vs. Applied Research Associates, Inc. et al. 1:07cv3314 (Hon. George B. Daniels, Judge). That filing comes one month after the filing of opposition briefs and affidavits involving a similar jurisdictional challenge in the case entitled Dr. Morgan Reynolds ex rel. USA vs. Science Applications International Corp. et al. 1:07cv4612, also pending before Judge Daniels and involving the same defendants.

In Wood v ARA, evidence confirming that the annihilation and pulverization in approximately 10 seconds of each of the Twin Towers could not possibly have been caused by supposed jetliner impacts and kerosene (jet fuel is kerosene) is put forth in detail by Dr. Judy Wood, plaintiff-relator.

Reynolds v SAIC relies on evidence that 767 wide-body jetliners could not have done what video images depict. Evidence of false imagery includes:

767 jetliners appearing to attain the velocity of 540 mph at 1000ft or less above sea level;

767 jetliners, made of aluminum, seeming to penetrate solid structural steel from nose to tail, wing-tip to wing-tip, without exploding, without slowing, without degrading, crumpling or losing a single part, disappearing through an undersized airplane silhouette of passage appearing an unknown time after the plane image disappeared and without a widely-heard deafening sound of a jetliner at full throttle being present. Moreover, the south tower explosion appears in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Few of the depicted characteristics if any, as seen in videos of the event, are physically possible, according to documents filed in the Reynolds case.

The brief and affidavits filed by Dr. Wood point to an ongoing danger in that Ground Zero is still contaminated with the aftereffects of the use of directed energy weaponry. According to her documents, the weapons used to destroy the Twin Towers are a new technology and affect the destruction of materials at the molecular level, which accounts for the near instantaneous disappearance of the towers.

Further, the results of 9/11 appear to be a non-self-quenching reaction. The cleanup of the aftereffects is still ongoing and may pose a significant danger to the public. Because of that contamination, Dr. Wood asserts that it is unwise to construct any skyscrapers on the site, let alone a 1776 ft. tower. Dr. Wood, a materials-engineering scientist whose expertise is experimental mechanics, has called upon the scientific community in America to take heed of this evidence.

Dr. Wood got NIST to admit that it "did not investigate the actual collapses" despite its mandate to investigate the "collapses" of the Twin Towers.

Media are invited to view the public court filings made by both sides in these cases. They are available at the court's website



Because the cases are ongoing, clients Dr. Wood and Dr. Reynolds are instructed not to comment further than that contained above. Queries can be directed to Attorney Leaphart.


Rate It | View Ratings

RuGBYZHG Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Assisting in the research of 9/11 since 2006. Only physical evidence observable through pictures or measurement data should be considered to determine what happened at all three sites. Hearsay and unsupported hypotheses must be dismissed and (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

To View Comments or Join the Conversation: