On February 29, 2008, a nearly complete set of opposition briefs and affidavits were 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 very 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.
A complete list of defendants is contained in the docket report maintained by the court. Some defendants have been released from the case based on their not having received compensation for their part in NCSTAR 1.
In Wood v ARA, evidence confirming that the annihilation and pulverization in approximately 10 seconds for each of the Twin Towers could not possibly have been caused by supposed jetliner impacts and kerosene (jet fuel is kerosene) is being put forth and demonstrated in detail by Dr. Judy Wood, plaintiff-relator in Wood v ARA.
Reynolds v SAIC presents and 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 or crumpling, leaving plane silhouette imprints and without the overwhelmingly, deafening sound of a jetliner at full throttle being present. Moreover, the explosion is seen in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Few of the depicted characteristics, as seen in the videos of the event, are physically possible, according to claims made in documents filed in the Reynolds case.
ARA and SAIC and other defendants, including, by way of example, Ramon Gilsanz, who as mentioned in the NY Times article published February 23, 2008, seek dismissal of the cases on jurisdictional and other grounds. Some defendants also challenge the cases as being frivolous and seek attorneys’ fees for that reason.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
