"Their lawsuits simply rely upon their own theoretical examination of information already within the public domain. Plaintiffs' attempted analysis of that information constitutes pure speculation that the NIST participants were involved in a cover-up to conceal the true cause for the towers' collapse. They merely disagree with NIST's investigative findings, and specifically wish to reject the basic factual premise that terrorist destroyed the Twin Towers using passenger-filled airplanes as missile-like weapons. Plaintiffs, understandably, offer nothing more than conjecture and supposition to support their claim that the towers were struck by high powered energy beams," (pp. 7-8) - click here .
Well, thankfully, someone still had their wits about themselves. Notice the words, though, - "speculation", "conjecture", and "supposition". This is how the non-Truther world views the Movement's differing theories. As I've mentioned on numerous occasions, a healthy dose and application of "faith" is needed to accept any one of the competing Truther theories, although the Movement's practitioners decry otherwise and fail repeatedly to even acknowledge the necessity of faith.
Just to be clear, though, Judge Daniels warned Dr. Wood and her attorney about continuing their "Quixotic Crusade through the Courts" when he stated as a Footnote 19:
Now, this is all well and fine and to be expected (i.e., Truthers do Truther things and non-Truthers do non-Truthers things – especially the courts when their patience has been tested). But... after getting their heads slapped (legally-speaking, of course) by the "with prejudice" labeling and stern warning, do Wood and Reynolds stop? Nope! They file Motions to Reconsider based upon the court's – let's be candid here – "ignorance of the Law". Truly, though, the good Doctors are just labeling Judge Daniels as one of America's "sheeple" when they state:
"...[R]elief is... appropriate when a legal error has been committed due to inadvertence or misapprehension." (p. 3)
But did Dr. Wood offer any new compelling evidence in her Motion that would demonstrate "how" the court erred in its review of her evidence? Well, aside from stating that the court called the energy source a "United States secret military directed energy weapon [DEW]" where Dr. Wood in her original complaint called it a "directed energy weapon" and then implied heavily that the U.S. military is in possession of such devices and the complaint is directed a U.S. military defense contractors, she did not proffer one scrap of new evidence and remained entrenched in her (now legally dismissed) ignorance.
But... Just to add insult to injury, Dr. Wood further whined (yes, actually whined in a court document) that a needed conclusion in her Motion to Reconsider was that:
"At a bare minimum, removal of language from the Memorandum Decision that goes far beyond that which is necessary for purposes of rendering a decision in this case, and/or which concerns issues that are not properly before this court," (p. 5) - click here .
And this little ditty on p. 16, "It is respectfully submitted that based on the fundamental misapprehension of plaintiff's claims... the quoted portion of Footnote 19 [see above quote from p. 19] should be deleted from the court's Memorandum Decision. The plaintiff is a materials engineering scientist who articulated in forensic detail the nature of her claims."
This reminds me of the quote by Dr. Venkman in the movie "Ghostbusters":
Library Administrator: What's has that got to do with it?
Dr. Peter Venkman: Back off, man. I'm a scientist.