"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 .
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:
"A belief, no matter how incredible, that the WTC was destroyed using secret exotic weaponry, does not give rise to even a colorable claim for relief. All plaintiffs, as well as the attorney for the plaintiff here, are hereby warned that filing further successive untenable actions may result in the imposition of monetary or other serious sanctions," (p. 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:
When you tickle the tail of the tiger, you'd better have an escape plan established. But did they? No. The two are compelled to see this silly dance through now to the end and (no doubt) will file appeal after appeal.
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.