Text of query letter and analysis of reasons for it follow:

Dr. JUDY WOOD
lisajudy@nctv.com

04-07-07
VIA FACSIMILE 202-395-3888 FEDEX & EMAIL
Ms. Susan J. Thornton
Air Force Research Laboratory
Directed Energy Directorate
Office of Public Affairs
3550 Aberdeen Avenue S.E.
Kirtland Air Force Base, NM 87117-5776
FedEx No. 8614 4577 3211
and Distribution List

 

Directed Energy Weapons destroy World Trade Center complex:

Ref.: Request for Correction per Section 515 Public Law 106-554

U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Chief Information Officer

See:

http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/s/groups/public/%40doc/%40os/%40ocio/%40oitpp/documents/content/prod01_002667.pdf

Dear Sirs/Madam:

I am not so naïve as to think that leveling the charge that directed energy weapons (DEW) were a causal factor in the 9/11/01 (9/11) destruction of the World Trade Center complex (WTC) will be received as "good news" by U.S. governmental officials. This is not "good news" but it is a necessary query and a supported claim.

I am a research scientist with skills, expertise, background and training sufficient to enable me to formulate rational, evidence-based findings and conclusions. I have amassed and caused to be filed with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) a Request for Correction (RFC), as referenced and accessible as above, that summarizes salient portions of the evidence substantiating the theory that DEW are a causal factor in the 9/11 destruction of the WTC.

I have also asserted that NIST’s failure to properly explain that destruction results from fraud and that the fraud is a result of NIST having contracted with, among other parties, key manufacturers of DEW, key participants in official psychological operations (psy ops) and marketing firms, specializing in controlling public perception, as well as other parties having a clear and direct conflict of interest that would militate against an accurate description of what caused the destruction of the WTC on 9/11.

And the parties so engaged knew as much, or should have known.

Each of the persons to whom this letter is addressed can reasonably be expected to either know the extent to which the effects mentioned in the referenced RFC are consistent with DEW; or, know of persons who would know that information. I am aware, for example, that as of the year 2000, weapons having the capacity to destroy the WTC were deployed.

See: http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/graphics/wavefront2.pdf

I am informed by my counsel, Attorney Jerry V. Leaphart, that it is appropriate to assume that many of those to whom this letter is addressed are persons whose positions within government and/or as private contractors, would probably place some or all of them within the purview of the rigors set forth in, among other places, 32 CFR Part 154.

Accordingly, and to that end, I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Clay Johnson III, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, who, I am told, is the overall supervisor and person in charge of the regulatory apparatus associated with security clearances.

I am doing that, on advice of counsel, in order to help avoid any reticence any of you might have in replying to the central query; to wit:

Are the effects set forth in the referenced RFC consistent with the destructive effects that would result from the use of DEW?

Because this query arises in the context of a presently pending challenge under the Data Quality Act, I assert that your replies cannot properly be used against you in any way under 32 CFR Part 154, or any other aspect of the requirements any of you may have as a result of your security clearances.

Written confirmation of the correctness of this observation from OMB Deputy Director for Management, Clay Johnson III, is requested. To be clear, I am requesting that Mr. Johnson confirm that there is nothing in any of the security clearances applicable to any of the persons to whom this is addressed that would preclude a forthcoming reply to the query posed above, concerning the effects associated with the use of High Energy Lasers and/or other directed energy weapons. On the other hand, if certain additional protocols or procedures are required to obtain a reply to the query, then I request Mr. Johnson indicate what procedures and protocols are to be followed to obtain the answers I am seeking.

Respectfully,

Dr. Judy Wood

Cc:
Mr. Clay Johnson III
OMB Deputy Director for Management
The Office of Management and Budget
725 17^th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20503
f- 202-395-3888

Distribution List:

Dr. William Baker (2009)
wbaker@deps.org

Dr. Rettig Benedict Jr. (2009)
rbenedict@deps.org

Dennis Boesen (2008)
dboesen@deps.org

Edward Duff (2007)
eduff@deps.org

Maj Gen Donald Lamberson (2008)
dlamberson@deps.org

Louis Marquet (2007)
lmarquet@deps.org

Thomas Meyer (2009)
tmeyer@deps.org

Ed Pogue (2008)
epogue@deps.org

Dr. J. Thomas Schriempf (2009)
tschriempf@deps.org

Hon. Henry Waxman

Cc:
Attorney Jerry V. Leaphart
8 West Street #203
Danbury, CT 06810
p-203-825-6265
f-203-825-6256

Comments by Attorney Jerry V. Leaphart

The DEW letter is, in my view, more worthy of posting than the 'memorandum' is, at present. I say that because the Dew letter reflects an additional connecting link that is not included in the prior memorandum. Namely, the DEW letter makes specific reference to Clay Johnson III, a very high ranking official in the Bush administration.

In thinking about 9/11 as a whole, it appears that the secrecy element may not yet have received as much attention or focus as it should have. We know that the issue of "top secret" information has surfaced from time-to-time, in the 9/11 environment. If memory serves me correctly, as early as the day of 9/11/01 itself, mention was made that "all flights had been ordered to land, grounded, etc. EXCEPT 'top secret' flights."

Mention of the words "top secret" serve to curtail any further questioning. The words seem tantamount to a carte blanche to do anything, anywhere, to anyone, at anytime; no questions asked or even askable.

On 9/11, one might have thought that a reasonable line of questioning would include:

What 'top secret' flights? And, what were they doing? Were they involved in an effort to thwart the attack; if so, why did they not succeed?

And other similar queries could have been asked. They weren't to my knowledge, let alone answered.

Another aspect of top secrecy is that it depends very heavily upon the use of what is called "compartmented" information. That is, many people will know what they are expected to do and/or may have access to some pieces of information, but may not know how their part fits in with that of others or with respect to other elements of information.

One can envision, therefore, that in the 9/11 situation, the number of people who knew the whole story might be no more than a handful. However, among those who might very well know the entire story is Clay Johnson III because he controls the process of granting (and denying or revoking) security clearances to governmental employees and private contractors.

His, then, may be a uniquely powerful position within the US governmental apparatus, as it relates to 9/11.

Similarly, Susan J. Thornton appears to have a singularly important post in the directed energy weapons field. I think she either knows what the DEW capabilities and effects of its use are; or, she knows who would have that information. So, too, would the members of the Board of Directors of the Directed Energy Professional Society, in all likelihood. All of the persons mentioned here very likely have high security clearances.

The pressures on such persons are probably enormous. One false move, so to speak, and their clearances can be revoked. If revoked, none of the individuals we've sent the letter to would be able to maintain their present positions for very long.

Ordinary Americans may think the Patriot Act restricts their freedoms, and they're right, of course. However, in exchange for having access to the nation's lethal secrets, it is fair to surmise that those having top secret security clearances must have almost no freedom whatsoever. It is likely that such persons are under constant surveillance. True, the surveillance they are under may have a benign face and may be presented as something that is for the good of those who are under it. It could even be considered a form of status symbol. That said, it is still scrutiny and the persons involved are, at the end of the day, not free.

Whether an opening will occur involving some sort of crack in the wall of secrecy that will help bring the truth of 9/11 to the surface is not possible to predict. I think awareness of the role of secrecy and of how it works should be studied at greater depth by the Truth Movement. That is what I hope dissemination of Judy's letter will help to foster.

Basically, the effort here is to identify, focus on and then seek to ask questions of those who, by virtue of their positions in industry, government -- the military industrial complex -- know or should know what happened on 9/11/01. The DEW letter evolved from the memorandum. Other steps might develop based on the input of the members of the Truth Movement.


Jerry Leaphart