Answers are being sought from Head of U.S. Air Force Directed Energy Directorate, Susan J. Thornton,
OMB Deputy Director, Clay Johnson III, and
Board of Directors of Directed Energy Professional Society
Hon. Henry Waxman, notified
Main question is:
Are the effects set forth in RFC filed with NIST (pdf) consistent with the destructive effects that would result from the use of directed energy weapons? (other resolutions of this RFC)
Text of query letter and analysis of reasons for it follow:
Dr. JUDY WOOD
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
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 NISTs 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.
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.
Dr. Judy Wood
Dr. William Baker (2009)
Dr. Rettig Benedict Jr. (2009)
Dennis Boesen (2008)
Edward Duff (2007)
Maj Gen Donald Lamberson (2008)
Louis Marquet (2007)
Thomas Meyer (2009)
Ed Pogue (2008)
Dr. J. Thomas Schriempf (2009)
Hon. Henry Waxman
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 accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this webpage are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This webpage has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources.
© 2006-2007 Judy Wood and the authors above. All rights reserved.