Invitation to post a simultaneous response letter

Email from Steven E. Jones to Judy Wood:

Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 15:01:47 -0600
From: Steve Jones
To: Judy Wood
Subject: Re: Invitation to post a simultaneous reponse letter
Cc: KEVIN RYAN

Dear Dr. Wood,

Attached is a Letter submitted to the Journal of 9/11 Studies; it is now undergoing peer review. 
Since the Letter quotes directly from the RFC bearing your name, you are invited to write a response-Letter for simultaneous publication in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. 

You may request that your response be peer-reviewed or published without peer-review and we will honor your request. If your response is received by May 15 (eight days from now), then it can be co-published with the attached. 

Of course, Letters submitted to the Journal of 9/11 Studies are welcomed at any time.

Thank you,

Steven Jones

Attachment converted:NIST RFC Wood Rebuttal.pdf

Email from Judy Wood to Steven E. Jones:

Dr. JUDY WOOD

Date: Tues, 8 May 2007 17:30:00 -0400
From: Judy Wood
To: Steve Jones
Subject: Re: Re: Invitation to post a simultaneous reponse letter
Cc: KEVIN RYAN

Dear Dr. Jones,

Thank you, once again, for alerting me of the pendency of a second publication that will appear in your journal. You have indicated that "A Brief Analysis of Dr. Judy Wood's RFC to NIST: the good, the bad and the ugly" by Dr Greg Jenkins and Arabesque will appear and that I should provide you with my reply by May 15th.

I do so as follows:

I decline a peer-reviewed approach, but would ask that you publish this letter as you've indicated you would.

The article, which I will henceforth refer to by the second part of its title "the good, the bad & the ugly" helps to advance interest in the subject of directed energy weaponry as a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center complex, and, in particular, WTC 1 and 2 (WTC1,2). It does so by way of criticism, but criticism is fair. That said, criticism is not self-validating and much of the content of the forthcoming good,bad,ugly article have been articulated elsewhere. One would hope that the technique of repetition of wrongly oriented criticisms will not become the operating norm of these authors. That said, please know that I respect the right of Dr. Jenkins and of Arabesque to disagree with me.

I here assert that any further commentary from me would be inappropriate at this time and should, instead, be reserved until such time as NIST provides its officially mandated reply to my RFC, together with other procedures applicable to the official RFC process. 

I do not want to prejudice NIST's review. I will reiterate, however, that I stand by the validity of the assertions contained in the RFC that is the topic of "the good, the bad & the ugly" in full.

Thank you in advance for publishing this letter in its entirety.

Very truly yours,


Dr. Judy Wood

© 2006-2007 Judy Wood and the author above. All rights reserved.