Up to the date of this posting – 22nd July 2018 – Dr Judy Wood is the only person who has tried to hold a US Government Agency to account regarding the false explanation it promulgated for the destruction of the WTC. Dr Wood didn’t “call for a new investigation.” She did the investigation herself, then used the evidence in a court case against fraudulent government contractors. Read more about this below.
DR. JUDY WOOD on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff/Relator,
vs.
APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
| Wood-Original Filing (FILED UNDER SEAL, April 25, 2007) |
Wood-Order to Unseal (FILE UNSEALED, September 12, 2007) |
|
 |
 |
|
| Page 1 | Page 1 |
In 2005, a number of reports were issued by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) which were meant to explain how the World Trade Centre towers were completely destroyed. The collective name for these reports was NCSTAR 1.
On 16 March 2007 under the guidance of attorney Jerry Leaphart, Dr. Judy Wood filed a “Request For Correction” (RFC). This proved that the main NIST WTC report (NCSTAR1) is/was “fraudulent and deceptive,” because it in no way accounts for the profound level of destruction of the WTC towers – as illustrated in a collection of over 65 photographs she presented then (a collection which has since been expanded on).
Dr. Wood stated that “NIST cannot make a statement that the World Trade Center towers came down in ‘free fall’ on one hand”, and then say “that doing so is a form of collapse.” Wood also stated that “Use of the descriptive word ‘collapse’” is incorrect and Wood points out that according to NIST’s own data, their explanation of how the towers were “dustified” does not satisfy the laws of Physics. Dr. Wood, concludes from her study, that some type of Directed Energy Weapon was used to destroy most of the WTC buildings. Dr. Wood also points out that Applied Research Associates (ARA) were involved in the production of some aspects of the NCSTAR reports and that they are a manufacturer of Directed Energy Weapons and/or components of same. This therefore would be one example of where there was a “conflict of interest” in producing a truthful report.
Even though NIST was supposed to have responded to each RFC within 60 days, an “extension of review” notification was posted on 29th June 2007 for both Dr. Wood’s and Dr. Reynolds’ RFC’s. Then, in a letter dated 27 July 2007, Catherine Fletcher of NIST rejected Dr. Wood’s original RFC, stating: “NIST has examined the photographs you provided in conjunction with all the other evidence and has found that the evidence does not support a theory involving directed energy weapons.”
Fletcher also stated, “…ARA was determined not to have an organizational conflict of interest”. Finally Fletcher stated, “In conclusion, NIST is denying your request for correction because the NIST analysis of the initiation of the collapse of the WTC towers was thorough and based on all of the available evidence, and NIST continues to believe that the report is not fraudulent, deceptive or misleading.”
The Data Quality Act, however, includes a “right of appeal” against the decision and Dr. Wood then worked to further document a significant conflict of interest between ARA and some of the analyses NIST used in their reports. In the appeal, dated August 22nd 2007, Dr. Wood made 6 key assertions and stated that “NIST should have known that Applied Research Associates (ARA) is a ‘significant manufacturer of directed energy weapons and/or components thereof’” Additionally, Dr. Wood stated “NIST should have detected evidence of the use of such weaponry even in the context of NIST’s intentional and, I assert, improper limitation of its investigation into ‘the sequence of events leading up to the ‘collapse’ of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers.’”
The action charged that “defendants knowingly concealed, or failed to disclose, or caused others to fail to disclose material information” and that the reports produced “intentionally did not satisfy, the mandate that NIST had, which was that of determining what caused the destruction of WTC 1 and 2.”
It also charged that NIST’s “documentation serves solely to mislead, obfuscate and provide a vehicle for the intended fraud; namely, that of steering NIST away from a consideration of what caused the destruction of WTC1,2; which, as elsewhere elaborated upon, was the use on 9/11/01 of exotic weaponry known as directed energy weapons.”
In June 2008, The judge dismissed both cases, and an additional one by Ed Haas, using a single document for all 3. It ruled on some technicalities, but also mentioned the Moon Landings and JFK. In July 2009, an appeal was dismissed in a hearing, but none of the evidence re DEW etc was mentioned in the ruling (ruling was essentially on a technicality). The judges also admitted in their ruling that they were ignoring changes in the law which should have made it harder to dismiss the case.
The case was filed with the US Supreme Court on 28 Oct 2009, but this court simply declined to hear the case (an option it always has).