7th Sept, 2007 Hot Springs Village – Arkansas, Clemson – South Carolina, Danbury – Connecticut. In separate actions, 2 professors have initiated legal challenges against the report that supposedly explained how and why World Trade Centre towers 1 & 2 were destroyed on Sept 11 2001. Professor Morgan Reynolds, using various points of evidence, challenges the assumption that large jet planes hit the towers. Professor Judy Wood challenges the stated cause (jet impacts and resulting fires) for the destruction of the entire WTC complex. Professor Wood has uncovered various items of evidence which have allowed her to declare that NCSTAR1 is “fraudulent and deceptive”.
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 challenged report is designated NCSTAR 1 and runs some 298 pages. Dr. Judy Wood (formerly Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University) has lodged a Request For Correction, and a subsequent appeal, with NIST, with the help of a Connecticut Attorney Jerry Leaphart. Dr. Morgan Reynolds, Professor (Emeritus) of Economics at Texas A & M University and former Chief Economist in the Dept. of Labor, also with the help of Jerry Leaphart, has initiated 2 separate actions against NIST.
The first action was initiated in March 2007 by Dr. Wood, in the form of a “Request For Correction” (RFC) which declares that the main NIST WTC report (NCSTAR1) is “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 has presented. Dr. Wood states 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 states 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 pulverised 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 has 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 makes 6 key assertions and states 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 states “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.’” A response to this appeal is now pending.
Dr. Reynolds’ RFC outlines how NCSTAR1 failed to properly explain the observed damage caused by the supposed plane impacts. He challenges the true nature of the impacts based on a number of points of evidence. Reynolds states that NIST produced plane animations which showed “No significant deceleration as each jetliner entered a tower” and he points out that data used in the associated analysis is inconsistent.
Overall, considering the evidence discussed in NCSTAR1, Reynolds states: “These purported phenomena, [as mentioned above and as] described by NIST and its contractors, are not independently verifiable and do not have a scientifically valid basis for making the assumption that the simulated conditions could actually have occurred. Equally significant, the preparation of simulations that depict conditions that violate scientific principles serves only to mislead and to set the conditions for false conclusions to be enunciated.”
NIST has still not issued a response to Dr. Reynolds’ RFC – some 5 months later (only the “extension of review” notification).
In an action which is directly related to the RFC, Dr. Reynolds, also under the guidance of Jerry Leaphart, has now initiated a Law Suit against NIST. Dr. Reynolds’ “Qui Tam” complaint, filed on 11th July 2007 in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, lists 81 points in 7 “causes of action”. The 34-page document is framed as Dr.. Morgan O. Reynolds, on behalf of the United States of America vs Science Applications International Corp., Applied Research Associates, Inc., Boeing, Silverstein Properties, American Airlines, United Airlines and others. Its stated aim is to “recover treble damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33 and to recover all available damages and other monetary relief under the common law or equitable theories of unjust enrichment, payment under mistake of fact, recoupment of overpayments and common law fraud.”
The action charges 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 WTC1,2.”
It also charges 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.”
Further developments in this case are now awaited.
For more information, contact the named individuals using the details below.
Jerry Leaphart, Jerry V. Leaphart & Assoc., P.C. 8 West Street, Suite 203 Danbury, CT 06810 phone – (203) 825-6265 , fax – (203) 825-6256, e-mail: email@example.com