District Court Unseals Second 9/11 Inside Job Case

Latest news

District Court Unseals Second 9/11 Inside Job Case

CB_Brooklyn
Advanced Member
CB_Brooklyn
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 20 2007, 05:20 AM

Oct 13 2007, 05:36 AM #1

US District Court Unseals Second 9/11 ‘Inside Job’ Case

Developments regarding Dr Judy Wood, a former Professor of Mechanical Engineering from Clemson University. Wood is represented by mainstream attorney Jerry Leaphart.


On September 12, 2007 the Southern New York District Court unsealed an “inside job” case. This complaint, filed by Dr Judy Wood against the private contractors hired by NIST, alleges the World Trade Center was destroyed by Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). Wood’s unsealed complaint is available here (in the Qui Tam section): http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html

Dr James Fetzer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, interviewed Dr Wood and Mr Leaphart on his October 11th Dynamic Duo radio show to discuss the new unsealed complaint. An MP3 of this broadcast is downloadable at this link: http://tinyurl.com/3dmpqo

Dr Fetzer also submitted a press release for this wonderful news. Read it and learn that NIST admitted to Dr Wood (in writing) that they did not analyze the “collapse” of the towers!
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne ... es__22.htm


One of the Defendants, Applied Research Associates (ARA), is a manufacturer of directed energy weapons :
http://drjudywood.com/articles/ARA/ARA.html

ARA is also a Silver Level Founding Sponsor of the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS). Founded in 1999, DEPS put out their first newsletter one year before 9/11, containing the following excerpt:

"Lasers in space, lasers in the stratosphere, lasers
on and over the battlefield - we're at the
beginning of an evolutionary new wave of
weaponry."

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



Dr Wood has also discovered that the "Capabilities - National Defense and Aerospace" section of ARA's website contains an image depicting a simulation with the following characteristics:

1. A building (in the foreground) having damage similar to that of WTC 6 and the Murrah Building in OK City.

2. A building (behind the red building) with the same cosmetic design as WTC 3.

3. A building (in the background) turning to dust similar to the Twin Towers.

Here's the image:



See pages 3 and 4 of Dr Wood’s Appeal to NIST for information regarding that photo:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIS ... ppeal.html

Here are pages 3 and 4:






Those skeptical of the directed energy weapon theory often ask how such a weapon could eject steel beams horizontally from the towers, as seem in some of the videos and photographs. Dr Wood says the DEW didn’t destroy the towers itself, but instead activated chemical clouds that were released from within the buildings; much like how light activates photographic film. Dr Wood has discovered photographic evidence of these chemical clouds coming from the towers, as well as WTC 7:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt5.html
http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/WTC7.html




The Evidence for Directed Energy Weapons is Very Strong!


**Let's take this Vertical Cut on WTC 4 as an example.
The building material on the other side of the cut is "missing".
Where'd it go?



**Has anyone noticed... the WTC 4 cut is in the same path as the South Tower's north wall?
The South Tower is also "missing".



**How about these Cylindrical Holes in WTC 5 and WTC 6?
What, if not a beam weapon, could make these?



**How about this video of the Steel Core Turning to Dust and trickling down?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVRh4U2BlhQ


**What type of weapon could destroy car engine blocks, yet leave unexploded gas tanks?



**This police car looks too weird.



**These cleanup workers certainly look puzzled.
What happened here?



**About 20 minutes before the South Tower is destroyed, the FAA orders all aircraft to land.
Two minutes after the North Tower is destroyed, the FAA allows military craft back up.
Why?




One must wonder... where did the towers go?


Look at these two comparisons. What happened?





Dr Wood has filed legal challenges, which provides an excellent opportunity for a new investigation.
She deserves our full support.
Quote
Like
Share

Bongo Thud
Advanced Member
Bongo Thud
Advanced Member
Joined: May 30 2007, 11:00 PM

Oct 13 2007, 08:06 AM #2

CB_Brooklyn @ Oct 13 2007, 12:36 AM wrote: US District Court Unseals Second 9/11 ‘Inside Job’ Case

Developments regarding Dr Judy Wood, a former Professor of Mechanical Engineering from Clemson University. Wood is represented by mainstream attorney Jerry Leaphart.


On September 12, 2007 the Southern New York District Court unsealed an “inside job” case. This complaint, filed by Dr Judy Wood against the private contractors hired by NIST, alleges the World Trade Center was destroyed by Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). Wood’s unsealed complaint is available here (in the Qui Tam section): http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html

Dr James Fetzer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, interviewed Dr Wood and Mr Leaphart on his October 11th Dynamic Duo radio show to discuss the new unsealed complaint. An MP3 of this broadcast is downloadable at this link: http://tinyurl.com/3dmpqo

Dr Fetzer also submitted a press release for this wonderful news. Read it and learn that NIST admitted to Dr Wood (in writing) that they did not analyze the “collapse” of the towers!
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne ... es__22.htm


One of the Defendants, Applied Research Associates (ARA), is a manufacturer of directed energy weapons :
http://drjudywood.com/articles/ARA/ARA.html

ARA is also a Silver Level Founding Sponsor of the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS). Founded in 1999, DEPS put out their first newsletter one year before 9/11, containing the following excerpt:

"Lasers in space, lasers in the stratosphere, lasers
on and over the battlefield - we're at the
beginning of an evolutionary new wave of
weaponry."

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



Dr Wood has also discovered that the "Capabilities - National Defense and Aerospace" section of ARA's website contains an image depicting a simulation with the following characteristics:

1. A building (in the foreground) having damage similar to that of WTC 6 and the Murrah Building in OK City.

2. A building (behind the red building) with the same cosmetic design as WTC 3.

3. A building (in the background) turning to dust similar to the Twin Towers.

Here's the image:



See pages 3 and 4 of Dr Wood’s Appeal to NIST for information regarding that photo:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIS ... ppeal.html

Here are pages 3 and 4:






Those skeptical of the directed energy weapon theory often ask how such a weapon could eject steel beams horizontally from the towers, as seem in some of the videos and photographs. Dr Wood says the DEW didn’t destroy the towers itself, but instead activated chemical clouds that were released from within the buildings; much like how light activates photographic film. Dr Wood has discovered photographic evidence of these chemical clouds coming from the towers, as well as WTC 7:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt5.html
http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/WTC7.html




The Evidence for Directed Energy Weapons is Very Strong!


**Let's take this Vertical Cut on WTC 4 as an example.
The building material on the other side of the cut is "missing".
Where'd it go?



**Has anyone noticed... the WTC 4 cut is in the same path as the South Tower's north wall?
The South Tower is also "missing".



**How about these Cylindrical Holes in WTC 5 and WTC 6?
What, if not a beam weapon, could make these?



**How about this video of the Steel Core Turning to Dust and trickling down?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVRh4U2BlhQ


**What type of weapon could destroy car engine blocks, yet leave unexploded gas tanks?



**This police car looks too weird.



**These cleanup workers certainly look puzzled.
What happened here?



**About 20 minutes before the South Tower is destroyed, the FAA orders all aircraft to land.
Two minutes after the North Tower is destroyed, the FAA allows military craft back up.
Why?




One must wonder... where did the towers go?


Look at these two comparisons. What happened?





Dr Wood has filed legal challenges, which provides an excellent opportunity for a new investigation.
She deserves our full support.
Nope.
Atheist for truth
Quote
Like
Share

Rossmancer
Advanced Member
Rossmancer
Advanced Member
Joined: Aug 22 2007, 11:16 AM

Oct 13 2007, 10:48 AM #3

I think it's possible, but then what were those "bomb-like" noises people were hearing?
A man is what he thinks about all day.
Quote
Like
Share

CB_Brooklyn
Advanced Member
CB_Brooklyn
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 20 2007, 05:20 AM

Oct 14 2007, 05:27 PM #4

Rossmancer @ Oct 13 2007, 05:48 AM wrote:I think it's possible, but then what were those "bomb-like" noises people were hearing?
There most probably were bombs (explosives) too. But that's a decoy to lead the "truth movement" down the wrong path, away from the real perps. We all remember the New York Times WTC Task Force Interview transcripts, where all those FDNY personnel reported explosives. But why would the Times publish that? Does the Times tell the truth about 9/11, or do they hide it? Perhaps they published those to steer the "truth movement".

Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
Quote
Like
Share

operator kos
Member
Joined: Oct 13 2007, 06:38 AM

Oct 15 2007, 05:59 AM #5

Couldn't have summed it up more succinctly myself, Bongo.
Bush's GOD is Gold, Oil, and Drugs.
fightingforgod.com - a graphic novel revelation about 9/11
Quote
Like
Share

CB_Brooklyn
Advanced Member
CB_Brooklyn
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 20 2007, 05:20 AM

Oct 15 2007, 07:41 AM #6

operator kos @ Oct 15 2007, 12:59 AM wrote: Couldn't have summed it up more succinctly myself, Bongo.
the REAL truth of 9/11 will come out with or without your help.
Quote
Like
Share

Bongo Thud
Advanced Member
Bongo Thud
Advanced Member
Joined: May 30 2007, 11:00 PM

Oct 15 2007, 07:54 AM #7

CB_Brooklyn @ Oct 15 2007, 02:41 AM wrote:
operator kos @ Oct 15 2007, 12:59 AM wrote: Couldn't have summed it up more succinctly myself, Bongo.
the REAL truth of 9/11 will come out with or without your help.
and with or without your persistent hindrance.
Atheist for truth
Quote
Like
Share

CB_Brooklyn
Advanced Member
CB_Brooklyn
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 20 2007, 05:20 AM

Oct 28 2007, 01:26 AM #8

Download Dr Judy Wood's latest interview, with Ambrose Lane. She discusses several topics including her court case in the US District Court, Southern New York: MP3 LINK
Quote
Like
Share

UKperspective
Advanced Member
UKperspective
Advanced Member
Joined: Mar 5 2007, 11:01 AM

Nov 1 2007, 11:05 PM #9

I have spent some time reading Judy Wood's presentations from time to time over the last few months, and while she digs out some interesting pictures, and makes some really interesting observations. I just feel that for someone who is qualified so highly that they go by the title "Dr." she ought to be a little more professional in her presentations.

I am left with the overwhelming impression that she has uncovered some vital evidence and leapt to the wrong conclusion.

The melted cars and alignments of damage are inspired research, but her conclusions are difficult to substantiate.
Quote
Like
Share

CB_Brooklyn
Advanced Member
CB_Brooklyn
Advanced Member
Joined: Feb 20 2007, 05:20 AM

Nov 2 2007, 06:30 AM #10

I believe Dr Wood to be doing an excellent job at presenting her material, even forgetting the fact that she lost her job at Clemson, lost her 9/11 research student Michael Zebuhr to murder, and lost her instructors at Virginia Tech to murder.

Exactly how has Dr Wood leaped to the wrong conclusion? What, if not DEWs, can explain the data?
Quote
Like
Share

UKperspective
Advanced Member
UKperspective
Advanced Member
Joined: Mar 5 2007, 11:01 AM

Nov 2 2007, 08:20 AM #11

Well I don't know, which is why I said, "the impression was that I thought that she had lept to the wrong conclusion".

Overall I am grateful to see her research, but I feel that there should be a overarching demolition theory which ticks every single box. Including the explosions, the melted cars, the damage patterns to the other buildings etc.

Most of the other "scholars" miss out the Dr Judy Wood stuff, and I think they should all work together and not on their own slightly different pet theories.
Quote
Like
Share


Confirmation of reply: