9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

An Open Response to the "Open Letter" from Eric Larsen . . .

Eric Larsen, Publisherhttp://www.ericlarsen.infohttp://www.oliveropenpress.com

Mr. Larsen,

Saturday, I noticed assertions you have made in your "OPEN LETTER"(copied below) that are baseless in fact and reckless in character.I am attaching an email to Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, and JerryLeaphart, where you, Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd, and Jack Whiteare  copied.  (Mr. Winterrowd seems to have made it his mission todisseminate this letter as widely and as publicly as possible:  Ihave personally now received no less than FIVE (5) copies from him!)This is an informal response to your assertions about me to set therecord straight.  I thus invite your attention to this paragraph:

"Along these same lines, it is powerfully notable that only after theSupreme Court denied the case in which Dr. Wood included as evidencethe aerial photographs of the towers being destroyed on 9/11 werethese photographs "newly released"with the claim that they hadnever before been seen. In truth, not only were they a part both ofDr. Wood’s RFC and her qui tam case, and not only had they alreadybeen posted on her web site for FOUR YEARS, but when she preparedthe legal documents in early 2007, she gave the images to Jim Fetzerto be used for a photo section in his book only to have him givecredit for them not to Dr. Wood herself but to someone else. An evenworse example of the distortion the "truth movement" is capable of,Dr. Fetzer, with the "new" release of the aerial images, treatedthem publically as images being seen by him for the first time."

This is an allusion to the color-photo section of a book publishedby Open Court Press under its Catfeet Press logo. It is entitled,THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY: THE SCAMMING OF AMERICA (2007) and includesa chapter by Judy Wood, "A Refutation of the Official CollapseTheory", pp. 83-100, which, to the best of my knowledge, is thefirst time her work on 9/11 had been published in a bound paperbook apart from her web site studies at http://drjudywood.com.

It was preceded by a color-photo section by Jack White, which is"9/11: A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation", pp.75-82.  Jack, as I believe you now know, prepared it based uponhis own extensive research about 9/11, with the exception of aphoto of the bathtub, which I suggested he copy from one foundon Judy's site.  So far as I know, Judy does not hold copyrightto any of these. I republished it on Tuesday, 26 January 2010,


The last sentence of the subject paragraph appears to be directedat another blog of mine, "New 9/11 Photos Released", which I postedon Wednesday, 10 February 2010.  That blog may be found at this URL:


Among the many places these photographs were published, I linked tothis one in the first sentence of my second blog of 10 February 2010:


where you will note that the first words of the caption to the firstphoto is "This previously unreleased photo taken Sept. 11, 2001, bythe New York City Police Department . . ." (see attached).  And, ofcourse, if you were to google, "New 9/11 Photos Released", you wouldfind that other news sources identified them similarly (see attached).

Based upon the information provided here, I trust you understand thatthe claims made in the paragraph you distributed about me are falseand unwarranted.  Since you observe that you wrote this letter a yearbefore you sent it out, did it cross your mind that it might be a goodidea to have checked with me first?  Given Judy's appearance on Ralph'sshow last night, I sincerely hope that you can rein her in from makingmore of these distorted attacks upon me, which range from fabricating aYouTube falsely attributing to me the views of Phil Jayhan right up tothe false denial that she ever talked about "space beams" or a "spacebased" DEW, which she did during an interview with me on 11 November2006.  It has become the most infamous in the history of 9/11 researchand I predict that you will be hearing more about it in time to come,not from me but those offended by her suggestion that Steve made it up.

With appreciation,


James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.McKnight Professor EmeritusUniversity of Minnesota Duluth http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truthhttp://911scholars.org

Quoting "Eric Larsen" <oliveropenpress@nyc.rr.com>:
>Jim,>>Thanks for the invitation. Good of you, but I think I'm better off getting my ideas known on this without the radio. Have you read this   one: http://tinyurl.com/911book ?>>                                                       My best,>                                                              Eric>>At 04:23 PM 3/4/2011, you wrote:>>Eric,>>>>I thought you would like to see this.  Let me know about the interview.>>>>Thanks.>>>>Jim>>>>----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu ----->>  Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 15:15:01 -0600>>  From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu>>Subject: Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO "PATRIOTS QUESTION 9/11.com">>    To: "Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd" <ralph@jusbelli.com>,>>jfetzer@d.umn.edu>>    Cc: "Alan Miller" <alan.miller@PatriotsQuestion911.com>, "Dr.>>Steven Jones" <profsjones@gmail.com>, "Steven Jones">><hardevidence@gmail.com>, "Gage Richard" <rgage@ae911truth.org>,>>"Kevin Ryan" <kncryan@msn.com>>>>>Ralph, I have already responded to this.  You don't need to send it>>over and over again.  I agree with your and Eric's request.  Thanks!>>>>Ralph,>>>>Just for the record, I am a huge fan of the work of Judy Wood and I>>completely support her reinstatement on patriotsquestion911.com.  I>>cannot imagine why she would have been taken off Alan's admirable>>web site.  I am reading and recommending Judy's new book, WHERE DID>>THE TOWERS GO?, and, even though I am very familiar with her work,>>I am learning something new on virtually every page.  So know that>>I am in agreement with you about this, and I support your request.>>>>Best wishes,>>>>Jim>>>>James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.>>McKnight Professor Emeritus>>University of Minnesota Duluth>>http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/>>Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth>>http://911scholars.org>>>>Quoting "Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd" <ralph@jusbelli.com>:>>>>>Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:38:01 -0500>>>>>>To: Alan Miller>>>>>>From:  Eric Larsen <oliveropenpress@nyc.rr.com>>>>>>>Subject: AN OPEN LETTER TO "PATRIOTS QUESTION 9/11.com">>>>>>Cc: Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. James Fetzer, Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan>>>>>>PREFATORY NOTE TO ALAN MILLER:>>>>>>>>>I composed this letter almost a year ago but held off sending it in>>>the hopes that, by waiting, I could send it on the occasion of the>>>publication of Dr. Wood's book, Where Did the Towers Go?>>>(a href="http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/%3E">http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/>;) That occasion has now arrived at>>>last. Dr. Wood's book has been published and is now available to>>>readers the world around, making this the real moment of truth. The>>>question now, for every person in any way associated with the 9/11>>>movement, is whether that person is in fact interested in exposing>>>the truth or, on the other hand, in continuing to cover it up. The>>>publication of Dr. Wood's book is a momentous event, an event of>>>incalculable importance to the entire world. It is time, now, for me>>>to send you this letter.>>>>>>>>>>>>Eric Larsen>>>>>>>>>February 17, 2011>>>>>>==============================================================================>>>>>>March 1, 2010>>>>>>>>>Dear Alan Miller,>>>>>>>>>I’ve noticed that Dr. Judy Wood isn’t any longer listed or cited on>>>“Patriots Question 9/11.” Why is this?  I know that earlier she was>>>on the list of professors as well as the list of engineers. What>>>happened?>>>>>>>>>In my own view, Dr. Wood’s being omitted is like dropping>>>Shakespeare from an anthology of Elizabethan literature. Alone among>>>the most highly visible of 9/11 analysts, Dr. Wood is the one>>>truth-seeker who sticks precisely and only with one thing, and that>>>one thing is the truth about what physically happened on 9/11>>>insofar as it can be known through the scientific study of all—nott>>>some, but all—of the available empirical, observable evidence thatt>>>pertains solely to the “what” of what happened on that day. Dr. Wood>>>purposely stays clear of any forays into politics, innuendo,>>>guesswork, or supposition. She will have nothing whatsoever to do>>>with the question of “who ‘did’ it.” That question, in her view, is>>>meaningless until the scientifically true “what” of what happened is>>>known. This “what” is what she sets out—successfullly—to show. That>>>is, she does not say that “9/11 was an inside job” because that fact>>>has not been scientifically established. Her focus is solely on the>>>empirical, measurable, and observable study of evidence of any>>>relevant kind—from analysis, measurement, and study of the  œremains”>>>of the WTC buildings through analysis of the seismic record of that>>>day’s events, study of anomalies in the earth’s magnetic field at>>>the times of the destructions, and even study of the field effects>>>of the massive hurricane off the east coast of the U.S. on that day>>>(and especially of that storm’s field effects in relation to the>>>enormous high pressure cell that was simultaneously approaching NYC>>>from the west).>>>>>>Dr. Wood’s study, research, and analysis reveal, among many other>>>things, that the WTC buildings did not collapse, explode, or>>>implode, but that they DISAPPEARED into dust. Multitudes of evidence>>>prove her case, but that hasn’t kept 9/11 pseudo-truth seekers from>>>ridiculing her by smear, innuendo, name-calling, neglect, and>>>disinformation in whatever ways they are able. With courage,>>>strength, and a scientifically-based factuality, Dr. Wood has>>>experienced more malicious contumely, more smears and fraudulent>>>attacks than any other single member of the scientific, political,>>>philosophical, or historical 9/11 truth-seeking community. Yet Dr.>>>Wood has continued to stand up for the truth. Those who “choose” not>>>to accept the evidence-based conclusions of Dr. Wood’s studies, or>>>who, perhaps, are either afraid OR “afraid” to accept them, take the>>>fool’s option of ridiculing them, or, equally often, of most, most>>>blatantly ignoring both those results AND Dr. Wood’s efforts in>>>determining them. The 9/11 truth community greeted Dr. Wood’s>>>Request for Corrections (RFC) to NIST (March 16, 2007) with scorn,>>>despite her being the first person to confront NIST formally about>>>their fraudulent report of the demise of the WTC towers. It was as>>>if the fraud of the NIST report, a report whose integrity was>>>absolutely essential if the official story were to be undergirded,>>>was of no real interest to the wider 9/11 community.>>>>>>Dr. Wood’s federal qui tam case, filed 4/25/2007 against the>>>contractors of the National Institute of Standards and Technology>>>(NIST) for science fraud also received virtually no notice or>>>indication of interest other than ridicule from the 9/11 truth>>>community. Again, it was as if the federal case being brought by Dr.>>>Wood against the NIST contractors for science fraud (in its>>>Congressionally-mandated task that it determine how and why the WTC>>>buildings were destroyed)—as if this entire and absolutely centrall>>>question was of no real interest to the wider 9/11 truth community.>>>That case, further, was itself improperly dismissed as those hearing>>>it treated the case—incorrectly—as if it paralleled the vi views of the>>>general 9/11 truth movement. Those determining whether the case>>>would be allowed to go forward incorrectly assumed, for example,>>>that Dr. Wood (a) blamed the US military (which she does not); (b)>>>they incorrectly assumed that Dr. Wood held the view that there was>>>“substantial evidence that all three buildings collapsed from>>>explosive devices” and that this view was “at the heart of the Wood.>>>. . litigation.” (entirely incorrect); and (c) they incorrectly>>>assumed that Dr. Wood claimed “that the towers were struck by high>>>powered energy beams [from space]” (things that are not in any way>>>her position). All of these issues were addressed, although to no>>>avail, in the Motion for Reconsideration:>>>http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Wood_motion_reconsider.shtm... now the case—due who knows how much to the ridicule and lack oof>>>support from the truth community—has been denied a Writ of a>>>Certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, meaning that the>>>Court will not hear it or allow the factual evidence to be presented>>>in a courtroom, and therefore that the case is dead. How can it be>>>that this is not seen by the 9/11 truth community as an exceedingly>>>enormous defeat? Yet virtually no mention whatsoever of the Supreme>>>Court’s rejection of the case has been forthcoming. It causes me to>>>question the entire purpose of the “9/11 truth movement” (as well as>>>the purpose of your Patriots Question 9/11 website). Anyone who read>>>the document submitted to the United States Supreme Court (available>>>on Dr. Wood’s website) should be appalled by what has taken place.>>>The Court of Appeals essentially stated in a footnote of its written>>>decision that it knew that the law applied to Dr. Wood’s case, but>>>that the court was ignoring the law in order to dismiss her case.>>>>>>>>>In fact, the evidence of science fraud submitted by Dr. Wood is>>>irrefutable. NIST itself admitted to Dr. Wood that its report was a>>>fraud. And not one of the contractors hired by NIST denied her>>>allegations. Then the Court of Appeals ignored the law in order to>>>dismiss the case. What could conceivably explain the lack of>>>interest or response by the 9/11 community? This travesty of>>>justice, the unfounded and prejudicial derailing of Dr. Wood’s case,>>>should be of significant concern to the entire constitutional>>>republic. If laws are ignored for ease of dismissing cases, then we>>>are no longer living in a constitutional republic. We are living no>>>longer in a republic of laws, but in a state where factions of any>>>kind can usurp power through ignoring or pre-empting laws, however>>>ancient they may be, or however firmly embedded in the nation’s>>>founding documents.>>>>>>>>>Dr. Wood filed her federal qui tam case in April 2007. Since that>>>time the “9/11 truth movement” has grown, with your own Patriots>>>Question 9/11 website now reporting “1,060+ Engineers and>>>Architects.” Especially in light of the collection of so many>>>engineers and architects, I find it troubling that, to this day, Dr.>>>Wood is the only engineer, architect, or person of any profession to>>>have filed a federal qui tam case challenging the science fraud in>>>NIST’s report of what destroyed the WTC towers. Those who truly>>>wanted “a new and independent investigation” into what caused the>>>destruction of the WTC should have enthusiastically supported what>>>she did. Such as federal case as she attempted to bring WOULD ITSELF>>>HAVE RESULTED IN a new investigation. There it was, a genuine>>>opportunity for achieving what so many people have been claiming all>>>along to want above all. But now the opportunity has been destroyed>>>by the essentially unaccountable court system as well as the lack of>>>interest in accountability by the so called “truth movement.” All>>>those who scorned Dr. Wood’s work and failed so notably to support>>>her qui tam case may have done so at the expense of this nation.>>>>>>>>>Wood sacrificed her career when she spoke out about 9/11. But>>>instead of praising her heroism, many in the “official-truth>>>movement” have accused her of being an agent or “COINTELPRO” or>>>disinformation agent. Such accusations can easily be dispelled by>>>noting that it is a crime to defraud the government and it is>>>treason if done so by a government agent (see the Smith-Mundt Act).>>>A government agent submitting disinformation to another government>>>agency would amount to the government attacking itself in a>>>psychological operation. Perhaps this explains why no one has>>>submitted “thermite evidence” to NIST. Perhaps this explains why no>>>one has submitted “thermite evidence” in a federal qui tam case.>>>>>>>>>Along these same lines, it is powerfully notable that only after the>>>Supreme Court denied the case in which Dr. Wood included as evidence>>>the aerial photographs of the towers being destroyed on 9/11 were>>>these photographs “newly released” with the claim that they had>>>never before been seen. In truth, not only were they a part both of>>>Dr. Wood’s RFC and her qui tam case, and not only had they already>>>been posted on her web site for FOUR YEARS, but when she prepared>>>the legal documents in early 2007, she gave the images to Jim Fetzer>>>to be used for a photo section in his book—only to have him give>>>credit for them not to Dr. Wood herself but to someone else. An even>>>worse example of the distortion the “truth movement” is capable of,>>>Dr. Fetzer, with the “new” release of the aerial images, treated>>>them publically as images being seen by him for the first time.>>>>>>>>>I have never met Dr. Wood, but I have been aware of her work and>>>have corresponded with her for many years. For the past six of those>>>years, she has been working on a book, due out this year, that will>>>present her work and its results in totality. I know the book very>>>well, since—in consideration of my qualifications as essayist,>>>writer, novelist and author, retired professor of writing,>>>publisher, editor, and 9/11 truth-seeker myself—I have edited it iin>>>its entirety two times, once chapter by chapter and then again when>>>the book was pulled together into its entirety. In my own view, Dr.>>>Wood’s book will prove, in a great number of ways, to be very>>>possibly the most important book yet to have been published in the>>>21st century.>>>>>>>>>So strongly do I feel about the extraordinary importance of Dr.>>>Wood’s research, and about its incalculable superiority to the>>>research—and the “conclusions”—of any and nd all others in the 9/11>>>truth movement, that if she isn’t reinstated on the “Patriots for>>>9/11 Truth” site in acknowledgment of what she has done for this>>>country, I will ask you—and in fact ask you here and now, should DDr.>>>Wood not be reinstated—also to remove me, my picture, my biographyy,>>>and my 9/11-related comments from the site entirely. Those who do>>>not support Dr. Wood’s work are not patriots. It may be concluded>>>that those who do not support Dr. Wood’s work have an unpatriotic>>>agenda that I do not want to be associated with.>>>>>>>>>My best to you, and my gratitude for your attention,>>>>>>>>>>>> Eric Larsen>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.ericlarsen.info>>>>>>>>>http:... message was sent using the University of Minnesota Duluth Webmail>>>>>>----- End forwarded message ----->>>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------->>This message was sent using the University of Minnesota Duluth Webmail>>>>

Views: 175


You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by James H. Fetzer on March 12, 2011 at 9:42pm
I agree with Thoth II, Jeannon.  You have provided a perceptive and sensitive account of Judy's conduct.
Comment by Thoth II on March 12, 2011 at 6:15pm



what a really good post you made below, I am very impressed!


I only disagree about DEW, I myself think it is more likely mini nuke were the main energy source, but time will tell.  I think Dr. Wood is defensive, and acting strangely, but that is not why I don't think DEW were used, I think the mini nuke explains the evidence more naturally.  

Comment by Jeannon Kralj on March 12, 2011 at 2:09pm

I just want to comment on this matter from the standpoint of an average person who has been seeking 9-11 truth since 9-11-01.  I have listened to every radio broadcast of Dr. Fetzer since he began his 9-11 work.  I also recall plainly that Dr. Wood did in the beginning talk about possibility of space based directed energy weapons.  She had one or more files on her website with the words space and beam or beams in the file names.

I certainly with Dr. Wood success in selling her self-published book.  I am sorry that she would allow Ralph  Winterrowd to be the main introducer and presenter of her book on Internet radio, as his conduct is only injuring Dr. Wood's  reputation for scholarliness, integrity and courage in her 9-11 truth seeking.


I am not a scholar or a scientist but I have followed the 9-11 truth movement very closely and demonstrated at the Texas Capitol for one full year regarding 9-11 truth.

From my vantage point, I observe that Dr. Judy Wood has over the last few years appeared to have developed what I think are referred to as "paranoid ideations."  I noticed her behavior when she posted in the final months of the Killtown forum and she was accusing anyone and everyone of, more or less, being out to get her.  She accused me in that manner and inferred that I was a disinformation person and not to be trusted.  I think almost all of the forum participants knew who she was even though she used a screen name.  She certainly knew my screen name and I hers. 

Of all the times I have heard Dr. Fetzer on the radio shows over several years, he has never spoken negatively of Dr. Wood and has almost always, to the contrary, being very supportive of her and her work in many concrete ways.  He has suffered for his support of her work.  She never thanked him for his support and indeed gradually built up a set of accusations about Dr. Fetzer, which were unfortunately supported in writing by Andrew Johnson of CheckTheEvidence.com. 

I read Andrew's articles and could never see any correlation with what I had observed in Dr. Fetzer's behavior that I had observed.  Andrew is a kind, level headed person, but he seemed to be supportive of Dr. Wood's behavior, behavior which to me was appearing more and more unbalanced and unhealthy.


Regarding Dr. Wood's promotion of John Hutchison, I think that I speak for many of us ordinary folk out in radio listening land that we were rather taken aback when Dr. Wood started talking so much about "the Hutchison Effect."  We had all been trained to some extent to try to think logically and scientifically in seeking 9-11 truth, especially by Dr. Fetzer and several of the scholars who were associated with him on his original website.  Then to, all of a sudden, by respected scholar Dr. Judy Wood to accept without question all of this information about John Hutchison and The Hutchison Effect and to accept it as on the same level with quality objective intellectural inquiry, was just a bit much for all of us to take.  Again, Andrew Johnson, gave his wholehearted support to Dr. Wood and her promotion of Hutchison.


As I think back, it was when she started promoting Hutchison that she became defensive and accusatory and many of her long-time supporters dropped away from her.  Maybe that was the beginning of what I am opining may be true clinical paranoia.


I am very much a person who believes there were no actual planes crashing into buildings on 9-11, at least not anything like big Boeings.  I have learned over the years that operation 9-11 was a complex, sophisticated, multi layered psyop and physical operation, employing the best of psyops manipulation techniques.  I do not like it when the study of directed energy in realtion to 9-11 comes in to ill repute because of what has happened in the case of Dr. Judy Wood and her work.  I think there is a very real possibility of directed energy weapons having been used on 9-11, and it is a bit sad to me that now the one person who did the most work on that is being marginalized for various reasons.


From my standpoint, Dr. Fetzer was nothing but a gentleman and a scholar in relation to Dr. Wood and her work.






Comment by Thoth II on March 7, 2011 at 6:36pm
I do remember listening to the famous Judy Wood broadcast in 2006 where she talked about DEW which she thought were being directed from space down to the towers.  I do not believe that the H will have a very likelihood of explaining the evidence.  I think that the amount of energy that would have to come from up in the atmosphere (or space) would be impractical to beam that far.  Recall the old Tesla dream of broadcasting electric power for the masses over electromagnetic waves, I believe this would be akin to this H about the space based DEWs.

© 2020   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service