Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
Eric Larsen, Publisherhttp://www.ericlarsen.infohttp://www.oliveropenpress.com
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. Woodâs 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,
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.
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" <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>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 email@example.com ----->> Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 15:15:01 -0600>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org>>Subject: Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO "PATRIOTS QUESTION 9/11.com">> To: "Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd" <email@example.com>,>>firstname.lastname@example.org>> Cc: "Alan Miller" <alan.miller@PatriotsQuestion911.com>, "Dr.>>Steven Jones" <email@example.com>, "Steven Jones">><firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Gage Richard" <email@example.com>,>>"Kevin Ryan" <firstname.lastname@example.org>>>>>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" <email@example.com>:>>>>>Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:38:01 -0500>>>>>>To: Alan Miller>>>>>>From: Eric Larsen <firstname.lastname@example.org>>>>>>>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,>>>>>>>>>Iâve noticed that Dr. Judy Wood isnât any longer listed or cited on>>>âPatriots Question 9/11.â 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. Woodâs 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 allnott>>>some, but allof the available empirical, observable evidence thatt>>>pertains solely to the âwhatâ 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 âwho âdidâ it.â That question, in her view, is>>>meaningless until the scientifically true âwhatâ of what happened is>>>known. This âwhatâ is what she sets outsuccessfulllyto show. That>>>is, she does not say that â9/11 was an inside jobâ because that fact>>>has not been scientifically established. Her focus is solely on the>>>empirical, measurable, and observable study of evidence of any>>>relevant kindfrom analysis, measurement, and study of the âremainsâ>>>of the WTC buildings through analysis of the seismic record of that>>>dayâs events, study of anomalies in the earthâs 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 stormâs field effects in relation to the>>>enormous high pressure cell that was simultaneously approaching NYC>>>from the west).>>>>>>Dr. Woodâs 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 hasnât 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 âchooseâ not>>>to accept the evidence-based conclusions of Dr. Woodâs studies, or>>>who, perhaps, are either afraid OR âafraidâ to accept them, take the>>>foolâs option of ridiculing them, or, equally often, of most, most>>>blatantly ignoring both those results AND Dr. Woodâs efforts in>>>determining them. The 9/11 truth community greeted Dr. Woodâs>>>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. Woodâs 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 caseincorrectlyas 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>>>âsubstantial evidence that all three buildings collapsed from>>>explosive devicesâ and that this view was âat the heart of the Wood.>>>. . litigation.â (entirely incorrect); and (c) they incorrectly>>>assumed that Dr. Wood claimed âthat the towers were struck by high>>>powered energy beams [from space]â (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 casedue who knows how much to the ridicule and lack oof>>>support from the truth communityhas 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>>>Courtâs rejection of the case has been forthcoming. It causes me to>>>question the entire purpose of the â9/11 truth movementâ (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. Woodâs 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. Woodâs 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. Woodâs 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 nationâs>>>founding documents.>>>>>>>>>Dr. Wood filed her federal qui tam case in April 2007. Since that>>>time the â9/11 truth movementâ has grown, with your own Patriots>>>Question 9/11 website now reporting â1,060+ Engineers and>>>Architects.â 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>>>NISTâs report of what destroyed the WTC towers. Those who truly>>>wanted âa new and independent investigationâ 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 âtruth movement.â All>>>those who scorned Dr. Woodâs 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 âofficial-truth>>>movementâ have accused her of being an agent or âCOINTELPROâ 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 âthermite evidenceâ to NIST. Perhaps this explains why no>>>one has submitted âthermite evidenceâ 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 ânewly releasedâ with the claim that they had>>>never before been seen. In truth, not only were they a part both of>>>Dr. Woodâs 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 bookonly to have him give>>>credit for them not to Dr. Wood herself but to someone else. An even>>>worse example of the distortion the âtruth movementâ is capable of,>>>Dr. Fetzer, with the ânewâ 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, sincein consideration of my qualifications as essayist,>>>writer, novelist and author, retired professor of writing,>>>publisher, editor, and 9/11 truth-seeker myselfI 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.>>>Woodâs 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.>>>Woodâs research, and about its incalculable superiority to the>>>researchand the âconclusionsâof any and nd all others in the 9/11>>>truth movement, that if she isnât reinstated on the âPatriots for>>>9/11 Truthâ site in acknowledgment of what she has done for this>>>country, I will ask youand in fact ask you here and now, should DDr.>>>Wood not be reinstatedalso to remove me, my picture, my biographyy,>>>and my 9/11-related comments from the site entirely. Those who do>>>not support Dr. Woodâs work are not patriots. It may be concluded>>>that those who do not support Dr. Woodâs 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>>>>