NO -- Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. James Fetzer, Richard Gage and Kevin Ryan [and their
lackeys/truthers].
YES -- Dr. Judy Wood with her new book.
This is the ONLY forensic investigation with comprehensive empirical evidence of the
destruction of the WTC, i.e., "the new investigation" precluding EVEN the illusion of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Final Report, which has
admitted that NIST did not investigate the "collapse" of the WTC.
WELL, Good News, the Where Did The Towers Go Book is available and can be purchased at
www.wheredidthetowersgo.com .
Now that the "what" and "how" has been established of the WTC therefore those that
promulgate and espouse their who dunnit theories from the box-cutters folks, Muslims,
Israelis, our coup d'etat goverment, our military, etc. are now armed with the empirical
evidence to pursue the "who" had the Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) technology to
accomplish the WTC -- 9/11 destruction.
Step 1 -- you can send your Congressmen in D.C. the book ( the empirical evidence
("what" and "how") that was mandated by Congress for NIST to provide but didn't), so now
there isn't even a plausible deniability excuse for Congress to not act.
Step 2 -- you can now demand now that the empirical evidence, being now available to
Congress for them to now subpoena the following two companies that have the answers to
the "who" [who dunnit] had the DEW technology to accomplish 9/11 destruction, to wit:
a. Applied Research Associates
b. Science Applications International Corp.
Dr. Wood announced on the Red Ice Radio that her new Book was now available which aired
on January 18, 2011 from an interview on January 9, 2011.
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2011/01/RIR-110118.php Dr. Wood also announced her new book on the Ralph Winterrowd Show February 13, 2011
along with Jerry Leaphart, the attorney on the Qui Tam Case, with a followup show on
February 20, 2011 on the same subject.
http://www.republicbroadcasting.orgSo the question becomes why are all of the 9/11 "truth" (sic) movement folks so silent?
Are you working in the back rooms of the PsyOps centers attempting to come up a means
to attack the messenger still? Is the censoring machinery operating?
Ralph
======================================================
======================================================
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:38:01 -0500
To: Alan Miller
From: Eric Larsen
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—not some, but all—of the available empirical,
observable evidence that 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—successfully—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 “remains” 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 central
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 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.shtmlAnd now the case—due who knows how much to the ridicule and lack of 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 in 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 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 Dr. Wood not be reinstated—also to remove
me, my picture, my biography, 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
Comment by James H. Fetzer on March 4, 2011 at 10:54pm
Comment by Thoth II on March 4, 2011 at 8:13pm
Comment by Shallel Octavia on March 4, 2011 at 6:29pm
You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!
Join 9/11 Scholars Forum