Legal Challenges


video - Jerry Leaphart, Judy Wood's attorney, on the NIST data quality act and Judy's Qui Tam cases requesting NIST to correct it's data and accusing NIST of fraud. 2 NIST contractors are specifically named: SAIC and ARA.

Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood's legal case against NIST

video - Morgan Reynolds on what the collapses should have looked like

Dr. Judy Wood's Qui Tam Case page

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DR. JUDY WOOD on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Relator, vs.

Defendants.
APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. (ARA), SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.(SAIC), UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC., WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES, INC. (WJE), ROLF JENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.(RJA), COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC., SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER, INC. (SGH), SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL, LLP (SOM), GILSANZ MURRAY STEFICEK LLP (GMS), HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC. (HA), ROSENWASSER/GROSSMAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P.C., S. K. GHOSH ASSOCIATES, INC. (GA), TENG & ASSOCIATES, INC. (TA), AJMAL ABBASI, EDUARDO KAUSEL, DAVID PARKS, DAVID SHARP, JOSEF VAN DYCK, KASPAR WILLIAM, DANIELE VENEZANO, DATASOURCE, INC., GEOSTAATS, INC., NuSTATS,

In 2005, a number of reports were issued by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) which were the result of a study, mandated by congress, to "Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed ...". In April 2007, Dr. Wood, with the help of a Connecticut Attorney Jerry Leaphart, lodged a Qui Tam complaint against some of the contractors employed by NIST. This complaint followed an earlier Request For Correction (RFC) with regard to the same NIST WTC reports, establishing her as the first to address the fact that this report did not even contain an analysis of the collapse of the WTC towers. Dr. Wood's original RFC defined how NCSTAR1 is "fraudulent and deceptive" because it does not address the profound level of destruction of the WTC towers that seemed to violate the laws of physics. NIST denied Dr. Wood's RFC, admitting they did not analyze the collapse. That is, the spokesperson for NIST admitted that they did not fulfil the mandate by congress. (The title of the report is "NIST NCSTAR 1 – Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers," yet they did not analyze the "collapse" or even determine if it actually did collapse.) Dr. Wood's subsequent appeal to NIST was also denied, though the Qui Tam case - against some of the contractors that NIST employed - went forward. Dr. Wood also points out that Applied Research Associates (ARA) – one of the defendants in the Qui Tam action - were one of the contractors for the NCSTAR reports and that they are a significant developer and 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. Dr. Wood’s Qui Tam documents include a study of additional evidence to illustrate that NIST's contractors exhibited "wilful blindness" when they produced their part of the NCSTAR reports. For example, the contractors' own explanations did not address the fact that much of the steel in the towers turned to dust before it reached the ground. Dr. Wood’s submissions include a study of some of the effects seen in the aftermath of the WTC destruction (anomalous dust effects, anomalous rusting) and anomalous effects seen on some of the surviving WTC steel girders, pictures of which were included in the original NIST reports. The girders are bent and deformed in unusual ways – and because the towers turned to dust, the effects on the girders cannot be explained as being caused by a gravity-driven collapse. In Dr. Wood's submission, certain effects on metals and on objects near the WTC are also considered – such as inverted or flipped cars, and cars which are "toasted" – but show damage inconsistent with a hot fire.

docket

Dr. Judy Wood's Requests for Correction submitted to NIST

DATA QUALITY ACT (DQA) CHALLENGES HAVE BEEN FILED WITH NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY (NIST)

The DQA challenges are called Requests for Correction (RFC). Each one asserts that NIST's reporting on the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/01 is lacking in quality, integrity. Some challenge NIST's conclusions and evasions as being fraudulent, misleading and deceptive. These three RFCs are the first known to have been filed with NIST that challenge the validity of the official explanations of what caused the near instanteous destruction of the World Trade Center complex on September 11, 2001.

In the original RFC, Dr. Wood stated 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 stated that use of the descriptive word "collapse" is incorrect and points out that according to NIST's own data, their explanation of how the towers were "dustified" does not satisfy the laws of physics.

NIST's response to Dr. Wood's RFC

Request for Correction to 9/11 NIST Report submitted by Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice

The Request asserts that the NIST Final Report violates information quality standards, draws inferences that are inconsistent with its own computer simulations and physical tests, and exhibits a significant bias toward a preordained conclusion while ignoring available evidence contrary to it. The Request also says that if this bias is corrected, the NIST simulation clearly indicates that the Towers should not have collapsed due to plane damage and fire. The obvious alternative, which the group says should have been studied by NIST, is explosive demolition.
last updated March 22, 2011.