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,
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),
JOSEF VAN DYCK,
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 -
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.
Dr. Judy Wood's Requests for
Correction submitted to NIST
DATA QUALITY ACT (DQA) CHALLENGES HAVE BEEN FILED WITH NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND
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
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.