US District Court Unseals Second 9/11 'Inside Job' Case

US District Court Unseals Second 9/11 ‘Inside Job’ Case



Developments regarding Dr Judy Wood, a former Professor of Mechanical Engineering from Clemson University, and Dr Morgan Reynolds, the former Chief Economist of the US Department of Labor. Both Wood and Reynolds are represented by mainstream attorney Jerry Leaphart.





Those following developments in 9/11 “inside job” legal proceedings are aware that the US District Court in Southern New York unsealed a complaint filed by Dr Morgan Reynolds against private contractors hired by the government. This lawsuit alleges that the contractors supplied bogus analyses for the NIST Report of an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding through a steel and concrete building . Information pertaining to this lawsuit, including a PDF of the unsealed complaint, can be found on Reynolds website:

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=federal_case





More recently however, September 12, 2007 to be exact, the Southern New York District Court unsealed a second “inside job” case. This second complaint was filed by Dr Judy Wood against the same private contractors, alleging the World Trade Center was destroyed by Directed Energy Weapons (DEW), and not airplane strikes, jet fuel fires, or gravity. Wood’s unsealed complaint is available here (in the Qui Tam section): http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html



Dr James Fetzer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, interviewed Dr Wood and Mr Leaphart on his October 11th Dynamic Duo radio show to discuss the new unsealed complaint. An MP3 of this broadcast is downloadable at this link: http://tinyurl.com/3dmpqo



Dr Fetzer also submitted a press release for this wonderful news. Read it and learn that NIST admitted to Dr Wood (in writing) that they did not analyze the “collapse” of the towers!

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_071011_9_2f11_scholar_files__22.htm





One of the Defendants, Applied Research Associates (ARA), is a manufacturer of directed energy weapons :

http://drjudywood.com/articles/ARA/ARA.html



ARA is also a Silver Level Founding Sponsor of the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS). Founded in 1999, DEPS put out their first newsletter one year before 9/11, containing the following excerpt:



"Lasers in space, lasers in the stratosphere, lasers

on and over the battlefield - we're at the

beginning of an evolutionary new wave of

weaponry."

http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/graphics/wavefront2.pdf







Dr Wood has also discovered that the "Capabilities - National Defense and Aerospace" section of ARA's website contains an image depicting a simulation with the following characteristics:



1. A building (in the foreground) having damage similar to that of WTC 6 and the Murrah Building in OK City.



2. A building (behind the red building) with the same cosmetic design as WTC 3.



3. A building (in the background) turning to dust similar to the Twin Towers.



Here's the image:







See pages 3 and 4 of Dr Wood’s Appeal to NIST for information regarding that photo:

http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_WoodAppeal.html

 

Judy Wood is never to be trusted, nor are anyone who promote such absurdist ideas such as "direct energy (space) beams", lazer weaponry, or television fakery (the stupid notion that no planes hit the buildings despite the thousands of eye witnesses who didn't use a television).

For truly trustworthy 9/11 truth coverage and member participation, check out www.911blogger.com
There are certainly disinfo agents there who attempt to steer the conversation away from the stated goals of the site, but it's the most impervious-to-disinfo 9/11 truth site there is. There's a very reliable "rating system" that's good at deciphering who is there to promote real analysis and debate, versus those who are there to destroy the 9/11 truth movement.

For just news without member participation, go to www.9/11truth.org
Of course links abound as this movement is enormous.
You just have to use your gut instinct as well as your common sense to determine who is legit and who is not.

Those who are most certainly not trustworthy 9/11 researchers:

1. Judy Wood
2. James Fetzer
3. Nico Haupt
4. Morgan Reynolds
5. Webster Tarpley (a new and sad development)
others I'm sure

Those who ARE trustworthy truth seekers:

1. David Ray Griffin
2. Barry Zwicker
3. Kevin Ryan
4. Steven Jones
5. Loose Change crew
many others

 

Who are you to tell people who to trust and who not to trust? Just because you are incapable of thinking for yourself, doesn't mean everyone else is as well.

 

It's just their opinion dude. Chill.

Why did you find the need to insult them?

 

OK nevermind. I have read some of your other posts. Being rude, insulting people and calling them names is just how you roll. Having that kind of hostility inside you is not good for the soul.

 

Ah, Pressed Rat just has a direct way of expressing his opinions.
It is a valid question though. Who is exposethetruth that we should regard his judgments about the veracity of people as valid?

 

Is he even referring to me?

 

That's one of their tactics...also called "ad hominem".

 

Has nothing at all to do with *who I am*. In fact that's a very superficial, arrogant (not to mention typically American) reflex question to ask. What you SHOULD be thinking about is not WHO I am...but WHAT I'm saying, and the fact that you should (regardless of WHO I am) investigate the claims I've made above (which many other legit truthers agree with and can substantiate) yourself. You should regard "my" judgments as valid once you've done your own research. But that would involve thinking *for yourself*, would it not??

Has nothing to do with who I am. I'm just a messanger. In fact I even provided a couple links above to begin your research, that is, if you're not too lazy, scared of cognitive dissonance, or unwilling to think for yourself. Sorry, but these are obstacles that need to be overcome within the American collective psyche.

Surely Pressed Rat will be making his rounds here soon to twist my logic around probably using a straw-man argument, or just yet another ad hominem attack. He IS the patrol-man around here, no? hehehe

 

I think it has a lot to do with who you, (or who anyone else is who is spreading some kind of information). What your connections, agendas, biases, background and experiences are makes the information quite a bit.

The message and the messenger should not be detached, that is just naive.

So should I read a history book or political book without taking into consideration who the person is who wrote the book? Don't think so.

 

But Carl, you're assuming that I (me, personally) am the end-all/be-all to the 9/11 truth movement. My friend, we number in the tens of millions throughout the globe.

And all we are is a google click or 2 away.