8/13/2019 090617_9-11CaseToHaveItsDay
1/2
Press Release, June 17, 2009
1 of 2
9/11 QUI TAM CASE
WILL HAVE ITS DAY IN COURT
23rd June 2009 Manhattan, New York The Qui Tam Case of Dr.
JudyWood - Docket Number 08-3799-cv), DC Docket Number: 07-cv-3314
is tohave an Oral Hearing.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRLog (Press Release) Jun 17, 2009 In 2005, a number of reports
wereissued by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology)
which were theresult of a study, mandated by congress, to
"Determine why and how WTC 1 andWTC 2 collapsed ...". In April
2007, Dr. Wood, with the help of a Connecticut
Attorney Jerry Leaphart, lodged a Qui Tam complaint against some
of thecontractors employed by NIST. This complaint followed an
earlier "Request ForCorrection" (RFC) with regard to the same NIST
WTC reports, establishing her as
the first to address the fact that thisreport did not even
contain an analysisof the collapse of the WTC towers.Dr. Woods
original RFC defined howNCSTAR1 is fraudulent anddeceptive because
it does not addressthe profound level of destruction of theWTC
towers that seemed to violate thelaws of physics. NIST denied
Dr.Woods RFC, admitting they did not
analyze the collapse. That is, thespokesperson for NIST admitted
thatthey did not fulfil the mandate bycongress. (The title of the
report isNIST NCSTAR 1 Final Report onthe Collapse of the World
Trade CenterTowers, yet they did not analyze the"collapse" or even
determine if itactually did collapse.) Dr. Wood'ssubsequent appeal
to NIST was alsodenied, though the Qui Tam case -against some of
the contractors thatNIST employed - went forward.
In the original RFC, Dr. Wood stated that NIST cannot make a
statement that theWorld Trade Center towers came down in free fall
on one hand, and then saythat doing so is a form of collapse. Wood
also stated that Use of thedescriptive word collapse is incorrect
and points out that according to NISTsown data, their explanation
of how the towers were dustified does not satisfythe laws of
Physics. Dr. Wood uses the word dustify because she has identifieda
new phenomenon where the building was turned to dust - it was not
vaporizedby high heat nor was it smashed by kinetic energy. She
concludes from her study,
Tower Turns to Dust
