9/11 Qui Tam Case Filed in US Supreme Court
29 December 2009 – Ridgefield Connecticut/Clemson South Carolina – The Qui Tam Case of Dr. Judy Wood – Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Docket Number 08-3799-cv), United States District Court (SDNY) Docket Number: 07-cv-3314 has been filed in the US Supreme Court in a petition for writ of certiorari.
Publicly available information about the status of the petition can be found at the Supreme Court's website at: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/09-548.htm
Below is a summary of the nature of Dr Wood’s Qui Tam Case, for full details, see Dr Wood’s Webpage: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml'
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 NIST employed to produce these reports. 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.
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.” Dr Wood concluded from her study, that a new type of Directed Energy Weapon was used to destroy most or all of the WTC buildings. This weapon appears to utilise “field effects” in its operation – it is fundamentally different to known types of directed energy weapons, such as lasers and masers. Dr Wood’s Qui Tam submissions do not discuss the use of “ray beams from space” (a term which has been used to mis-represent what the case focuses on). The case discusses many, many pieces of evidence which indicate the presence of field effects in and around the WTC complex on 9/11 - including pictures of girders which 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 anomalous dust effects, flipped cars, and cars which are “toasted” – but show damage inconsistent with a hot fire. Anomalous rusting and effects seen in the Deutsche Bank building are also noted. Dr. Wood’s later research has also documented the presence of Hurricane Erin, which was closest to NYC at about 8am on 9/11, but was not widely reported.
Dr. Wood also points out that some defendants in the Qui Tam - such as Applied Research Associates (ARA) - are developers and/or manufacturers of Directed Energy Weapons systems or components. This therefore would be one example of a “conflict of interest” in producing a truthful report. Dr Wood’s case states that ARA and other NIST contractors exhibited “wilful blindness” when they produced their part of the NCSTAR reports.
Dr. Wood has demonstrated that the Twin Towers did not burn up nor did a significant portion of them “crash down”; they turned to powder in mid air. Fire alone cannot turn a quarter-mile tall building to powder in 8-10 seconds. The respondents herein knew or should have known this and they therefore engaged in actionable fraud within the meaning of the FCA. Contrary to what some have assumed, the case is not one which identifies or attempts to identify the perpetrators of the destruction of the WTC complex.
In June 2008, Judge George Daniels of the Court of the SDNY dismissed Dr. Wood’s case, but Dr. Wood asserted that the court’s ruling did not address the evidence discussed above (the ruling can be read at the website above). A decision was therefore made to lodge an appeal and another round of submissions took place. Following submission of extensive documentation, oral argument of the case took place on 23rd June 2009, in the Ceremonial Courtroom (9th Floor), at 500 Pearl Street, Manhattan, New York City.
On July 13, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, issued an 11 page decision in which it affirmed the lower court's decision dismissing Dr. Judy Wood's Qui Tam case. (This was slightly amended on 16th of July.) In common with the first ruling, analysis done on behalf of Dr. Wood led to the conclusion that the appellate court had not properly addressed the arguments presented in the appeal. An interesting point was raised because the “False Claims Act” (FCA), which relates directly to all cases like those initiated by Dr Judy Wood, was enhanced – and those enhancements applied to all cases which were pending as of June 7, 2008. The Second Circuit acknowledged on the one hand that the FCA had been amended, but on the other, it did not take those amendments into account in its ruling.
An important development occurred in early December when Attorney Jerry Leaphart wrote to the United States Department of Justice, National Security Division and to existing United States Department of Defense Military Commissions defence counsel for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who is accused of conspiring in the “officially described” 9/11 plot. Jerry Leaphart’s letters outlined the evidence in Dr. Wood’s case and which has been put into the public record via NIST and other governmental sources. In a legal sense, this essentially raises “reasonable doubt” (to put it no more strongly than that) in regard to the official story of 9/11 and therefore could be used in Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s defence as “exculpatory” information which the government must provide to KSM’s defence counsel.
For more information, please use the details below.
Jerry Leaphart, Jerry V. Leaphart & Assoc., P.C. 8 West Street, Suite 203 Danbury, CT 06810 phone - (203) 825-6265 , fax – (203) 825-6256, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Dr. Judy Wood/Qui Tam Case: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml
NIST’s filings of the RFC’s and responses can be found at: