Letter sent by Dr Judy Wood ( http://www.drjudywood.com ) to directed energy weapons professionals:
-----------------------







Dr. JUDY WOOD
lisajudy@nctv.com


04-07-07

VIA FACSIMILE 202-395-3888 FEDEX & EMAIL

Ms. Susan J. Thornton
Air Force Research Laboratory
Directed Energy Directorate
Office of Public Affairs
3550 Aberdeen Avenue S.E.
Kirtland Air Force Base, NM 87117-5776

FedEx No. 8614 4577 3211

and Distribution List


Directed Energy Weapons destroy World Trade Center complex:

Ref.: Request for Correction per Section 515 Public Law 106-554

U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Chief Information Officer
See:
http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/s/groups/...d01_002667.pdf


Dear Sirs/Madam:

I am not so naïve as to think that leveling the charge that directed energy weapons (DEW) were a causal factor in the 9/11/01 (9/11) destruction of the World Trade Center complex (WTC) will be received as "good news" by U.S. governmental officials. This is not "good news" but it is a necessary query and a supported claim.

I am a research scientist with skills, expertise, background and training sufficient to enable me to formulate rational, evidence-based findings and conclusions. I have amassed and caused to be filed with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) a Request for Correction (RFC), as referenced and accessible as above, that summarizes salient portions of the evidence substantiating the theory that DEW are a causal factor in the 9/11 destruction of the WTC.

I have also asserted that NIST's failure to properly explain that destruction results from fraud and that the fraud is a result of NIST having contracted with, among other parties, key manufacturers of DEW, key participants in official psychological operations (psy ops) and marketing firms, specializing in controlling public perception, as well as other parties having a clear and direct conflict of interest that would militate against an accurate description of what caused the destruction of the WTC on 9/11.

And the parties so engaged knew as much, or should have known.

Each of the persons to whom this letter is addressed can reasonably be expected to either know the extent to which the effects mentioned in the referenced RFC are consistent with DEW; or, know of persons who would know that information. I am aware, for example, that as of the year 2000, weapons having the capacity to destroy the WTC were deployed.

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

I am informed by my counsel, Attorney Jerry V. Leaphart, that it is appropriate to assume that many of those to whom this letter is addressed are persons whose positions within government and/or as private contractors, would probably place some or all of them within the purview of the rigors set forth in, among other places, 32 CFR Part 154.

Accordingly, and to that end, I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Clay Johnson III, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, who, I am told, is the overall supervisor and person in charge of the regulatory apparatus associated with security clearances.

I am doing that, on advice of counsel, in order to help avoid any reticence any of you might have in replying to the central query; to wit:

Are the effects set forth in the referenced RFC consistent with the destructive effects that would result from the use of DEW?

Because this query arises in the context of a presently pending challenge under the Data Quality Act, I assert that your replies cannot properly be used against you in any way under 32 CFR Part 154, or any other aspect of the requirements any of you may have as a result of your security clearances.

Written confirmation of the correctness of this observation from OMB Deputy Director for Management, Clay Johnson III, is requested. To be clear, I am requesting that Mr. Johnson confirm that there is nothing in any of the security clearances applicable to any of the persons to whom this is addressed that would preclude a forthcoming reply to the query posed above, concerning the effects associated with the use of High Energy Lasers and/or other directed energy weapons. On the other hand, if certain additional protocols or procedures are required to obtain a reply to the query, then I request Mr. Johnson indicate what procedures and protocols are to be followed to obtain the answers I am seeking.


Respectfully,



Dr. Judy Wood


Cc:
Mr. Clay Johnson III
OMB Deputy Director for Management
The Office of Management and Budget
725 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20503
f- 202-395-3888

Distribution List:

Dr. William Baker (2009)
wbaker@deps.org

Dr. Rettig Benedict Jr. (2009)
rbenedict@deps.org

Dennis Boesen (200
dboesen@deps.org

Edward Duff (2007)
eduff@deps.org

Maj Gen Donald Lamberson (200
dlamberson@deps.org

Louis Marquet (2007)
lmarquet@deps.org

Thomas Meyer (2009)
tmeyer@deps.org

Ed Pogue (200
epogue@deps.org

Dr. J. Thomas Schriempf (2009)
tschriempf@deps.org

Hon. Henry Waxman




Cc:
Attorney Jerry V. Leaphart
8 West Street #203
Danbury, CT 06810

p-203-825-6265
f-203-825-6256

Source: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/DEW_letter.html

See link above for letter posted before with full formatting, and an important comment by Attorney Jerry Leaphart on whistleblowers.

---------------------------------------------------------
DEW Information Requests

Answers are being sought from Head of U.S. Air Force Directed Energy Directorate, Susan J. Thornton,
OMB Deputy Director, Clay Johnson III, and
Board of Directors of Directed Energy Professional Society

Hon. Henry Waxman, notified

Main question is:
Are the effects set forth in RFC filed with NIST (pdf) consistent with the destructive effects that would result from the use of directed energy weapons? (other resolutions of this RFC)

Text of query letter and analysis of reasons for it follow:
=====================

[See link above]

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Jones_Response1.html

Invitation to post a simultaneous response letter
Response 1

Email1 from Steven E. Jones to Judy Wood:

Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 15:01:47 -0600
From: Steve Jones
To: Judy Wood
Subject: Invitation to post a simultaneous reponse letter
Cc: KEVIN RYAN

Dear Dr. Wood,

Attached is a Letter submitted to the Journal of 9/11 Studies; it is now undergoing peer review.
Since the Letter quotes you directly (in an interview with Dr. Jenkins), you are invited to write a response-Letter for simultaneous publication in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. You may request that your response be peer-reviewed or published without peer-review and we will honor your request. If your response is received by May 15 (eight days from now), then it can be co-published with the attached. Of course, Letters for the Journal of 9/11 Studies are welcomed at any time.
Thank you,
Steven Jones
Attachment converted:Wood-Jenkins Interview.pdf

__________________________________________________ ________________________
Email1 from Judy Wood to Steven E. Jones:
Dr. JUDY WOOD

Date: Tues, 8 May 2007 17:30:00 -0400
From: Judy Wood
To: Steve Jones
Subject: Re: Invitation to post a simultaneous response letter
Cc: KEVIN RYAN

Dear Dr. Jones,

This acknowledges your many courtesies in letting me know of your intention to publish yet another version of the January 10, 2007, interview between myself and Dr. Greg Jenkins. The original transcript was already posted on my website. I respectfully decline to comment in detail, but would ask that you post this letter, as you have stated you would do, as a 'simultaneous letter.' http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Jenkins_transcript.html

The many criticisms of my interview replies serve little useful purpose at this time as the causal theory that I espouse has moved well beyond where it was in January. It is fair to say that much has happened since January that would render the criticism of the critical interview (a form of double-dipping, perhaps?) rather out of date, in my opinion. That said, I do not here claim that you should not publish the criticism if that is what you think is best for your journal.

The DEW causal theory is now pending as an official Request for Correction (RFC) within the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), that I filed on March 16, 2007, some two months after the January 10th interview. More recently, I have supplemented the RFC on two separate occasions wherein I have specifically called attention to fraud within the meaning of the False Claims Act, 31 USC @ 1329 et seg., that enables me to file law suits against certain parties, which law suits must be filed under seal and kept confidential until permission is received to say more about them.

My RFCs further reveal that NIST was assisted in the preparation of a false and fraudulent report on what caused the destruction of World Trade Center 1 and 2 (WTC1,2) by major developers of directed energy weapons; namely: Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA) and Science Applications International Inc. (SAIC), among other contractors who should have known that fraud was being committed.

In the case of ARA and SAIC, the extent of their knowledge is derived, in part, from having developed directed energy weapons. Between the two of them, ARA and SAIC had some 25 persons assigned to work on the NIST project, leading to the publication of NCSTAR1, the report on what caused the destruction of WTC1,2.

I can tell you that the response to my RFCs and to the revelations of fraud that they contain and the identification of major DEW contractors, that they also contain, has resulted in a new interest in and emphasis upon DEW theory that did not exist as at January 10th.

I can also reveal that the DEW theory has been presented to numerous responsible governmental officials whose work on directed energy weapons would put them in a position of knowing what effects would result from use of such weapons.
Finally, I can reveal that the queries I have caused to be submitted are being taken seriously. As this letter is being written, Dr. Jones, I can tell you that evidence of support of the correctness of DEW theory and corresponding correctness of assertions of fraud in the official reporting is accumulating rapidly with respect to both causation and fraud.

I do not find it necessary to respond directly to the interview criticism in either its original content or in the further criticism in the new letter. My line of research in furtherance of DEW causal theory has taken a different direction that neither benefits nor suffers from public criticism of the theory. Opinions on the matter differ and I respect those who have differing opinions.

Please post this letter in its entirety. If you do not, I will reveal that you invited this reply and promised simultaneous posting, then reneged.


With sincere good wishes, I am


Very truly yours,
Dr. Judy Wood
__________________________________________________ ________________________
__________________________________________________ ________________________
__________________________________________________ ________________________
__________________________________________________ ________________________
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Jones_Response2.html
Invitation to post a simultaneous response letter
Response 2

Email2 from Steven E. Jones to Judy Wood:
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 15:01:47 -0600
From: Steve Jones
To: Judy Wood
Subject: Re: Invitation to post a simultaneous reponse letter
Cc: KEVIN RYAN
Dear Dr. Wood,

Attached is a Letter submitted to the Journal of 9/11 Studies; it is now undergoing peer review.
Since the Letter quotes directly from the RFC bearing your name, you are invited to write a response-Letter for simultaneous publication in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

You may request that your response be peer-reviewed or published without peer-review and we will honor your request. If your response is received by May 15 (eight days from now), then it can be co-published with the attached.

Of course, Letters submitted to the Journal of 9/11 Studies are welcomed at any time.

Thank you,
Steven Jones

Attachment converted:NIST RFC Wood Rebuttal.pdf

__________________________________________________ ________________________
Email2 from Judy Wood to Steven E. Jones:

Dr. JUDY WOOD

Date: Tues, 8 May 2007 17:30:00 -0400
From: Judy Wood
To: Steve Jones
Subject: Re: Re: Invitation to post a simultaneous response letter
Cc: KEVIN RYAN

Dear Dr. Jones,
Thank you, once again, for alerting me of the pendency of a second publication that will appear in your journal. You have indicated that "A Brief Analysis of Dr. Judy Wood's RFC to NIST: the good, the bad and the ugly" by Dr Greg Jenkins and Arabesque will appear and that I should provide you with my reply by May 15th.

I do so as follows:

I decline a peer-reviewed approach, but would ask that you publish this letter as you've indicated you would.
The article, which I will henceforth refer to by the second part of its title "the good, the bad & the ugly" helps to advance interest in the subject of directed energy weaponry as a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center complex, and, in particular, WTC 1 and 2 (WTC1,2). It does so by way of criticism, but criticism is fair. That said, criticism is not self-validating and much of the content of the forthcoming good,bad,ugly article have been articulated elsewhere. One would hope that the technique of repetition of wrongly oriented criticisms will not become the operating norm of these authors. That said, please know that I respect the right of Dr. Jenkins and of Arabesque to disagree with me.

I here assert that any further commentary from me would be inappropriate at this time and should, instead, be reserved until such time as NIST provides its officially mandated reply to my RFC, together with other procedures applicable to the official RFC process.

I do not want to prejudice NIST's review. I will reiterate, however, that I stand by the validity of the assertions contained in the RFC that is the topic of "the good, the bad & the ugly" in full.

Thank you in advance for publishing this letter in its entirety.

Very truly yours,
Dr. Judy Wood

Reading Between The Lines -- Jenkins/Wood interview revisited, Text, Subtext and The Truth About DEWs - Transcript
10 April 2007, transcript by Andrew Lowe Watson, with added pictures & comments


Reading between the lines reveals more evidence behind the use of DEW on 9/11 and advances scientific understanding of what happened

This began as "Dr. Greg Jenkins' Surprise 'Interview' of Prof. Judy Wood: a Transcript Analysis," with a transcription by Andrew Lowe Watson, and with added pictures & comments. Many thanks to Andrew for taking the time to see what was actually in this video and for sharing the text of the transcript with us. Also, we wish to thank Greg Jenkins for the valuable clues he gave us in advancing our understanding of the effects of DEW (Directed Energy Weapons).


FULL TEXT HERE:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Jenkins_transcript.html


================================================== =

Everyone should give this a full reading. Learn how Jenkins tried to trick Dr Wood and failed, numerous times!

Jenkins can't even answer Wood's questions and tries to change the subject several times, as revealed here:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Jenkin...ipt.html#panic

====================================
Also download Judy's latest radio interview (May 2, 2007) in this 8MB MP3:
http://tinyurl.com/3chj54

Hear the clear evidence of directed energy weaponry usage at the WTC on 9/11


See her new page "DEW Sponsors and Department of Defense Contractors"
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/DEW_Contractors.html

Did you know that Boeing, as well as other companies, are designing lasers for airplanes? Watch Boeing's "infomercial-type" videos linked from the site above.



See Dr Wood's site: http://www.drjudywood.com

Check out the DEW evidence:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

What do people think of her DEW research? How do **you** feel? What's your impression of the people trying to discredit her and her DEW evidence? Why are they going through so much trouble? Are they afraid the public will learn of their new high-tech weaponry?