Wood and Reynolds Qui Tam Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
This happened at the end of June, but I guess I never posted on it here. The outcome is no surprise really. The article duly notes that the court found how baseless Wood's claims were-- that she has no evidence for her DEW device, for instance.
More interesting I think is how in the article the author discusses if Wood is disinfo, and implies she denies it with one of the pages on her site. Except she DOESN'T DENY IT at the page linked! She only lists evidence of disinfo. The author also says Wood tries to convince people she's of sound mind by linking to a page Wood has on false memory syndrome, which doesn't prove his point at all. Clearly the fellow who wrote the piece has an agenda against 9/11 "truthers", but I found it odd that he mischaracterized such obvious clues about Wood.
More interesting I think is how in the article the author discusses if Wood is disinfo, and implies she denies it with one of the pages on her site. Except she DOESN'T DENY IT at the page linked! She only lists evidence of disinfo. The author also says Wood tries to convince people she's of sound mind by linking to a page Wood has on false memory syndrome, which doesn't prove his point at all. Clearly the fellow who wrote the piece has an agenda against 9/11 "truthers", but I found it odd that he mischaracterized such obvious clues about Wood.
posted by spooked at 10:44 AM
18 Comments:
One of the most interesting things from that piece at 911flogger is that while saying they will not allow any outrageous (to them) 911 posts from now on, and they list NPT and DEW, they do not even (dare) mention the nuclear 9/11 truth and the CSA (China Syndrome Aftermath).
So apparently just those words, unlike "DEW", are not even allowed to be written there--a website that claims to post ALL news about 9/11.
As EVERYONE KNOWS, the Ultimate Truths of these things are not allowed to be written in the fascist state. They make it clear who is fronting them.
There is another matter about the dismissed lawsuit against "DEW". The "with prejudice" I believe means they can't (easily) ever bring their nonsense to court again.
It also may mean that the defendants may be entitled to attorneys' fees for the frivolous suit. This is federal, so I am not sure. But I read that defendants are asking for this.
Now any reasonable person and his/her attorney would never have brought this suit for the ludicrous, evidence-free "DEW", especially if attoneys' fees could be assessed.
It only helps prove that "deep pcokets" were likely involved.
Perhaps the taxpayers...
A.P.
One of these days I'll get around to commenting on this lawsuit. Basically, I think it is a shame that DEW is tied to the crash physics issue, as it was in this lawsuit.
Legally, "with prejudice" just means you cannot file again. It sounds bad, but it is just a term of art meaning you have had your chance and cannot refile.
Even with a sound scientific theory, this case probably would have failed under qui tam standards, which are designed to encourage uncovering of information not available to the public. The judge's argument was that questioning a government theory in a published report does not meet that standard. I have not researched enough to know if this reasoning has not been followed in less controversial cases. The judge's prejudice against questions of the official story would probably been the same, regardless of the theory.
Ningen
Judy Wood is appealing, but apparently not Morgan Reynolds. So this was, or at least is now, a DEW case.
http://www.drjudywood.com/pdf/080724_07CV3314_Appeal_106.pdf
In Dr. Reynolds' motion for reconsideration, his lawyer complains about the misapprehension of Dr. Reynold's theor:
"Not only that, the essence of Dr. Reynolds' case, that no widebody jetliners crashed into the WTC, is not factored into the above quoted language of the Memorandum Decision. Dr. Reynolds does not base his case on assertions involving directed energy weapons. That is not the essence of his 'information'."
But the complaint talks a lot about NIST contractor being involved in DEW, as if this was the motive. I never saw the need to tie these issues together. I also never understood why Judy Wood never talked about the crash physics, when this seemed to be within her expertise.
Ningen
http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=federal_case
Thanks for your insights, Ningen.
I think a lot of people don't understand what Wood is doing.
Spooked, I just now read the piece you cite in your post.
I disagree with you on this.
I believe the author, Tom Murphy, looked at this at the appropriate, higher level!
While he threw in sarcasm all over the place (and may himslef not have the best intentions), it is clear to me what he was saying here, and he is correct.
Why, if Wood's website is allegedly trying to prove the so-called DEW 9/11 hypothesis [even though all it proves is--what it was trying to hide--the nuking of the WTC and the CSA (China Syndrome Aftermath)] does it contain a lecture on disinformation, and another lecture on faulty memory syndrome????????
Murphy correctly realizes the Op going on here for Wood including these 2 lectures. Or as Shakeseare aptly put it--she doth protest too much.
As my articles exposing "DEW" as an obvious intel hangout showed, her supervisors repeatedly try too hard.
My 2 articles over a year ago made clear that "DEW" was created to try to hide the "extraordinarily high temperatures" of the nuclear 911 destruction and the CSA.
A further and new (for me) example is in my critique of the Wood/Jenkins video interview below.
Wood insists on saying "put something in a microwave" and it "will go poof." Jenkins tries to correct her with "you mean it will vaporize."
But Wood insists on the baby talk, "poof", even though she is talking to a physicist. Why?
Because as I pointed out, the entire raison d'etre for her Hangout is to deny the high temps of WTC destruction and the CSA. So she has to say something will go "poof" (whatever that means--AND IT DOESN"T MATTER in the Op) from her hypothetical DEW, because otherwise people will realize we simply had high temps at the WTC for reasons other than "DEW."
So Murphy rightly indicates that everything at her site, incuding her 2 lectures on disinformation and false memory syndrome are included as part of the Op to hide what is, or may be, going on.
I guess the intel agencies ordered the memory thing thrown in (and again tried too hard) because of Wood's background of missing 6 years via an alleged coma, and that therefore she may be strange or defective.
I also pointed out how Fetzer also spends a good deal of time and energy writing/speaking on "gatekeepers and limited hangouts." Very, very funny.
But similar to Wood's thing, as Murphy pointed out, in the Oped piece Spooked cited.
Anonymous Physicist
I do not see the relevance of "crash physics" here.
The defendants are primarily those who would be involved with creating or using Directed Energy Weapons, and even if the "plane hits" would be declared bogus in a Court (not likely without a revolution first), it would have nothing to do with trying to prove "DEW" destroyed the WTC.
Even in my very first article exposing DEW, over a year ago, I highlighted the double Op used.
1. To try to hide the nuclear WTC destruction and the CSA and
2. To couple the DEW folks to the NPT. I.e., try to make all NPTers DEWers.
The latter Op was clever and worked till I came on the scene, and appears to still work for some---but these are obviously just other intel assets.
The cleverness was the following. The regime perps knew that since the "plane hits" were just their own CGI and the people have the CGI from their TVs or other sources, sooner or later, there would be people exposing this.
So, as Lenin said, they put their own people in first to head the no-planes thing and wed their intel assets to "DEW."
This facilitated anyone who could see the videos are laughably bogus and devoid of the laws of physics (I even wrote a piece on the missing deformation shock wave that should be instantly travelling down the plane) to becoming a DEWer as well, as an NPTer.
But, as above, no-planes, or crash physics, has nothing to do with what actually destroyed the towers--except that if the OCT makes use of alleged "jet fuel" it clearly is bogus.
But there are a thousand ways of proving the OCT is laughably bogus, and the WTC was destroyed with massive explosions, and the WTC towers were built to absorb several plane hits "like mosquito netting absorbs mosquitos" (or words to that effect) from the towers' architect.
So trying to prove "DEW" destroyed the WTC--which would still rightly be thrown out of any rational Court, even if the People made a revolution--and the matter of the bogus "plane hits" or crash physics, are two separate matters.
With the exception that the lack of "plane hits" appears to be part of disproving the OCT--but NOT REALLY as the towers were designed to safely withstand plane hits.
Anonymous Physicist
P.S. Has anyone brought a suit solely on the claim that the OCT "collapse" mechanism is bogus?
Not even going into what really did it, but solely on proving the OCT is bogus?
The articles I and Spooked wrote on Bazant, Seffen etc. would be useful there. I even exposed, in the matter of the claim of what the smallest dust particle size, the govt scientists found, Bazant clearly lied and is guilty of fraud.
I showed his lie/fraud is clearly in his papers and the govt study. Why does not someone take this and file a suit on him? They don't even need a witness, it's all in his own papers when compared to the govt study that he cites and then bases all his "papers" on.
But this blatent fraud that I exposed was completely ignored by everyone else in "911truth", lawyers, scientists and all.
If the purpose of the Qui Tam suit was to procure information, why not file FOIAs?
Have the DEW people done that?
A.P.
A.P., I was basically saying what you said - there was no reason to tie the crash physics (no planes) to these defendants, and your idea that this is the psyop makes a lot of sense. I think you are saying there are two deceptions going on with DEW - cover up nukes and tar the no planes arguments.
I can't really follow the nukes argument other than to say that a known, small, very powerful energy source makes more sense than a beam of energy transmitted over a long distance from a remote source which would have to be very powerful. Every time I hear about DEW actually in use, it turns out to be an anti-missile system which would require trivial amounts of energy in comparison.
I have also cited the same false memory research, by Elizabeth Loftus, but this aspect of Loftus' research is really about the effects of misinformation on memory - people hear there were planes so what the blur they saw, or even just the explosion they saw, becomes a plane in their memory. The false memory work of Loftus relates more to people with emotional problems and/or irresponsible therapists that come to believe they were sexually abused, and create a memory of the abuse.
Ningen
The purpose of a qui tam suit is to encourage people to come forward with information the government itself would otherwise not be aware of. If the information is public, and the government is not acting on it, then it becomes a political issue. That's my understanding from a little research of the purpose behind the False Claims Act. In a sick way, it makes sense here - if the government is not being defrauded, but is defrauding the people, then the government is getting what it wants from the NIST contractors.
ningen
AP-- no, I understood what the author was saying and I agreed with his sentiment about Wood.
My point was that when he wrote this-- "Could it be that Dr. Wood is a disinfo agent of the government? She goes to great lengths to say she's not - click here. And yet, Dr. Wood also goes to great lengths to comfort us that she's "of sound mind" - click here. Hmmm... I wonder why she may have thought that others were questioning this point?", just that is not explicitly what Wood says. That may be her subtext, sure. I was saying that her having those items there is a not-so-subtle tip-off to what she is doing. as opposed to, as the author writes, that Wood is saying that she is NOT disinfo. If you get my drift. In any case, on the larger points, I think we can agree.
Spooked:
Thanks for your reply.
Well then are you saying that Wood is slyly saying/admitting that SHE IS DISINFO??
A.P.
Ningen:
It is NOT just your "known, small, very powerful energy source..."
I have cited numerous examples of the great heat:
from Felipe David's melted hanging skin from a nuke's thermal (or other) radiation(common among Hiroshima survivors), and many other examples of the great heat during and after destruction.
I have cited numerous examples of EMP from the nukes in my articles--EASILY explaining the burnt paint on cars--that STOPS at the door boundaries, exploding doors etc.
I have detailed a consistent, complete scenario that I believe fits
ALL
the evidence of everything that happened on 9/11 and the Aftermath!!
And this should either be acknowledged, or else someone prove where there is a discrepancy; and I don't count just repeating the lies--"there were no explosions heard [when it's on tape]", etc. from the British intel agents thrown in.
And again from the legal point of view, you did not answer my questions:
1. Has anyone brought a suit solely on the claim that the OCT "collapse" mechanism is bogus?
Not even going into what really did it, but solely on proving the OCT is bogus? Is this do-able?
2. Have the DEW people filed FOIAs?
3. How can one sue Bazant for outright fraud? --A SLAM DUNK suit from his own papers lying about the smallest dust particle size. Which is the basis for everything else. Much of the NIST stuff then depends on his lies and fraud.
Thanks.
A.P.
one either endorses AP's wtc nuclear demolition explanation (which does fit with every observable evidence)or one at least acknowledges it and then refutes it.
any supposed 9/11 expert that does not even address it should be considered suspect.
^ha
any supposed 9/11 expert that does not even address it should be considered suspect.
i am not referring to ningen - rather, the likes of wood, jones, jenkins, bazant, skyking@ and 9/11 inside jobbers.
"Well then are you saying that Wood is slyly saying/admitting that SHE IS DISINFO??"
Yeah, that was my thought.
It might be fun to go through her disinfo page and see how many things written there apply to her and her theory.
Thanks.
Possibly, a great insight!
A.P.
I want to respond to A.P. but I am tired. Will try tomorrow or the next day. Sorry. Ningen
Several weeks later, and still no reply?!
Very telling perhaps.
A variation of the old standby limited hangout: "what happened is unknowable." Here "what happened is unknowable to me. It's all just energy to me."
When it is so easy to see the difference between the ludicrous, eveidence-free "DEW", and all the aspects of the nuking that A.P. has provided from the massive EMP evidence to the massive evidence of heat during the destruction (ask the skin of Felipe David and 3 others whose skin melted FROM GREAT HEAT WITHOUT FIRE (a nuke's thermal rays) and the China Syndrome Aftermath.
Post a Comment
<< Home