The Norm is: Go along to get along... You start raising questions about 9/11 and chances are, someone in your family, or someone who has a significant relationship to you, might tell you not to do that. And they might tell you that for a variety of reasons, and not the least of which: they might consider them self to be in danger. Someone might say to you: "What, are you trying to get me killed?"
Because the implications of 9/11 are quite clear. This is not going to go over anyone's head. It is an instantaneous recognition that, if you raise questions about this, particularly if you link 9/11 to the use of high tech weapons; of which there are only two sources. One is the Military Apparatus of the United States that comes under and within a strict chain of command (DOD). And then there's the other one, that comes under the auspices of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). That is not even within the strict control of the military chain of command.
After all, the Generals do not manufacture high tech weapons. Certain Corporations do. And as this presentation gets underway, you will see that what we have attempted to do from a legal perspective, is to take this issue of the involvement of the Military Industrial Complex from the general to the very specific.
In other words, we are at the point in developing the legal approach to this issue, of naming names; and inviting them, under compulsion, to come into court, and to answer some questions that we might have...
And it is my honor as an attorney, to work with the lady, the researcher, the scientist, the person, who just preceded me at this podium, Dr. Judy Wood. She has taken the presentation that you just heard [The New Hiroshima] and put it into the form of a Legal Request. Actually, she has put it in the form of two, Legal Requests, one of which depends on, or results from the other.
The first legal approach is called a process of Requesting Corrections under the Data Quality Act. This act results from industry wanting a way to limit their exposure to governmental regulations. The Data Quality Act (DQA) itself indicates that anyone dealing or involved with governmental agencies in the process of reporting information, or data, must do so in a way that adheres to certain quality standards. The reason that industry had in mind for the DQA, was that they had a way of contesting or calling into questions regulations as they were promulgated.
Now, as many of you know, the task of reporting on what caused the destruction of the WTC was given over to an agency of the US Department of Commerce, called the National Institute of Standards and Technology or NIST. And it took NIST from 2002, until the end of 2005 to come up with a report; with what caused the destruction of the Twin Towers: WTC 1 & 2. [NCSTAR1]
The process for utilizing the Data Quality Act, means that you submit to NIST: Requests for Corrections. In other words, you say to them, the data you presented (in NCSTAR1) is inaccurate, and here's why. So correct it. So what we have done with Dr. Wood's work, is we have said: here are examples of data, that are readily available, that are clear on their face; that in your report on what caused the destruction of the Twin Towers, you did not take into consideration. And as you have seen, that is a considerable amount of data.
Now it is fair and accurate to say that the report that NIST issued on the destruction of the twin towers left out virtually each and every element of evidence that Dr. Judy Wood just presented over the course of the last three hours. Not one element of that evidence did NIST go near, much less explain.
As a matter of fact, although it was NIST's task to explain what caused the destruction of the WTC, they didn't do that. They said, that was the question or the objective of the report, but then they went through a process that said-
"You know what? All we really have to do, is to tell you what happened from the point that the supposed jet liners crashed into the buildings. Up to that point where it looked like the buildings were going to begin to come down, and then... everything that happened after that point... Was Inevitable. Period. End of story. Stop the Report. And that's it."
And that was what they did.
So everything from: The lathering process. To the speed of the destruction. To the absence of any appreciable debris pile. To the appearance of steel being turned to dust. And of concrete, re-bar and everything else being pulverized. Also the appearance of cylindrical and perpendicular holes. And the appearance of toasted cars, incongruent distances from the WTC site.
None of it was explained or touched upon by NIST, and Dr. Judy Wood said so, and requested that NIST retract the whole darn thing, and do it again. Only this time do it without the use of the services of the MIC if you would please.
NIST, like most governmental agencies relies upon contractors to do certain of its work.
Well, alright, who should be a Prime Contractor for doing an Investigation of the Destruction of a Building?
You go to the companies who specialize in Psyops and in the development of Directed Energy Weapons.
Because that is who they (NIST) used.
How many of you know of these companies?
SAIC - Science Applications International Corp
based in San Diego, California
ARA - Applied Research Associates
based in Albuquerque, New Mexico
We have all seen how, from beginning to end, and on a continuing basis, 9/11 is quintessentially a Psychological Operation. And it was carried out, in all probability, based on what the evidence appears to suggest, and what the evidence confirms: With the use of Hi-Tech Weaponry.
We have all heard of the concepts of 'soft evidence' and 'hard evidence'. Now a third approach that is actually central to the work that I am doing with Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds is: 'Admissible Evidence.' In the context of what goes on in court and legal proceedings, we need: 'Admissible Evidence'. That's why- photographs, but photographs of a certain type can be used, but not every photograph can be used.
You have to be able to authenticate the photograph by making sure that you know the source, and that you are in a position to make a declaration that the photograph is an accurate depiction of what it claims to show. And a great deal of care is being shown and has been done to make sure that the photo and video information and evidence that is important to their claims, can be used as evidence.
One of the main reasons why this request for correction was submitted was actually to pave the way for another kind of of action. A kind of action that is based upon, or stems from the False Claims Act. Under the False Claims Act, individual people can bring lawsuits on behalf of the US Government. They are known as Qui Tam cases.
The Qui Tam process is used most often in connection with healthcare. Basically it says, that the US Government (as a customer) has been defrauded by someone who did business with or received money from the US Government, and if the person who brings this claim, (who is referred to as the relater) is successful, then that money is clawed back, and the contractor has to pay a stiff penalty.
The issue with respect to the use of Qui Tam cases is that, if you as an individual have information that monies have been paid to, or collected by a contractor on the basis of either fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, than you can go through the process of bringing a Qui Tam action.
However, in order for a Qui Tam case to get very far, you are very quickly going to run into an obstacle that is called Original Source Doctrine. This is how, the Data Quality Act comes into play.
Here you have two researchers saying something. What are they saying? They are saying that the NIST report is false and fraudulent. Using those words. False and Fraudulent.
Who prepared the NIST report?
Well, if you look at the NIST website, it lists all of the contractors who were involved; and not only does it list the contractors by name, (of the company) but it list the contractors by name, and by the name of the of the persons who worked for the contractors who were assigned to the NIST project. Guess which two companies had by far, the most people assigned to the NIST project?
ARA and SAIC
ARA has hardened test facilities all over the place, with it's principle headquarters right around the block from a Joint Military Organization, or JTO, know as the Directed Energy Directorate.
SAIC is annually in the top ten of defense dept and US Government contractors despite having relatively few employees: less than six thousand. And of the employees that SAIC has, they have more employees with top, and high government security clearances / classifications than any other company on the planet. And ARA almost certainly, comes in second in that respect.
How many have heard of the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS)? The organization dates from 1999. There came a point in time when a number of companies decided there should be DEPS. Among the founding sponsors of of the organization are SAIC and ARA.
The DEPS has a rather comprehensive website and I commend it to you. They have a series of PDF booklets that I highly commend to you.
In Fact, I consider the DEPS list of sponsors to be sort of a Rosetta Stone telling you, if you want to know: who are the key members of the MIC? Well, look at the sponsors of the DEPS which you can find on their web site; and that is who they are.
Now, from a legal point of view, if you have a question that you need answered, then you go to the people you have reason to believe have the expertise to know how to answer your question.Do you remember Dr. Judy Wood's 'Bubbler' slide?
Why not send that photograph off to the DEPS and ask them? And you say, "Dear Madam, Greetings, How are you? Attached please find the photograph of the destructive process associated with the WTC. Please review this photo and at your convenience, please let us know if this destructive process is consistent with the effects of Directed Energy Weapons."
And what you say in the next paragraph, is that, "We seek only information in the public domain." If you are a person who might be covered by 32 CFR part 154; which is the part dealing with how you get, and more importantly how you can loose your security classification, if you have one. And you can loose it at the drop of a hat.
Now Dave went so far as to ask the person here who has that security clearance to reveal themselves. But Dave, they can't do that. If they identify them self, they will loose their security classification, and if they loose their clearance, they will loose their job. It's as simple as that. And that is a very serious thing.
So we know that writing this letter is a dicey thing; because we are basically asking you to admit that the MIC, pulled 9/11. We are not naive, and we would be silly to pretend otherwise. This is not a joke, but we don't expect: "Yes it was, and this is the name of device used, and the serial numbers of the parts pursuant to the list." We don't expect that.
But this is done in all seriousness and it has to be thought through to the level of making requests that you have a right to make, through the procedures that you have the right to use, in the places that you have the right to use them. And if you get an answer, fine, and if you don't, then you've done what you could.
So, you get a reply from the DEPS that does not say yes; but guess what? It doesn't say no. It does not treat your request as though it is frivolous, it states that you've raised a very interesting question. And that's what it says.
And that's what you'd expect it to say. But what you do not expect it to say is: "How dare you ask this question?" You don't expect that, because you have a right to ask that question. You don't expect it to say: "Your question is frivolous", because it is not frivolous. Because the evidence speaks for itself.
If you have a better explanation for 'Bubbler', than give it.
If you are of the mind that 'Bubbler' could be caused by the combination of: a supposed impact by a hollow aluminum tube jetliner, big though it may be, it is still hollow and aluminum. And steel is still steel. And kerosene is still kerosene. And gravity is still gravity. And those forces, singularly, or in combination one with the other, in any mixture, or in any order, are simply insufficient to have caused the level, the degree, and the totality of the destruction that we saw, and can present.
So the DEPS has indicated that it would be available for further inquiry and discussion from Dr. Wood that would be requested, and we would have expected no less.
Now what this tells you is that: If the hypothesis that the Apparatus of the US Government has been taken over by forces that are responsive to no one; then the ordinary citizens and people who work for US Government agencies at any but the highest levels, are probably no different then anyone assembled here, this afternoon or listening to us, on the radio.
They are as concerned as you are. They don't know what to do any more than any of us as individuals, knows what to do. But there is a good chance, that many of them, if not almost all of them, would be as willing to be of assistance in the process, of getting ourselves relieved or liberated from, that which has taken us over, as any of us are.
The only issue is that it's their livelihood, so they can't do things in a precipitous way. And it wouldn't work anyway, they'd just get fired or have an accident.
So the problem that we confront is on that order of magnitude. It is too big for any one of us. But it is not too big for all of us, working together.
