Selected Comments From:
An Interview with Jerry Leaphart
Conducted by Morgan Reynolds
Oct. 2010
Morgan Reynolds: Who is Jerry Leaphart? In other words, your short biography.
Jerry Leaphart: I am a practicing lawyer. I’ve been practicing law now for the better part of 40 years. I graduated from New York University School of Law in 1971.
When I went to law school, I fully expected that at some point in my career I would probably be what is called an activist attorney. That is why I went to law school, that is how I perceived myself. But then a funny thing happened along the way; and that is that life comes along and the requirement to earn a living and raise a family happens; and that is what happened to me.
And as a result I spent the first 20 years of my legal career essentially as a corporate lawyer. And not only was I a corporate lawyer, but I was a corporate lawyer in the oil industry, during which time I essentially did the best I could as a corporate lawyer, knowing that at an internal level it was not really what I wanted to do with my career.
Nonetheless, I engaged in corporate law for about as long as I could, during which time I acquired a fair amount of experience in the international side of the oil business, and worked in various countries around the world. Pretty much on every inhabited continent.
And then in 1993, I had had enough. And from that point forward I did embark on an activist legal career, becoming essentially a litigator, or trial lawyer in pursuit of various causes, some of which were very personal to the clients I represented, others were more generally directed toward the issue that I was representing.
That brings us Morgan to the year 2007, by which time I had the good fortune and privilege to meet up with you and also with Dr. Judy Wood.
By that time I had come to the recognition that the common storyline of 9/11 was false. And as an activist attorney and essentially as a citizen, I found myself in the position of just simply not being able to live with, on the one hand, the recognition that the common storyline was false and, on the other, not doing anything about it; or just accepting it as a fait accompli, or accepting it as something I could not do anything about.
And what I meant when I said, that I had the good fortune and privilege of meeting you and Dr. Judy Wood and Edward Haas, among others whose names I will also mention during the course of this interview, was that I was not alone in knowing the common storyline was false and having the commitment and the willingness to do something about it.
So as these things tend to develop, when people of like mind learn of one another, they often figure out ways in which they can combine their various areas of expertise and join together and take group action.
Morgan, that is essentially what you and Dr. Wood and I and Edward Haas did at a certain point in time. We put our various areas of expertise together and we figured out a way in which to challenge the common storyline of 9/11 in various ways; using legal process to do so. And I’m very pleased with the fact that we did that, and I’m also very pleased with the outcome.
The thing that you learn as an activist attorney, is that the concept of winning, losing, victory, and defeat, take on a meaning that is sometimes counter intuitive. Usually when you go into any situation where an outcome tied to it involves some notion of winning or losing, and you tend to think of winning as 'getting a specific victory' in the way that victory is traditionally defined, or conversely a loss in the way that loss is traditionally defined.
That is not how life actually works. I mean we can all think of examples of how winning turns out to be a loss and vice versa. There is nothing uncommon about that, for example, even in everyday sports where there is always a definite win and a very definite loss, it’s often said that losing hurts worse than winning feels good.
What that tells us, is that when you’re in a competitive situation trying to get some outcome or another, it’s inherently a stressful, aggravating process, and often what you have to do to win requires a greater sacrifice than what the loser may sustain.
Let’s take it back to the origin of the Olympics. What happened? Yes, some guy who ran from wherever it was to the next town over and he made it. However, he then dropped dead. This is all just a metaphor for saying that winning is not always what we think it is, and losing is not always what we think it is.
The success of the cases that we pursued in federal court, and also administratively through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), was that we put the issue, in your case Morgan, we squarely put the issue that there were no Boeing 767 jetliners involved in the episode of destruction in NYC on 9/11, into the public record, accompanied by a significant degree of proof.
We also put into the public record the fact that NIST had circumscribed their investigation of the event to begin at the point of impact, or of explosion at the Twin Towers and to end, at the point that the towers had only just begun to be destroyed. That was fraud.
NIST defined the timeline of its investigation so as to exclude having to account for whether there were planes or not, and they stopped their investigation prior to the actual episode of destruction. We put that into the public record, called it by its right name, that is, we called it fraud. And there it is.
Basically, what happened on 9/11 was never properly established or confirmed by any reliable, publicly funded, investigatory process. Not ever, up to and including the present.
So the first thing to understand is that the events of 9/11 have not ever been explained in a governmentally funded, forensic investigatory process. We know that perhaps starting in the year 2002 the Congressional Investigations on the matter essentially accomplished nothing, except to offend the victims’ family members who at that time were strenuously calling for an investigation into the matter.
That then led to the so called 9/11 Commission which was operative during the years 2003..., ultimately issuing the 9/11 Commission Report in the year 2004 which we now know on the basis of books published by active members of the Commission, that essentially the Commission determined nothing and publicly acknowledged that what happened on 9/11 as presented by witnesses in the Commission hearings, is false.
The next… at about the same time you had a preliminary, underfunded, voluntarily staffed investigation conducted by some engineers associated with FEMA. The Federal Emergency Management Administration got themselves associated..., resulting in an inconclusive report about what had happened in New York.
That then led to Congress enacting a law that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) undertake a study to determine why and how the towers of the WTC complex got destroyed. That was NIST’s mandate.
Now by the year 2005 NIST had first issued a preliminary report on what destroyed the twin towers. And as it turns out, there was an administrative process that allowed members of the public to comment upon the NIST report and to officially request corrections to errors that seemed apparent in this report. And that is what you and Dr. Wood, and Mr. Haas, each independently did by submitting what are called Requests For Correction to the NIST report.
Your Request For Correction (RFC) focused on what we all refer to as the “no planes claim." Dr. Wood’s RFC focused on her proof that the means of destruction of the WTC were brought on by the use of Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). That is to say: secretive, high-tech weaponry, that produced the visually unprecedented effects that we saw. That is, basically having two 110-story buildings together with a third building, the 22-story Marriott Hotel, [disappear].
Bottom line: Those buildings disappeared leaving virtually no trace; by way of a destructive process that cannot be explained on the basis of simple gravity and simple kerosene being the destructive components.
So, then Edward Haas independently challenged the story on the basis of the methodology by NIST to come to its conclusions. So you had three separate challenges to the common storyline within the context of what NIST was mandated to do. Ultimately, we determined that what NIST had done was actually fraudulent.
They used a technique that is not uncommon in science fraud. The technique that they used was basically to define their objectives in such a way as to make sure that they basically did not investigate what happened.
NIST set up its investigation so that literally… the starting point was the moment after the alleged jetliners hit the towers, which literally meant: that they did not have to confirm that jetliners hit the towers; and the fact of the matter is: no jetliners did hit those towers.
And then they concluded their investigation at the point where or when the towers
were about to be destroyed. Here you have a 10,000-page NIST investigation that investigated everything that happened after the towers suffered damaging explosions and then ended before the towers underwent their final demise.
And that is science fraud. Now, what we also then determined, as is often the case in government endeavors, is that NIST contracts out most of the work and so the endeavor becomes a so-called 'public-private partnership' where the lines of responsibility and control in the project, are blurred or obscured; if not just totally eradicated. Such that it’s impossible to determine who actually was in charge of what.
But in any event, the NIST project that engaged in this science fraud, investigating any and everything except what actually happened; was led by two giants of the military-industrial complex. And I think, one of the unique contributions made to the entire process of determining what happened on 9/11 was the fact that you and Dr. Wood identified the following two companies: Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), and Applied Research Associates Corporation (ARA), as companies who essentially had contracts with NIST. And whose contributions to the NIST project were greater than that of any of the other contractors, primarily because those two companies had more of their employees involved with the NIST project than did any of the others.
Now SAIC and ARA are each companies that have a great deal of involvement in the development, the manufacture, the testing of the lethality effects, and other involvement in precisely the causes of the destruction of the WTC; namely: directed energy weaponry and the use of military psychological operations. That is to say, operations that use media and other sources like high-tech holography and other forms of illusion to create psychological operations or what are called “psyops.”
There is scarcely any greater revelation… If you have to boil down Dr. Morgan Reynolds and Dr. Wood’s contributions to the world of determining of what happened on 9/11, than that which was accomplished in the identification of SAIC and ARA for their participation in the NIST project and for the implication that that had in connection with the weapons development that those companies are involved with, and the actual causes of the destruction and deception taking place on 9/11.
Now, an element here that is essential, especially on the no planes side, is the ability of the MIC to conduct its operations in secret. You have undoubtedly received the criticism countless times that, well, all of this sounds well and good but for something like that to happen, too many people would have to be in on it and it could not be kept secret.
Well that is false, because the secrecy apparatus associated with military operations involves security clearance procedures, and involves compartmentalization of information such that you can have an operation take place where only a handful of people, or fewer might actually know what is going on.
Case in point: it just so happens that on 9/11, certain military exercises were taking place involving nothing short of an actual exercise simulating the 'hijacking of aircraft'. That was taking place on 9/11, OK? Now, one of the individuals who was singled out by the 9/11 Commission for being less than truthful, to put it no more harshly than that, was General Larry Arnold.
Now, among the literature put out by those who support the common storyline of 9/11, is a book entitled “Touching History” by Lynn Spencer. Lynn Spencer was motivated to write her book based squarely on her recognition that the 9/11 Commission Report was inadequate. And so Lynn Spencer set about the task of finding out a bit more about what had actually happened; as it related to the FAA and NORAD and essentially the defense apparatus of the U.S.
Lynn Spencer’s concern was that 9/11 Commission had not really adequately
explained how a jetliner could be hijacked and successfully avoid detection such that they could reach their targets in three of four alleged instances. I’m going to give you a brief quote concerning Larry Arnold. Larry Arnold was basically the NORAD commander who was actually in charge of the military exercises taking place that day. Now, Lynn Spencer’s book says, “Even as NORAD’s commander for the continental United States, Arnold is not privy to everything concerning the exercise.”
So, here you have a specific recognition or acknowledgment, I should say, that Major General Larry Arnold who is heading up the military exercise involving 'simulated' hijacking of jetliners on 9/11; he himself is not privy to everything that is to transpire in connection with the exercise. So the point that I have made here is confirmed. That there are very few people who may have actually known what was to happen and how it was to be done on 9/11.
The Washington Post put out an investigative piece entitled, “Top Secret America,” that did provide some useful information about how the secrecy apparatus works. The Washington Post article essentially reminded us that the admonition back in January 1961 by then departing President Dwight Eisenhower, warning us about the undue, and growing influence of the military-industrial complex was, and remains a warning that we have to take seriously.
I think in some of the documents submitted in your court case, the Eisenhower admonition warning us about the military industrial complex was quoted. You essentially did your duty. You took the Eisenhower admonition warning us against the power, the influence and the capability of the military industrial complex to conduct operations in secret motivated by their desire to make profit, very seriously. And that is what you did, and that is what we must continue to do as we seek to implant in the public consciousness the awareness of what actually transpired on 9/11.
Reynolds: To fast forward this a little bit, in all three cases, well, I know in Dr. Wood's case and mine, they were very well argued; and I was very impressed with the documentation, and of course I hoped the defendants would be put under oath and, oh my goodness, what a field of joy that would have been, but we didn’t get there. In fact, Judge Daniels dismissed our cases with prejudice. And while I wasn’t surprised, it was very disappointing of course. Then Dr. Wood’s case was taken to the Appellate level and you were able to argue orally, at least in brief, and then it was rejected. It was apparently listened to by the court with respect, but it was rejected there. And then you took it to the Supreme Court where it was denied the writ of certiorari. And that was only in January, 2010, so you’ve had a chance to reflect on these cases, and you’ve already given us summaries.
I think we had to try this. It was a wonderful battle if you will, and we certainly did not get really close, but comment on the quality of Judge Daniels’ decision which I was very disappointed with, it was very dismissive and prejudicial and, as I understood it from you, the Court was supposed to treat our positive facts as acceptable or correct until found otherwise and proceed on the basis of law, whether there was jurisdiction and the like.
Leaphart: I certainly am not going to… nothing I say is to be heard or understood as criticism of either the court or judge per se. Suffice it to say that we considered that the judge’s decision was legally incorrect, and that is why in the case of Dr. Wood, it was appealed. Now what we also need to point out here, is that the judge consolidated the three cases, yours, that of Dr. Judy Wood, and that of Edward Haas; essentially into one case or one decision. And he did that on his own. That is not treatment that was requested, the court just did that sui sponte. The legal phrase used that means that the court is doing something on its own volition, and not at the request of one or the other of the parties.
So basically and ultimately a decision was made to craft one appeal. And Dr. Wood’s case was then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals, and then as you noted
ultimately to the US Supreme Court.
Now legally speaking, I’m going to just ask that it be understood that I’m giving a very brief summary here and not addressing the underlying, more technical legal issues associated either the decision or the appeal. The court records are a matter of public record. I know that a lot of the documents have been posted up on various websites and various discussion forums.
One of the things a lot of people look for was whether or not these cases would be
treated as frivolous, and therefore would result in sanctions or penalties being imposed upon either of the parties, or the attorney representing the party. And what I can tell you is that while that outcome does sometimes happen in connection with activist cases, and perhaps in some cases that sought to challenge the explanation of 9/11, I can tell you very fully and clearly that the defendants in cases that yourself, Dr. Wood and Ed Haas brought; - actively sought - to get sanctions, and sought to require you and us to be held liable for expenses. But the court denied all of those motions. And at the end of the day we were found to have at least 'passed muster', in presenting meritorious claims.
You do not have to win a lawsuit to have a meritorious claim. In fact, your case was not determined on its merits. As you noted, we could have made a tremendous lot of progress in unraveling 9/11 had we been given the opportunity to take depositions of SAIC and ARA personnel. That is what we were seeking to do. Small wonder, then, that SAIC and ARA defended their cases so vigorously.
In any event, we did not get to that stage, which literally means the merits of the cases simply were not decided one way or another by the court. And, as I said, you were not required to pay a penny of expense because the defendants’ attempts to get sanctions or to get the cases to be considered sufficiently frivolous so that you would be required to pay their expenses, were all denied, every step of the way.
Reynolds: That is a powerful and heartening point, Jerry, and the critics of Dr. Wood, Dr. Reynolds and Ed Haas, in that order, since Dr. Wood’s work has come under the most fierce fire on these forums, claim that the dismissal with prejudice is sufficient to show the frivolity of the cases, but that’s not true.
Leaphart: That was their back-up position. They knew that the defendants sought to get us to pay their expenses, and have sanctions imposed, but they also were aware that the defendants’ attempt to do that failed. They acknowledged it.
Reynolds: Now here’s another point that I’d like you to address. Our critics in the 9/11 research and education industry argue, that is, they say that these cases somehow preempt other legal actions to bring other legal actions to bring justice in the whole 9/11 hoax. Why does this forestall other legal suits?
Leaphart: In my view, and without benefit of knowing specifically what they’re claiming, but those claims are contradicted by the fact that there has been other 9/11 litigation. I don’t think there’s been enough 9/11-related litigation, for sure, Morgan.
Reynolds: I agree.
Leaphart: But the only thing that I can say about claims of that nature is that factually it’s shown to be not true and legally my going-in position is that it is simply incorrect. I think all I can do is state that claim in general terms here in the absence, you know, a specific discussion with someone who is making that claim.
Let me also say here that insofar as other people who are making claims about 9/11 that challenge the common storyline on one hand but who on the other hand disagree
with you or disagree with Dr. Wood, Morgan, I don’t have any truck with those people, so to speak. I do not get into arguments with other people who are challenging the common storyline of 9/11. I don’t get into argumentation whether you are right and they are wrong or vice versa.
There is room among those who challenge the common storyline of 9/11 for different approaches to be taken. My argument is not with other proponents of challenging the
common storyline. My argument is with the common storyline and that’s where I’m focusing.
Reynolds: OK, of course I wonder why we haven’t had more 9/11 suits, etc., by some of our scientific rivals in the 9/11 skeptic industry but I don’t think we need to address that here.
Leaphart: There is something here, if I could, that I would like to get out on the table so to speak and that is, that it’s said that 9/11 is essentially an emotional issue centered on what people believe, and what people hold to be true. I don’t challenge what people believe. People are free to believe whatever it is they have a need to believe for as long as they can believe it. The issue here that I think we need to have common recognition of, is that the events of 9/11 have not ever been officially explained and/or confirmed in a reliably run, forensic investigation that has been made part of the public record.
Reynolds: And on the contrary, they hid evidence, planted evidence, — we can prove this — and destroyed evidence. They block investigation wherever they find it necessary.
Leaphart: That is correct Morgan. So the one thing that can be and needs to be factually pursued, whatever your belief about 9/11 is, that belief is not substantiated by a reliable, factual, forensic determination of what happened, with the only exception being that which you and Dr. Wood put into the public record in your challenges to the NIST report.
I submit to you Morgan that your Request For Correction and the RFC put forward by Dr. Wood were each comprehensive and done in accordance with forensic examination practices that make what you and Dr. Wood published the only publicly accessible information found on a governmental website as to what happened on 9/11. As you know your RFC and that of Dr. Wood are each a part of the public website found at the NIST, so what you did is part of the public record and contained on a governmental website.
Reynolds: So that is an important element of your argument that we have at least a partial victory, if not the full victory we would ultimately seek. Let’s go to the more general…
Leaphart: There is something more that should be commented upon quickly and that is your reference to the discovery process. You are quite correct that had your case survived the motion to dismiss, then, in that event, we would have been able to question SAIC and ARA.
Now something that did not get mentioned definitively enough in the early part of the discussion was that you did not sue the government claiming that they had covered up 9/11. That was not the approach that you took. You and Dr. Wood, as I said earlier, [sued the contractors of the NIST report]. I really want people to register SAIC and ARA.
Reynolds: By the way, SAIC is a top 10 DoD contractor, and is...
Leaphart: …CIA’s spelled backwards. People really do need to take some time to research SAIC and ARA. ARA on its website, Morgan, had two images that were used to describe their “capabilities,” keeping in mind that ARA is essentially a weapons manufacturer. They manufacture WMDs, (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and they manufacture a variety of Directed Energy Weaponry and essentially there’s a pipeline between DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration, and ARA.
That’s what “applied research” means. DARPA does the advanced research and then ARA manufactures the goodies. OK? Now, on ARA’s website, they had two images that looked for all the world like an admission as to what had destroyed the World Trade Center, they had one photo showing buildings that looked a lot like the World Trade Center being destroyed, saying this is what we can do. Another image used a color combination of orange, black and gray where the twin towers were depicted in orange and the immediate surrounding area pictured in black and gray, essentially posing the question, look what we can do, make the World Trade Center disappear and not harm the surrounding buildings. That’s what happened.
Reynolds: Yes, and of course the intelligence services and military around the world knew what was going down right away when they saw this. This was a signal: here’s what we can do to you.
Leaphart: That I think is essentially correct Morgan. What happened here is a manifestation of advanced weaponry that we as part of the general public know little about. That is why I cannot emphasize too much, the need to take your time, learn about SAIC, learn about ARA.
Those are the entities you would have been questioning had your cases gone forward. And it is quite likely that in the process of questioning we would have been able to reconfirm the truth of your claim. The discovery process could have served to bring about the kind of victories that we would normally define as victories.
Reynolds: Because these were civil suits and you only need a preponderance of evidence and we would have wanted a jury trial of course but... We could follow this a long way but what occurs to me is “stonewall.” They couldn’t just say, “No comment”. I mean they would end up perjuring themselves, I would imagine. But we as interrogators, we know so much about this, we would be tripping them up. It would have been just a phenomenal thing to get these people under oath subject to perjury charges.
Leaphart: That is correct. I think an outcome that was likely here was that: had you [the cases] survived the motion to dismiss, and by the way, the cases that you and Dr. Wood brought are called Qui Tam cases. Well, guess what Morgan? It’s not unusual for Qui Tam cases to be dismissed. I can’t give you the statistics on the number of such cases that are dismissed but anecdotally I can say that the majority of such cases are dismissed.
It is very difficult to get a Qui Tam case beyond the dismissal stage and that is because procedurally they demand a level initial proof, and it’s not just a question of the quantum of proof, but the proof has to come from a certain limited range of sources. Otherwise, even if you have the information on them, if it doesn’t come from a source that was not previously known to the government, you still cannot proceed with your case.
Reynolds: But of course we argued that we were, and I think very persuasively, original relaters…
Leaphart: Original source.
Reynolds: Original source. And the Qui Tam is really a whistle-blowing legislation or law.
Leaphart: It’s a whistle-blowing form of legislation and it represents a compromise between on the one hand the need for the public to have a way to make sure the government is not being defrauded but at the same time the reason given for the difficulty of taking that path is that the law does not want to be seen as encouraging just anyone and everyone to making these claims at the drop of a hat.
So on the one hand it’s important under the law to have a procedure where citizens can advance the interest of detecting fraud in governmental work but on the other hand the law has made a decision to make such cases difficult to pass the initial threshold.
Now, one of the interesting things that happened during the course of the appeal of Dr. Wood’s case, was that the Qui Tam law was changed and it was made in some respects a little less difficult to proceed on, and... drum roll, some of the provisions of the Qui Tam law were made retroactive to cases that were pending as of the day that your cases were pending. So technically had the appeal on Dr. Wood’s case succeeded, your case could have been reinstated. And you had the very unusual occurrence of a law being retroactively changed.
Now if I were a conspiracy theorist, which I’m not, I would stake out a claim that the law was changed in order to help you.
Now bear in mind another point that should be made here Morgan, and that is while you and Dr. Wood and others appeared to have a lot of critics who show up in various places around the internet, it should be understood and specifically mentioned that you and Dr. Wood have a lot of supporters. There are a lot of people inside government who know, inside government and industry, who know that the common storyline of 9/11 is false, who know that the claim that jetliners were involved on 9/11 is not proven and likely false on the basis of a psyop using TV to project false images. They know that.
But at the same time not everyone wants to be an activist, in fact very few people want to do that precisely because of the financial and other sacrifices that it entails and people are literally forced to go along to get along, not to mention keep their jobs.
But you and I both know that you’ve gotten a lot of confidential messages of support that encourage you to keep at it but which are done on the basis of confidentiality and/or anonymity.
Because people are not in a position where they can come forward on these things plus based on the highly compartmentalized approach used to protect information within the MIC, there are a lot of people who really can only suspect or have a part of the picture and who really do not enough information that they can come forward with clinching information and that is done by design. That is essentially the system you’re up against.
Reynolds: Yes, one kind of metaphor or parallel would be the Soviet Union which everybody within it knew within a few decades, surely, that it was all a lie about the workers’ paradise and yet people went through the motions for decades more before it fell of its own infirmities and the general public knows that there is a lot of rot at the top and maybe we’re approaching the point some serious changes if only because of the financial follies. Maybe 9/11 will catch lightning in bottle. We’ve already gone from the cases to a more general assessment of the 9/11 scam, and I’d like you to look backward.
Leaphart: Sooner or later the facade that keeps the common storyline intact is going to break. But I do not have a crystal and I do not know of anyone who has one. I don’t think it’s possible to predict future human events.
Reynolds: One of our problems of course is that we have an alleged independent press but they are 'shills' by and large and lapdogs employed by the corporate media, an echo chamber for the government, visible or invisible.
Leaphart: That’s correct. Going back again to the concept of belief, it is difficult to come to grips with the fact that the common storyline of 9/11 is false because in so doing it’s literally an event that has the potential to be cathartic.
It would basically require that people then consider the inference that someone within the realm of entities that we trust implicitly; basically betrayed us in ways that are not possible, probably for the majority of people to confront. It requires too much in the way of a fundamental reassessment of things that we hold dear.
Reynolds: But once realized at the individual level, you’re saying that often or in every case it would be cathartic, the truth will set you free.
Leaphart: That’s correct. So it’s essentially a question of time: where sooner or later a tipping point will likely be reached, where the truth of what was done to us on 9/11 will manifest in a way, and as you mentioned, it could be in conjunction with other issues, such as the financial crisis and the potential that that crisis has in and of itself to result in catharsis within the society.
So I think 9/11 is certainly one of those potentialities when the tipping point comes, where there are enough people who have the recognition that the common storyline is false, and who can no longer mentally or emotionally deny it or set it aside or in some way convince themselves that no action on their part is needed, when those two things happen you have basically conditions set in motion that could lead to social change in a meaningful way.
I do think ultimately here that 9/11 will be a part of the next wave of change (if you will) that people in our society are going to have to confront or come to grips with. The financial crisis certainly holds real potential to manifest in catharsis within the next year and I think that in conjunction with that, 9/11 could very well continue to be part of that [process], although as you said it is now some 9 years later.
I think that what you and I and Dr. Wood and our close colleagues in this... and I said at the very outset I would mention some other names and one of them is Andrew Johnson and another is our friend, and I’m not going to mention his last name because I haven’t spoken with him recently, our friend Russ. We are probably going to need to meet and determine whether we can accomplish a more comprehensive publication of the work that has been done and the information that has been garnered.
I know that a couple of books have been written and we all know that it’s difficult to get information like this published even if it is written, but I think that is probably the next indicated step for us. We’ve got to do a more comprehensive job of publishing the information that we have, and that’s not easy. There is a vast amount of information and the process of editing it down and putting it into a publishable format is just simply not easy but I foresee that that is something that needs to be done.
Reynolds: OK, very good. I appreciate all the great work you have done and we all hope and pray and work for more success down the road. Every day, I believe, we are making advances in terms of knowledge and spreading the word. I think that a very high percentage of Americans know that there is something terribly wrong with the official 9/11 storyline; and it is probably higher than a few of these public surveys have indicated and where there’s life there’s hope.
Leaphart: That’s absolutely correct and keep in mind, Morgan, that our duty to draw attention to this also gives pause for concern about the possibility of other such events being done to us. That too is a very real measure of success of the endeavor that you and Dr. Wood have undertaken here. I think that you’ve literally made it more difficult for a psyop operation of that type to be done to us again.
Reynolds: I think that that’s a very powerful point. More and more people are in the know, only a handful, I would guess something under five percent of the population on 9/11 knew almost immediately that this was a scam, a false-flag attack, and today I would guess it would be more like one in three or very high fraction would know.
Leaphart: Yes, correct and there have been other temptations that have come along to try something like that and I think that’s going to continue to be the case. We have got to be vigilant here. Now is the time for all true patriots to come to the aid of their country.
Reynolds: Yes, the enemy within is still powerful. Thank you Jerry Leaphart for all your wonderful work and this interview today.
Leaphart: Thank you for asking me Morgan. As usual, awfully good to be in touch with you and, as I said just a few moments ago, I think we’ve got a little more work that we’ve got to set about doing.
Reynolds: Yes, I agree. Thank you.
Leaphart: OK Morgan, thank you.
[bracketed text added for clarity]
Original Text
