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/public...od01_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 (2008)
dboesen@deps.org

Edward Duff (2007)
eduff@deps.org

Maj Gen Donald Lamberson (2008)
dlamberson@deps.org

Louis Marquet (2007)
lmarquet@deps.org

Thomas Meyer (2009)
tmeyer@deps.org

Ed Pogue (2008)
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

Interesting letter. Who are you in relation to Dr. Wood, and how did you come across this letter?

Indeed, it is interesting, but not very telling. The more interesting part is actually the reply, if any, from these experts. I would expect any and certainly not one that supports Dr Wood and her assertions, as she unfortunately has all what is known about Directed Energy Weapons and energy generation for such going square against her.

Best,
Badeskov

Paranoid intellectualism can perhaps occupy just enough of a person's brain, that they can still walk and chew gum, still crunch numbers, but maintain a overblown suspicious personality.

There are corrupt people in all facets of life, all over the planet. But, my sensibilities tell me immediately that it does not apply this bizzare notion that the USAF used "death rays from space" on that fateful day. It would take a professor to cook this one up.

I listened to a radio interview by a rabid, self-possessed, pseudo-intellectual philosophy professor, who interviewed this Judy Wood character.

At 19:00, they both began laughing about the tragedy, and the groups mandated to study the World Trade Center. It just turns one's stomach. At 48:00 minutes, the interviewer says that engineers who do not take the conspiracy position, are all going to H*LL! And the woman professor says she agrees!

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]

That philosophy professor is James Fetzer, co-founder of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I've seen him openly laugh at the events surrounding 9/11 as well, including statements made from the victims of flight 93 in conversations to their loved ones before they made the decision to take back the plane. He thought some of the stuff those people said was just hilarious.

This man has not one compassionate bone in his body. I couldn't possibly respect a person any less.

judy wood has a phd and is a respected scientist....you just dont like her message so....

Read what he said. A degree doesn't make a person sane.

denial 101....she's/he's just crazy....debunk the lady with facts.. not the old I dont like her message..so she's nuts...are you telling me the US gov isnt in possesion of these type of weapons?...

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The technology that she claims does not exist. DEW technology is in it's infancy.

She's nuts not because I don't like her message. She's nuts because she's nuts. It's not denial, it's fact. Morgan Reynolds also has a degree and worked in the Clinton administration, and he believes holograms were used and David Copperfield might've been on the ground to make everyone believe they say an actual plane. The fact that he has a degree doesn't make his theory plausible.

People sometimes go crazy, degree or not.

I have no particular view one way or the other regarding DEWs, but do you honestly think that you and I would know much about it if it did exist?

Tough to tell. If the intention of building such a weapon was to serve the nefarious purposes of the evil gubmint, no, I'm sure we'd probably never hear of it. If the intention was to use it in combat, we'd eventually have to hear about it.

So in either case, we cannot say the technology doesn't exist, not that DEW technology is in its infancy.

At some point, common sense just has to kick in, or one must realize he's completely abandoning Occam's Razor. The technology may exist (though I highly doubt it), but why use it? Step back and think about it. Why would it be necessary to use anything but passenger planes? Did the buildings have to collapse in order to motivate us into war? Don't you think that flying passenger planes into three of our more prominent buildings would be enough to create the "New Pearl Harbor"?

But you're right - I can't say for sure that there wasn't a satellite aiming a super-secret raygun at the WTC complex on the morning of 9/11/01. I'll just say it's highly improbable.

The combination of impacts and collapses was profoundly more disturbing than the impacts alone would have been, for very obvious reasons.

She has a PhD, but not in high energy physics and her assertions are laughably wrong and shows a profound lack of knowledge on how such weapons actually work. Plain and simple, the main two things that shows she is wrong:

1) The energy required to actually make the demolition happen (which is way above what can be done now with such weapons)
2) DEWs work from the outside in and not inside out. Thus, if any such weapon existed and had been used on the WTC, it would have looked like a giant, invisible blowtorch slowly cutting it's way through the outside of the towers. It would have been quite a spectacular sight and one that couldn't possibly be missed.

Thus, just because one has a PhD doesn't mean that one is knowledgeable in every field. Actually, especially when having a PhD, one should be very aware of where one is knowledgeable and where ones limitations are, especially in other fields. But it just shows how far some people are willing to go for personal fame and gain.

Best,
Badeskov

No, and that is certifiable

Best,
Badeskov

Yes, simply because of the technology required to make such a high energy device (these days, it is rather large). Secondly, as mentioned in a previous post, if such a weapon was used, it would be very, very obvious and quite spectacular

Best,
Badeskov

That's not what I asked. I'm of the impression that the attacks alone on those three buildings would've been more than enough to drive us to war. I asked if you agreed.

what i find interesting is that when Ct people present evidence supported By doctorates in Physics, The OT group Cries Foul !! as they are Physics professors, not engineers.!!
Then when the Ct's present evidence from Doctorates of Engineering, the OT'S Cry Foul !! because they arent doctorates of Physics !!! It seems one cannot win in the see- saw, of this all.I dont really know anything about Judy Wood, so i wont comment as it wouldnt be right, as i dont know anything about her or her position. Just pointing out something id noticed whilst reading threads here...

But these observations are based upon your understanding of what is in the public domain or what might be possible. But there's a great deal that isn't in the public domain and won't be so for 20 years or more. And I'm sure, without meaning any disrespect, that a great deal more is possible than you can conceive of.

In any event, I strongly suspect that we wouldn't hear a lot about the development of a real-world Tesla ray - something that has provoked conspiracy theorists for many decades.

Probably, but that doesn't mean that there was no incentive to take them down. If you're looking for a mandate for war, and you were the one's orchestrating it, you wouldn't simply inflict the minimum damage necessary to take the public with you, you'd make damn sure.

There's nothing contradictory here, the point is that for someone to have a respectable 'expert' opinion they must have expertise in the RELEVANT area. A dentist and a brain surgeon are both highly trained respectable professionals. But if a brain surgeon started telling you that you needed a root canal would you listen? If a dentist tried to convince you that you had a brain tumour and you should allow him to crack your skull and operate, you'd not just blindly trust him because he had any medical qualification would you?

Coughy,

I completely agree with what you are saying in that there is a lot we do not know. However, we do know a lot about physics and that is where I am coming from. You really only have 3 types of directed energy weapons:

1) LASER (light)
2) MASER (microwave energy)
3) Accelerated particles (charged or non-charged)

1) and 2) are basically the same, just at different frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. The 3rd is not really an option, simply because of the energy required to accelerate the particles to energy levels that could actually incur damage on something as big as the WTC. The accelerator would be huge and not something one could hide anywhere (look at CERN and their accelerators, for instance, being many km in diameter). That leaves LASERs and MASERs. Problem is, again, power. But lets say that we can come up with a power source with sufficient yield. It is still a hard fact that 1)-3) works from the outside in and would not be able to weaken the WTC from the inside. Thus, we are still left with the "invisible blowtorch effect", meaning that we would see said weapons cutting it's way from the facade of the WTC and in. which obviously didn't happen.

It has nothing to do with what we know and what we think that certain entities (Government or non-government) has in their stock, it is really down to basic physics There is nothing in known physics with the required energy levels that can cut/sufficiently weaken the WTC from the inside out, as whatever you would be using would have to pass through the exterior without doing any significant damage, but still be able to do a lot of damage to the interior structure.

Thus, I cannot predict what, say, the military has in stock or in development, but I can say what they do not have

Best,
Badeskov

Exactly! Although my dentists sometimes do remind me of somebody with a degree in shoveling manure Jokes aside, I have a degree in physics and electronics, but I would never get into, say, fluid dynamics or why Hurricane Katrina was so devastating. It's simply way out of my league and would require a number of extra years of studying and working in the field. But I do know high energy physics and the amount of energy it takes to weaken or cut a pillar of a certain type of steel with given dimensions.

Thus, as you correctly state, it is absolutely not contradictory and any so called expert should be questioned. What Dr. Judy really need to do is to sit down with a piece of paper and a pen and do the math on the level of energy required to do what she implies. I wouldn't mind going through her math and physics if she did so, or even help - unfortunately it would show that it isn't feasible

Best,
Badeskov

Even if a person does have an advanced degree in a subject area doesn't mean that they still don't need supporting evidence for any claims they make. Just offering up an appeal to authority isn't enough...a hypothesis still needs to be supported and subjected to falsification. I'm sure badeskov knows this to be true! To do otherwise lends itself to fallacious thinking, see this link on fallacy of appeal to authority.

The information in this link clarifies what I'm trying to impart here. Pay special attention to points: 2) "The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise", 3) "There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question", and especially point 4) "The person in question is not significantly biased".

It is clear that in order to assure that an appeal to authority is not fallacious there are requirements that need to be met. To conclude:



*bolding is mine

The only reason I'm impressed with her phd is she's willing to put it on the line....I dont think bad knows enough about US secret weapons. to turn this into a scientific discussion....

How does Dr Wood know enough about US secret weapons to make try to a scientific argument then? There may indeed be a super powerful weapon that can destroy building, no one here can prove there isn't. Dr Wood states in her letter: "I am aware, for example, that as of the year 2000, weapons having the capacity to destroy the WTC were deployed." but then references a link that says nothing of the sort and offers no proof on why she is 'aware'.

She's just decided that she can't figure out what made the WTC towers collaspe so it must be something 'unknown' and chosen a secret DEW as the answer. She equally could be writing a letter demanding to know about the secret telekenietic-superhuman-vapourise-buildings-with-your-mind project or invisible space pixes - we don't have proof that they don't exist either.

My problem is with the level of secrecy in a government formed by the people for the people....the US government has too many secrets for my liking....i'd like to move; but my finacial situation doesnt allow it at this time...brazil sounds good....what kind of free transparent government.. has secret facilities all over the country; all in the guise of national security...i'm not buying it...they have these freak weapons and judy somehow knows it!...If they did use them the "PEOPLE" need to stand up and make sure they dont do it again!...

Do you appreciate there has to be some level of secrecy in any government? For example there's no point in spending millions on developing a weapon that will give you a tactical advantage the battlefield if you then tell all your enemies how to make it. Or taking the time and effort to infiltrate organisations that have threatened your population and then tell everyone who the spy is.


So you're willing to take the word of a complete stranger that a weapon that nobody has proof exists, and that she has provided no evidence that it exists was used even though her conclusion was in general non sequitur and more specifically based on 'evidence' that - at least in part - has been proven to be wrong? I can understand having distaste and distrust of your government, but can you understand how that could be perceived as being irrational?

was the US constitution written to protect the people from a runaway government...yes....this quest to kill each other more efficiently is getting old....this foreign policy plan were all caught up in is unconstitutional and wrong...The founders of this country gave blood sweat and tears to make it work...now we lose it to some elitist ruling class who decides what the truth should or should not be?....since i'm a proud american; i'm gonna stay and fight for my country..and the only enemy I fear is the elite....

All well and good, and I'm sure we all agree, but how about getting back to Dr. Wood's assertion that the buildings were brought down by space lasers?

As much as it pains me, I'll quote Rumsfeld, who bizarre phraseology is actually rather appropriate in this case.



Thus, you cannot say what they do not have, only what you think they do not have. We have achieved many things in fields of human endeavour that our forebears would have argued was impossible. We will achieve many more things that you and I currently think is impossible.

As a footnote, in a 1940 New York Times interview, Nikola Tesla claimed to be ready to..

source

Now I cannot prove he really knew of a way to do what he claimed he could do, but if he could, imagine what might have happened with that technology over the last 67 years.

Ouch, that must have hurt. But (against his intentions, I am sure) Rumsfeld put it very well.



And I therefore completely agree with you on this. However, in my honest opinion, it does not render my argument moot as any of the 3 options I listed (and, alas, there aren't any others) all work from the outside in. Thus they would still have to cut their way into the building from the facade and that would have been very noticeable.



Agreed, he had some ideas and at the time nothing really came out of it. But please allow me to quote from the same article, just a tad more:



So he clearly states that his "teleforce" could melt an aircraft engine. But he also clearly states that " microscopic electrical particles of matter will be catapulted on their mission of defensive destruction", which is basically a particle beam weapon. Thus, while it might be able to melt an aircraft engine, it would still do it from the outside in. The engine wouldn't suddenly become a lump of molten metal without the skin of the aircraft being destroyed in the process.

And that it actually was a particle beam weapon (a particle accelerator) is further emphasized from the 4 inventions he needs for it to work. Again, from his article:



Particle emitter. These are available now



He need a generator able to provide the initial electrical potential required.



He needs to bring that potential up significantly, which nowadays is also very common in many fields. A very common one is the electrical power transmission grid, where high potentials are used as it lowers the transmitted current and thereby transmission losses. It also happens in the old CRT TVs.



This repelling force is the one that steers or controls the beam. Actually, the above four is the mainstay of any particle accelerator, whether it is the huge test beds at CERN or FERMILAB or it is the little particle accelerator that projected an image onto your CRT TV (yes, that little thing is a small scale, beam steered particle accelerator).

Problem is, as it turned out, the efficiency when accelerating particles is very low and thus LASERs and MASERs are normally the weapon of choice. Oh, and by the way, charged particle weapons also has another nasty side effect for air/space borne platforms: as you are emitting a lot of say, negative charges (electrons), means that you will slowly accumulate a positive charge on your weapons platform. And as you will need a lot of electrons to make significant damage, the positive charge would be rather substantial. This could in the end be devastating when returning to the ground as by any contact you would be de-charged, and in this case most likely severely damaged in the process. Compare it to the build-up of static electricity when you wear those shoes you really like, but always get zapped along the day - and then multiply that zap many, many times.

Thus, while I have no idea what secret weapons might or might not exist, I do know the boundaries which they have to work within and that eliminates the assertion Dr Wood has made. And if she really sat down and looked at the physics, she would realize that. In my honest opinion she is a smart person that did something stupid and is now caught in the morass without a graceful way to back out and safe her reputation; and for that I feel sad.

All that is, of course, based on that the military hasn't discovered a completely new force that all civilian physicists has somehow managed to overlook. And I sincerely doubt the latter, given the detail down to which we actually know the world we live in.

Please, any and all comments are more than welcome

Best,
Badeskov

edited for typo

In my my honest opinion, she walked the plank on this one and threw away a lot of her credibility. And you are absolutely right, I know nothing about secret weapons, as that wouldn't make them very good secrets But I do know physics and even secret, military weapons has to obey the laws of physics (how rude, maybe the top brass should take that up with Congress).

Best,
Badeskov

Very true. Any and all such assertions such be backed up by proper documentation, PhD or not, Nobel prize winner or not. The sad part is, that the best documentation that Dr. Wood could provide would also be her down fall, as it would be the energy requirements to actually accomplish said feat by DEWs. The energy requirements are ludicrous (I know what it is for the thin skin of a ballistic missile, but while I have never computed it for an I-beam or the like, basic extrapolation tells me it is extremely high).



While the above is a very good indicator in a given field, a few examples of the opposite have been seen. But then one has to lean extra hard on Rule no. 1, substantiated documentation. The best example I know of is probably Stephen Hawking and his theory on black holes. He put forth a theory 30 years ago and everybody thought it was wrong as it went against all what was known at that time. It turned out that it was wrong, but only after 30 years and it was Hawking himself that caught onto it. The catch is that Hawking put forth all his math for all to look at, all his work to back up his theory and in the intermittent 30 years nobody, despite many, many best efforts by a lot of very prominent physicists, could figure out where and why he was wrong.

It just goes to show that you could be right, you could be wrong and there is nothing wrong with suggesting a controversial theory, but in the end, all that matters is the substantiated documentation and background. And that is what science is about.

Best,
Bdeskov

Since I'm neither a promoter nor detractor of the DEW idea, I really don't want to get wrapped up in trying to prove Dr Wood's theory - nor have I much interest in having it disproved.

However, theoretically, could such a weapons system have worked from within the building, assuming that whomsoever was responsible for operating the system had an entire floor of the WTC to work with? Let's put the 'when and how could they have set this up without everyone knowing?' objection to one side for now and just focus on the proposition.

Coughy, I am very happy to hear that you are not a proponent, although you never seemed like one. You have some very good questions and I respect your curiosity in this matter. Admittedly, I hope that I can swing you towards being convinced that DEWs had no play in this, but you have to make up your own mind as I can only offer the physics I know to back it up. But I am very happy to answer any questions you have and give you references you might want.



Yes and no. The question of putting it in would be a major undertaking and, honestly, explosives would be a lot better and more efficient way of doing it, especially if you had a whole vacated floor to yourself. However, lets pursue the DEW idea for a bit.

Particle beam weapons would be out of the question, simply because the floor space wouldn't be enough to accelerate particles up to the energy levels required to make any damage on the structure. You would need a ring structure and superconducting magnets to fit it in, and said magnets would have to be immensely strong to bend the particle beam in a ring small enough. The magnets they use at CERN for their latest particle accelerator, LHC are pretty big. They are actually delivered by FERMILAB and weigh in at 35 tonnes (see here a little down the page:



And these wouldn't even be strong enough for this purpose. So the logistics behind this idea would be dead before it even matured as an idea. MASERs would also be hideously ineffective. MASERs are very strong electromagnetic beams, basically your microwave oven scaled up many, many times. If you have ever put a spoon or the like into your microwave, I am sure you would have noticed a spectacular sight going on What happens is that the microwave energy is translated into a current running in the metal structure. Locally the structure (say I-beam) will heat up. But because the I-beams are so thick they can conduct a huge current before any damage is incurred and the current is led away. A MASER can be effective at shorter distances on a ballistic missile, but only because it is in flight. What happens is that a ballistic missile has a very thin outer skin, which is heated up slightly causing a small deformation, and the wind shear will do the rest making the flight unstable and making the target break up. But an I-beam is a completely different story and not feasible at all.

That leaves us with LASERs, and here one can do significant damage without too much power at short distances. LASERs are used for precision metal cutting and could definitely, given some time, cut through the I-beams in WTC. The only issue would be that you would have to have one close to each I-beam and you would have to sneak them in as well as a power source. Due to the energy levels required, they are still a bit big, and I doubt you could fit them in the elevator unless they had a big freight elevator. Secondly, you'd have to bring your own power source as starting such would blow a lot of fuses otherwise So LASERs would be theoretically possible, although I personally doubt the logistics behind it.

I hope that answers some of your questions and if you have more, please feel free to ask. I am more than happy to give my two cents on this matter

Best,
Badeskov

Edited for typo.

This discussion has a sense of futility about it. I do not have any expertise in this area - I don't know what yours is, but you are speaking with an authority that suggests you work with advanced technologies.

I'm afraid that, notwithstanding the fact that the proposition sounds far-fetched, I remain open-minded on the basis that there are 'unknown unknowns'. That applies equally to laypeople and experts.

Why a sense of futility? Badeskov is a scientist and he does indeed work with the academic disciplines necessary to understanding why the idea of a 'Star Wars' type death ray is not likely to be involved in 9/11. If you listen to what he's saying he makes it rather clear as to why the vast majority of scientists aren't embracing this notion.



Ok, there are unknowns. But the application of unknowns to situations in lieu of what we actually do know seems to me to be 'lacking' (to say the least).

Futility because I entered this discussion to point out that no one really knows, not to argue the merits of the case - something I am in no way qualified to do.

And that is really all that needs to be said.

Well, while I happen to be well versed in this field, I cannot speak with any authority in this matter in a forum like his. I can only present the facts to the best of my abilities and then it is up to to make up your mind based on said facts. But I respect you stance.



I agree, there are always unknowns and that will remain so. However, in this particular topic the unknowns are actually not unknowns and all the experts in DEWs basically all agree that the whole notion is rather absurd simply because of what has been discussed in this thread.

Best,
Badeskov