Jerry V. Leaphart #JL4468

Jerry V. Leaphart & Assoc., P.C.

8 West Street, Suite 203

Danbury, CT 06810

(203) 825-6265 – phone

(203) 825-6256 – fax

jsleaphart@cs.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

_________________________________________x

DR. JUDY WOOD on behalf of the :

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : EFC Case

:

Plaintiff/Relator, :

:

vs. :

: February 29, 2008

APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. et al : DOCKET NO.

: 07 CV 3314 (GBD)

Defendants. :

__________________________________________x

AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )

 ss:

COUNTY OF PICKINS )

DR. JUDY WOOD, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am of full age and legal capacity and make this affidavit in support of my opposition to defendants’

motions to dismiss in the above-captioned matter.

2. I hereby reaffirm the state of facts and of affairs articulated in paragraphs 1 through and including 70 of

my amended complaint in this action that sets forth the factual claims that confirm:

A. That per 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(b), I am the original source of information confirming

fraud by the defendants in this matter.

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 1 of 25
2

B. My direct and independent knowledge of the information upon which my claims are

made will be articulated in some detail in this affidavit.

3. I am a former professor of mechanical engineering with research interests in experimental stress

analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of

biomaterials and composite materials. I am a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), cofounded SEM’s Biological Systems and Materials Division, and I serve on the SEM Composite Materials

Technical Division.

4. I received my

* B.S. Civil Engineering, 1981 (Structural Engineering), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University in Blacksburg, Virginia.

* M.S. Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University in Blacksburg, Virginia.

* Ph.D. Materials Engineering Science, 1992, from the Department of Engineering Science and

Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.

My dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in

bimaterial joints. I have taught courses including

• Experimental Stress Analysis,

• Engineering Mechanics,

• Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials)

• Strength of Materials Testing

5. From 1999 to 2006 I was an assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Clemson

University in Clemson, South Carolina. Before moving to Clemson I spent three years as a postdoctoral

research associate in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech. I am currently

writing a book with Morgan Reynolds based on the physical evidence for understanding and explaining the

events on 9/11.

6. One of my research interests is biomimicry, or applying the mechanical structures of biological

materials to engineering design using engineering materials. Other recent research has investigated the

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 2 of 25
3

deformation behavior of materials and structures with complex geometries and complex material properties,

such as fiber-reinforced composite materials and biological materials. I am an expert in the use of moiré

interferometry, a full-field optical method that is used in stress analysis, as well as materials characterization

and other types of interference. In recent years, I along with students have developed optical systems with

various wavelengths and waveguides. I have over 60 technical publications in refereed journals, conference

proceedings, and edited monographs and special technical reports.

7. I started to question the events of 9/11 on that same day when what I saw and heard on television was

contradictory and appeared to violate the laws of physics. Since that day I have used my knowledge of

engineering mechanics to demonstrate that the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers could not

have happened as the American public was lead to believe.

8. I provided clear and unequivocal notice of the fraudulent nature of the NCSTAR report to the National

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on March 16, 2007, March 29, 2007 (supplement#1), April 20,

2007 (supplement#2 ), and on August 22-3, 2007 (Appeal), in writing, and these writings are annexed hereto

as Exhibits A, B, C, and E respectively.1 

9. I have direct and independent knowledge and have informed a government agency that its contractors

intentionally participated in a blatantly false and misleading project that was to have determined why and

how the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were destroyed. In this project, the defendants herein each

had contracts that required them to provide various professional services in furtherance of determining what

caused the destruction of the WTC. The importance of that work--to have determined why and how the

 1 Ocio links: http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619

Request for Correction from Dr. Judy Wood dated March 16, 2007 

http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/ssLINK/PROD01_004678

Supplement #1 to Request for Correction dated March 29, 2007

http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/ssLINK/PROD01_004117

Supplement #2 to Request for Correction dated April 20, 2007

http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/ssLINK/PROD01_004156

Appeal by Dr. Wood of NIST Initial Denial dated August 22, 2007

http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/ssLINK/PROD01_004155

Amendment (replacement pages) to Appeal dated August 23, 2007

http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/ssLINK/PROD01_004157

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 3 of 25
4

Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were destroyed--and the importance of doing it, absent fraud,

cannot be overstated. The evidence I have gathered indicates that exotic weapons systems involving directed

energy were used to destroy the WTC on 9/11. I refer to these weapons generically as “DIRECTED

ENERGY WEAPONS” (DEW), meaning it involves energy that is directed and is used as a weapon. I also

consider “energetics” to be part of this definition.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Beam Weapons, High Energy Weapons, and Directed Energy Weapons (DEW):2

10. --ENERGETICS AND DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS (DEW'S)3--

 The ordinary Soviet name for this type of weapons science is energetics. In the west that term is believed to be

associated with conventional directed energy weapons (DEWs) such as particle beam weapons, lasers, radiofrequency (RF) directed energy devices, etc. The Soviets do not limit the term in this way.

 Western scientists are familiar only with directed energy weapons where fragments, masses, photons, or

particles travel through space and contact the target to deliver their effects. Hence in their thinking they limit the

Soviet term "energetics" to the type of weapons they themselves understand -- exotic but normal weapons using

energy or mass traveling through space to impact a target.

 However, it is possible to focus the potential for the effects of a weapon through spacetime itself, in a manner

so that mass and energy do not "travel through space" from the transmitter to the target at all. Instead, ripples and

patterns in the fabric of spacetime itself are manipulated to meet and interfere in and at the local spacetime of

some distant target. There interference of these ripple patterns creates the desired energetic effect (hence the term

energetics) directly in and through the target itself, emerging from the very spacetime (vacuum) in which the

target is imbedded at its distant location. As used by the Soviets, energetics refers to these eerie new

superweapons, as well as to the more mundane DEWs known to the west.

 As a consequence of the Soviet breakthrough and decades of feverish development, monstrous strategic

weapons undreamed of in the West are already in Soviet hands. A noose is slowly and steadily being

tightened about our throats, and it is already the 11th hour.

11. I have used the terms "beam weapons" and "directed energy weapons" (DEW) to refer to

unconventional weapons (exotic weapons) that are energy weapons. The full range of these weapons is

classified information, so I make no limits or distinction of categories within the realm of energy weapons.

Doing so would imply specific knowledge of all that is available. I have discussed some of the possibilities I

am aware of. In their motion to dismiss my case, one of the defendants stated that DEW is only science

fiction. However, at a news conference in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld publicly

 2 http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam7.html#DEW

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 4 of 25
5

acknowledged that the US has developed DEW technology. For more information, please see my RFC

Appeal as well as the additional links. 4

12. Some critics have accused me of insisting that beam weapons did their damage from outer space, yet I

make no claim about whether the directed energy weapon operated from a space-, air-, or ground-based

platform. Nor do I make any claim about what wavelength(s) was/were used, what the source(s) of energy

was/were, whether it involved interference of multiple beams, whether it involved sound waves, whether it

involved sonoluminescence, whether it involved antimatter weapons, whether it involved scalar weapons,

whether it was HAARP, whether it involved a nuclear process (e.g. NDEW), whether it involved

conventional directed energy weapons (cDEW), whether it involved improvised directed energy weapons

(iDEW), nor what kind of accelerator was used, nor do I claim to know what the serial numbers of the parts

that were in the weapon(s).

13. What I do claim is that the evidence is consistent with the use of energy weapons that go well beyond

the capabilities of conventional explosives and can be directed, as demonstrated below. 5 The defendants

had the necessary expertise and experience to recognize this fact.

 3 http://www.freedomdomain.com/weathercontrol/scalarweapon01.html

4 Request for Correction from Dr. Judy Wood dated March 16, 2007 

http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/ssLINK/PROD01_004678

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam7.html

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeamAppendix1.html

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeamAppendix2.html

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeamAppendix3.html

5

 sonoluminescence, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

antimatter weapons, http://cui.unige.ch/isi/sscr/phys/antim-BPP.html

scalar weapons, http://www.freedomdomain.com/weathercontrol/scalarweapon01.html

HAARP http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/haarp.htm

HAARP http://www.viewzone.com/haarp11.html

HAARP http://www-star.stanford.edu/%7evlf/HAARP/index.html

Nuclear DEW (NDEW), http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/doe/pubgd.html

Nuclear DEW (NDEW), http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsAppendix1.html#nuke_1F

improvised DEW (iDEW) http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/23/inventors-claim-to-turn-300-microwaves-intomegawatt-energy-weap/

improvised DEW (iDEW) http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nphParser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=

50&s1=%2220060208672%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20060208672&RS=DN/20060208672

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 5 of 25
6

14. As a result of the fraud committed by the defendants herein, the fact that the WTC was destroyed by

use of exotic weapons systems, known generically as “DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS” (DEW) has been

withheld and hidden, such that, to this day, meaning the day and time this affidavit is submitted and filed,

there exists, at the site of the WTC, in New York, NY, a clear and present danger to the public in that the

after-effects of the use of DEW has not been rectified and is still ongoing, as demonstrated below.

15. The type of DEW used to destroy the WTC had certain characteristics and properties that mandate a

certain kind of cleanup process as demonstrated below. In the case of the DEW used to destroy the WTC,

the evidence indicates that the cleanup necessitates the use of enormous quantities of dirt over an extended

period of time, measured in years, rather than days, weeks or months.

16. Dirt is being trucked into and out of the WTC site to this day, as demonstrated below.

17. The aftereffects of the use of DEW, including, by way of example, the periodic and unpredictable

release of “fumes” that appear, on casual observation, to be smoke. In the initial months after the events of

9/11/01, the “smoke,” we were told, was due to lingering “fires.” Until I had more information, I referred to

this phenomenon as “fuming,” a non-specific term, in order to keep my observations unbiased. The evidence

indicates that this ongoing fuming happens as a result of DEW used on 9/11.

18. In recognition of the fact that the aftereffects of the use of DEW are ongoing and have not been

controlled or contained, let alone fully remedied, I have caused a copy of this affidavit to be served on the

NIST, care of Catherine Fletcher and Therese McAllister, who had been handling this case as and for

notification that a clear and present danger continues to exist at the WTC site as a result of and by virtue of

the non-disclosure and the continuing fraud of not acknowledging that the WTC was destroyed by DEW.

19. Put it this way: I hereby assert that a 1776 ft structure should not be placed atop or near a location that

is still fuming some six-plus (6+) years after the DEW-destructive event was initiated on September 11,

2001.

20. False and fraudulent assertions were made in officially-disseminated information to the public. That

officially-disseminated information was a report entitled and designated NCSTAR 1 (“Final Report on the

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 6 of 25
7

Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers”) issued on or about the month of September 2005, which report

helped to further the false, deceptive and highly misleading claim, without proof and in the face of

overwhelming proof to the contrary and/or gaping inconsistencies, that held out as true, the following

fallacious proposition:

NCSTAR 1 states the specific objective of the investigation was to

"1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft

and why and how WTC 7 collapsed."6

Yet two pages later, in a footnote, NIST states,

"The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instance of aircraft impact to the

initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the

"probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower

after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable."7

21. The title of NCSTAR 1, "Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers," is flawed in

that the visual evidence demonstrates that the nomenclature “collapse” as contained in the title and

throughout NCSTAR 1 is false, deceptive and misleading. The use of the word “collapse” does not comport

with the full range of the evidence from the WTC. The Twin Towers did not collapse. 

 6 E.1 Genesis of this investigation, p. xxxv (p. 37) The source of the said NCSTAR 1, meaning the point at

which it can be and has been accessed, is: http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

7 E.2 Approach, p. xxxvii (p. 39) footnote (!) http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 7 of 25
8

Figure 1. This does not look like a collapse to me.

(9/11/01)

Instead, they were quite obviously pulverized from top to bottom. I have coined the term the term

"dustification" to describe the extraordinary destruction of the Twin Towers. While NCSTAR 1

acknowledges that “...the stories below the level of 'collapse' initiation provided little resistance to the

tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially

in free fall, as seen in videos.”

22. NIST cannot make a statement that the World Trade Center towers came down in “free fall” on one

hand, and then indicate, on the other, that doing so is a form of collapse. The conditions there involved are

not a collapse; and, in any event, NIST acknowledges that it does not analyze that part of the sequence of

events; thus, it is utterly incongruent for NIST to describe that which it acknowledges went without analysis

on its part.

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 8 of 25
9

23. My RFC, Exhibit A, directly challenged the assertion above as fraudulent. In its response to my RFC

dated July 27, 2007, annexed hereto as Exhibit D, NIST openly acknowledged that it had not determined

what caused the destruction of the WTC. Instead, NIST basically admitted that fraud had taken place in that

respect by stating:

"As stated in NCSTAR 1, NIST only investigated the factors leading to the initiation of

the collapses of the WTC towers, not the collapses themselves."

24. The defendants that NIST relied on for professional expertise either knew or should have known that

the NIST request and the work they were participating in was a fraud. I know that military personnel are

prosecuted for following orders which are illegal. Therefore, the fact that these contractors knowingly

supported and contributed to this fraudulent report with their professional prestige and credibility amounts to

willful blindness. By limiting the investigation of the destruction of the WTC to the time frame before

dustification, NIST provided no explanation of the event itself, but instead, produced a cover-up and a

fraudulent scheme to disguise the abundant evidence that readily confirms the WTC towers were destroyed

by DEW. That is, the contractors willfully partook in the cover up of the biggest crime in history.

25. Not only did they disguise the true nature of the destruction, those who participated in that fraud

include those who are most directly involved in the development and manufacture of such weapons, and I

was the one who clearly and directly disclosed that information to NIST, to which NIST replied, in

substance, that it did not know that, for instance, ARA (and also SAIC) are involved in the manufacture and

development of DEW. In its response to my RFC dated July 27, 2007, annexed hereto as Exhibit D, NIST

states:

Prior to award, each NIST WTC Investigation Contractor underwent a rigorous

organizational conflict of interest analysis. As a result of the analysis, ARA was

determined not to have an organizational conflict of interest. In addition, each contract

contained a provision requiring the contractor to notify NIST immediately should any

organizational conflict of interest arise during the course of the contract, and no such

conflicts of interest were reported. You further claim that ARA is a significant

manufacturer of directed energy weapons and/or components thereof. Since there is no

factual evidence to support this claim, NIST has no basis for accepting your proposed

corrections to NCSTAR 1.

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 9 of 25
10

26. In the appeal stage with NIST, I fully developed the information necessary to inform NIST about the

activities and weapons expertise of SAIC and ARA. These two defendants are the most involved of the

defendants in the development and manufacture of DEW. I further developed and provided NIST with

ample information on the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS) and I also sought answers on the use

of DEW at the WTC from the U.S. Directed Energy Directorate, annexed hereto as Exhibit G, which did not

deny the relevance of my question, annexed hereto as Exhibit H. Juveisttino "Rich" Garcia states:

While on a personal level I may find Dr Wood's investigation interesting and worthy of

further consideration, on a professional level we are unable to devote our limited resources to

activities outside of our charter, I wish you success in your endeavor and am available to answer

whatever directed energy questions may arise.

27. My appeal, Exhibit E, dated August 22-3, 2007, I provided the information necessary to inform NIST

about the activities and weapons expertise of SAIC and ARA. In its response to my appeal dated January 10,

2008, annexed hereto as Exhibit F, NIST openly acknowledged that it had expl i ci tl y stat ed in th ei r con t ract 

wi th ARA th at th ey were not to rep ort fi nd i n gs of wh at cau sed th e destru ct ion of th e WTC. NIST

basically admitted that fraud had taken place in that respect by stating:

Regarding your assertion that ARA is a significant manufacturer of directed energy weapons and/or

components thereof, NIST's original response noted that "each NIST WT C Invest i gat i on Contr act or 

under went a ri gorous or ganizat i onal conf li ct of inter est analysis." ARA was not requested to provide

evidence or hypotheses as to what caused t he col lapses of t he WT C tower s. The r epor t ed f i ndings

and concl usi ons in the NCS TAR reports are NIST's alone; indeed, the contract for ARA working in

support of the i nvest i gat i on expl i ci tl y stat es th at "Deli verab l es sh all not in clu d e fi n d i ngs, 

concl u sion s, and recommendations." (Contract SB1341-03-Z-0022) [emphasis added]. Because

the performance work st at em ent of t he cont ract di d not pr ovi de an oppor tuni t y f or ARA t o advi se

NI ST on t he cause of the fai l ur e of the WT C bui l di ngs, any exper ti se in demol i t ions was not , and is

not, relevant.

This statement by NIST indicates the contract with ARA essentially contained a gag order, explicitly

requiring ARA to not report what happened to the WTC. The defendants knew or should have known that

they were participating in fraud by adhering to a fraudulent contract.

28. By the fact that the defendants willfully and purposefully avoided any investigation at all of the actual

event of the destruction at the WTC occurring on 9/11, which NIST accomplished by curtailing, narrowing

and limiting its investigation to a fraudulently selected point in time that it called “initiation of collapse,”

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 10 of 25
11

NIST and the defendants have participated in and contributed to a fraud that continues to pose a clear and

present danger the public.8

 Instead of an investigation that was “thorough and based on all available

evidence” by NIST personnel and the defendants, in fact, it was the opposite of an investigation since it was

a “scientific” cover up, as demonstrated below.9

 During the course of this lawsuit, the exact details of the

willful blindness and indifference to facts and to fact finding will be proven through the discovery process

and subsequent trial.

29. Rarely has such an abuse of public trust been so devastating as that which NIST and the defendants

perpetrated. That fraud has consequences. Ground Zero, for example, is still contaminated and the effects

of DEW continue and are still being hidden. None of us liked what happened on 9/11 and we do not want it

to ever happen again -- yet it is still happening! The defendants, by their participation in the cover up, are

liable for the ongoing molecular dissociation and the consequent damage to people and property.

30. I present evidence in support of the claim that DEW destroyed the WTC and that the effects are still

ongoing, as given below.

31. In this affidavit, I articulate the proof that DEW destroyed the WTC and that the contractors relied on

by NIST included companies whose primary products and services include either the production of DEW,

lethality effects testing of such weapons, and/or other scientific disciplines that could have and should have

resulted in the clear and unmistakable recognition that the WTC was destroyed by such weapons. The

defendants know that the WTC towers could not have been destroyed by aircraft impact damage, kerosene

fires, and/or a gravity-driven collapse. Steel, concrete and rebar were instantaneously pulverized along with

two 110-story towers dustified in about 10 seconds each.

32. The defendants cannot plead ignorance of fraud in the NIST project because among the professional

disciplines that the list of defendants entails here are listed here, annexed hereto as Exhibit J.

 8

 See NIST claims of “thorough, open, independent” here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/semerjian_remarks_62305.htm

9

 January 10, 2008, denial of the appeal of Dr. Judy Wood available at

http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/ssLINK/PROD01_005026

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 11 of 25
12

33. How the defendants herein participated in the fraud of withholding from the public the fact that the

WTC was destroyed by DEW

Figure 2. Coarse dust quickly settles to the

ground. But fine dust can be seen around the feet.

This indicates the dust is continuing to break

down.

Figure 3. Soon, finer and finer dust begins rising

from the ground. Dust this fine could not have

settled out of the air this quickly. Coarse dust

settled to the ground, but continued to break down.

34. How the ongoing effects of DEW pose a clear and present danger to the public I visited the WTC site

on October 9, 2007, October 12, 2007, and January 17, 2008 and witnessed the ongoing effects and cleanup.

Figure 4. Looking west across the fresh dirtpile near

Church and Vesey Streets. On Tuesday, there was a

fresh new pile of dirt. It could have been potting soil

or topsoil. Dirt is not used to make a new building

foundation. (10/09/07)

Figure 5. By three days later (Friday), most of

that dirt pile is gone.

(10/12/07)

I photographed cleanup operations on the site of WTC on each of these visits. Trucks were transporting dirt

in and out of the site.

October

9, 2007 October

12, 2007

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 12 of 25
13

Figure 6. fuming0.jpg

(1/17/08)

Figure 7. Fuming1.jpg

(1/17/08)

Figure 8. Fuming2.jpg

(1/17/08)

Figure 9. Steel turns to dust in midair. "Alkaseltzer"

(9/11/01) Source: Shannon Stapleton,

Reuters

35. Yet NIST reasserts “...the NIST WTC investigation as described in NCSTAR 1 and the supporting

reports was thorough and based on all available evidence...” in its January 10, 2008, denial of the appeal by

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 13 of 25
14

Dr. Judy Wood,10 annexed hereto as Exhibit F. Also see more self-praise by NIST of its investigation as

open, thorough and independent here.11

Weird Fires

Figure 10. EVO.jpg

(11/29/07?) Source: pdf1213

Figure 11. Source: Smokeless fires.

mpg. (4.7 MB) (11/29/07?)

Figure 12. Source: Smokes fire moved.

mpg. (4.7 MB) (11/29/07?)

 10 http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/ssLINK/PROD01_005026

11 http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/semerjian_remarks_62305.htm

12 http://blog.hasslberger.com/img/EVO.jpg

13 http://www.svn.net/krscfs/EVOs%20and%20Hutchison%20Effect.pdf

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 14 of 25
15

Figure 13. Smokeless Car fire near

Liberty St. and West Street.

(9/11/01) Source:

Figure 14. Smokes car fire moved. These

anomalous fires occurred before either

tower was destroyed. (9/11/01) Source:

Figure 15. Anomalous smokeless fire on Church

Street. This firefighter is unafraid of being

burned. These fires do not appear to be hot.

[5139~0.jpg] (9/11/01) Source:

Figure 16. Vehicles burn the paper does not.

(9/11/01) Source:

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 15 of 25
16

Flipped cars

Figure 17.

(9/12?/01) Source:

Figure 18. 02102v_c.jpg (trimmed)

(9/12?/01) Source: 02102v.jpg (original)

Figure 19. Flipped car in front of a damaged

SUV, in front of WFC1. (9/12?/01) Source:

ARA is contracted to have comprehensive understanding of all weapons of mass destruction (WMD),

including DEW.

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 16 of 25
17

Holes in glass.

Figure 20. Round holes through glass, looking out of the One Liberty Plaza Bldg., over the

remains of WTC4 and WTC5, with WFC2 in the distance, viewed through the far-left window.

There are no large pieces of broken glass visible on the floor.

(?/?/02) Source

Figure 21. This is the front of the

Millenium Hotel. Full foliage on the

tree. (9/11/01)

Figure 22. Few

windows look damage on

the front face of the

Millenium Hotel one

week after 9/11. (9/18/01)

Figure 23.

(9/21/01)

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 17 of 25
18

Figure 24. Round holes with no evidence they were caused by a projectile. To

the contrary, the region noted above is unscarred behind the damaged glass façade.

It is as if a big soldering iron made these holes and penetrated no further.

(9/11/01) < ? < (9/21/01)

Rene Daliva took cover in the Millenium Hotel during the destruction of WTC2.

First Responder Statement: RENE DAVILA

File 1. No. 9110075

WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW

LIEUTENANT RENE DAVILA

Interview Date: October 12, 2001

[Emphasis added.]

A. ...I remember one guy was laying down. He had an open chest wound about the size of my fist in his

right chest. I kept on looking. I knew what was coming. I knew he was going to go downhill. He had that

look in his eye like -- he wasn't even talking. He was going into shock.

All of a sudden you heard the rumble and people yelling and screaming. You look andyou see -- I didn't

see the top of the building. I didn't see the top of tower two. The collapse started. You felt like the ground -

- it was like a deep sound, rumble; like you're laying on the platform and the D train is coming. You look

and you see what -- I best describe it as a wave coming.

I started running in my direction. I started running into the hotel. Somethingknocked me. I don't know

whether it was --

Q. The Millennium?

A. We were in front of the Millennium. I'm talking going in through the lobby.

Q. Okay.

A. Something knocked me down. I don't know if something hit my helmet or whether it was a force.

I got down, and I thought I've got to get up. By the time I got up, it was like [sound] I'm overcome by

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 18 of 25
19

black and I'm running in the building in this black, and I'm running and I'm running and I'm running.

The next thing I know, I see a little light, and I follow that light. I run in there,and I find I'm in an office,

and I close the door. I close the door and then I start walking, and I'm panicked, I'm panicked. I lost it. I

lost it for a few minutes in here.

In this room there's nothing but computers, maybe five, six computers, and phones. As I'm in there, this

force is still coming through the cracks of the door. I see some coats and I saw a water fountain. So I

wet them, and I wet them and I stuff them under. I'm like walking back and forth, "I'm a medic. I'm a

medic. I'm not a fucking firefighter. What do you do? What do you do? What do you do?"

WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met

RENE DAVILA INTERVIEW, pp. 21-22

Figure 25. Round holes in WFC2

(9/?/01)

Figure 26.

(9/?/01)

Figure 27. (9/?/01)

Round holes in windows with no damage to the rest of the façade were common on buildings facing Ground

Zero (GZ) on 9/11/01.

Reaction might not be self-quenching

"15. Serious considerations should be given to the idea that exceeding a certain critical mass of

any relatively pure material may result in a reaction that is not self-quenching."

Figure 28. by Richard Sparks, Scientific and Technical Intelligence/SBIR, Ottawa. I think I see where this one

applies. As of December 2007, they were still changing dirt in New York.

(1996) Source: The Hutchison File, page 69 of 87.

http://drjudywood.com/pdf/HutchisonEffectReport_txt.pdf

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 19 of 25
20

Figure 29. The white clouds cannot be steam or smoke because

these GZ workers are not cooked and have not been

asphyxiated. (10/31/01) 011011_zero04.jpg.

Figure 30. This fuming looks

like cotton candy, but it is deadly.

(11?/?/01) 5159_moldy.jpg.

Figure 31. Steam? If this were steam, these workers

would have been cooked. If this were as hot as a grill,

these people would become something that looked

more like a grilled-cheese sandwich. (9/12/01)

Figure 32. Near the bottom of GZ, it's a

swamp, but it is still fuming.

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 20 of 25
21

Figure 33. This "pile" cannot be very hot, because grapplers and people

cannot work under such conditions.

(10/13/01)

Figure 34. Smoke does not rise from

saturated (wet) dirt. This is the "basement"

of WTC1.

(10/28/01) Source:

Figure 35. These fumes are coming out of

wet soil.

(10/28/01) entered Source:

October

2001 October

2001

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 21 of 25
22

Figure 36. New York, NY, March 15, 2002 -- A

truck dumps debris into the bucket of a 500-ton

floating crane located at FEMA's Pier 25 Loading

Site, a few blocks north of Ground Zero.

(3/15/02) Source: FEMA

Figure 37. June 2006, looking north in the big

bathtub. The new WTC7 is in the distance, on the

right. Here's why the dirt is needed. This is the

same "puff-ball poofing" we saw in October!

(6/06) Source:

They officially said all fires were out at the 99-day mark. Figure 36 is at the 6-month mark, yet the

truckbed and tailgate are fuming. The stuff is covered with wet dirt. They are hosing it down as they dump

it -- and it is still fuming. The tailgate of the truckbed is swung open and is fuming with no water on it.

The water appears to cut down on the fuming. If this were steam, we would see the opposite of this.

Also, if it were hot, why didn't they hose it down and cool it off *BEFORE* they operated the hydraulics?

* If it's hot enough to require hosing down, it's too hot for hydraulics.

* If it's hot enough to require hosing down, why didn't they cool it off before operating the hydraulics?

The front tires of the truck appear dry as well as the cab. The upper-front of the truckbed appears dry. The

lower-right end of the truckbed appears wet. The hose-down appears to be just in one place (note the water

path in front of the building on the right, and note the water pattern on the pavement).

In Figure 37 the power shovel is stirring up the fuming in a mud puddle nearly five years after 9/11. This

is not "smoke." The process that began on 9/11 still continues.

June

2006

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 22 of 25
23

Figure 38. Prior to building the WTC, the PATH trains

used to go through the big bathtub into the small (east)

bathtub. The figure below comes from a document where

they were planning to build the WTC and locate the

PATH train stating in the big (west) bathtub. They left the

old terminal.

(?/?/?) Source:

Figure 39. The "bubble dates" locate fuming

by date for the photos shown in this affidavit.

The old PATH train station was located below

the original WTC 4 & 5 and where the new

Tower 3 is planned.

(?/?/?) Source:

Figure 40. A view east where the PATH tracks

were. Note, this area was not filled with dirt. The

water here looks like what is seen in a typical rock

quarry, not a muddy construction site.

(4/06)

Figure 41. A view west along where the PATH

train tracks were. Stirring the mud triggers

fuming. five years after 9/11.

(9/06)

September

2006

October 9,

2007

January 17,

2008

October

31, 2001

June

2006

October 12,

2007

September

2006

October

2001

January

17, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 23 of 25
24

Figure 42. Fuming emerges from the wet dirt in the

area between where WTC2 and WTC4 once stood.

(10/31/01) Source:

Figure 43. In September 2007, they are taking dirt

out from the eastern bathtub. Where did the dirt

come from? It was trucked in from outside

Manhattan. (9/07)

Port Authority Could Owe Larry Silverstein $12 M.-Plus for Delays14

by Eliot Brown | December 31, 2007 Quoted from article: (12/31/07):

"'As we got deeper and deeper there was a lot more rock that had to be blasted

and broken up," he said. Officials said that the work on the 1,700-foot Freedom

Tower is not affected by the problems at the Silverstein tower sites."

They are not blasting rocks in Figure 43. They are trucking dirt in and out.

Figure 44. Looking south across Ground Zero in October 2007. None of the rrich-brown dirt came

from the WTC nor was it dug up out of the bedrock. (10/20/07) Source:

 14 http://www.observer.com/2007/port-authority-could-owe-larry-silverstein-12m-plus-delays

October

31, 2001

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 24 of 25
25

The WTC buildings were built on bedrock, so any soft material between the surface and the bedrock was

removed when the WTC foundations were built. So, the dirt seen in the above photograph must have been

trucked in since 9/11. Dirt is used in chemical spills and in the cleanup of toxic sites.

Figure 45. This man is wearing a

rubber hazmat suit. It was 75°F that day,

October 12, 2007. (10/12/07)

Figure 46. Dump truck being hosed down

before leaving the site through the Liberty Street

gate. (10/12/07) Source

Figure 47. Yellow rubber hazmat suit? It's

about 75°F, clear blue sky. Observe the mutual

hose-down job? (10/12/07) Source

Defendant SAIC was hired to secure the WTC cleanup.

New York picks SAIC to secure WTC site

New York Gov. George Pataki's office said yesterday that San Diego's SAIC has been hired to help

authorities create a master security plan for the World Trade Center site while it is being rebuilt.

The comprehensive planning effort will coordinate all aspects of security for redevelopment of the World

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 25 of 25