40 sec. C.

Figure 73. (9/11/01) Cropped from Source

http://911wtc.freehostia.com/gallery/originalimages/GJS-WTC28.jpg bubbler.jpg

Figure 74. (9/11/01) Source

http://hereisnewyork.org//jpegs/photos/5245.jpg snowball.jpg

GJS-WTC030c_original.jpg Image43.jpg Image44.jpg Image45.jpg Image46.jpg Image47.jpg

Figure 75. source1 http://911wtc.freehostia.com/gallery/originalimages/GJS-WTC30.jpg source2

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59-19 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 1 of 15
41 sec. C.

Figure 76. (9/11/01) Source http://hereisnewyork.org//jpegs/photos/5704.jpg 5704.jpg

Note the two-toned coloration. This does not look normal.

Figure 77. (9/11/01) Source Image252.jpg Figure 78. (9/12/01) Source

http://archive.spaceimaging.com/ikonos/2/kpms/2001/09//br

owse.108668.crss_sat.0.0.jpg space imaging browse.jpg

Notice the two-toned color.

This is a satellite image captured on 9/12/01. It appears that the cloud emerging from the WTC site stays together

until it reaches a particular altitude where it begins to just disperse. There appears to be a kink in the cloud trail

where this occurs.

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59-19 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 2 of 15
42 sec. C.

Figure 79. source http://911wtc.freehostia.com/gallery/originalimages/GJSWTC32.jpg GJS-WTC032.jpg

Figure 80. source http://911wtc.freehostia.com/gallery/originalimages/GJSWTC35.jpg GJS-WTC035.jpg

This is the rollout of the dust cloud from WTC1. The dust on the pavement in front of the cloud shows the dust

from WTC2 stopped about one block before the pedestrian bridge. The dust cloud from WTC1 stopped at the

pedestrian bridge, about the distance the WTC towers were separated by.

Figure 81. source http://911wtc.freehostia.com/gallery/originalimages/GJS-WTC40.jpg GJSWTC040.jpgFigure 82. source http://911wtc.freehostia.com/gallery/originalimages/GJS-WTC43.jpg GJSWTC043.jpg

The dust clouds appear to roll out for a certain distance and then go up.

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59-19 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 3 of 15
43 sec. C.

Figure 83. source http://911wtc.freehostia.com/gallery/originalimages/GJS-WTC46.jpg GJSWTC046.jpgFigure 84. source http://911wtc.freehostia.com/gallery/originalimages/GJS-WTC49.jpg GJSWTC049.jpg

The dust from blowing up the Kingdome rolled out and settled down in less than 20 minutes.

Reference: http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=4012219&date=20000327

Yet, dust from the WTC buildings went and stayed up for days.

Figure 85. source http://911wtc.freehostia.com/gallery/originalimages/GJS-WTC50.jpg GJS-WTC050.jpg

The dust wafts up.

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59-19 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 4 of 15
44 sec. C.

Flat, no rubble pile, fireman at ground level

Figure 86. (9/11/01) Source and here search2.jpg Figure 87. (9/13/01, likely taken on 9/11/01) Source

010913_5316.jpg

WTC6, an 8-story building, towers over the "rubble pile" remaining from WTC1 and 2. We know this photo was

take before noon on 9/11/01. WTC7 can be seen in the distance. The Verizon Building is at a distance on the left.

This is a view from West Street, looking east across the remains of WTC1. FEMA entered this photo on 9/13/01,

which is the earliest date of any postings for the 9/11 event. Other photos they have for 9/13/01 show many more

people and equipment present. So, it is believed that this photo was taken on 9/11/01, but entered into their files on

9/13.

Let me reiterate that NIST, itself, without prompting from me, has now defined ‘collapse’ to mean “... a

falling in, loss of shape, or reduction to flattened form or rubble of a structure.” That definition literally

mandates that NIST must retract NCSTAR 1 in its entirety because NCSTAR 1 does not in the least cover

the time period the defined events took place, all as I have fully illustrated both in my initial RFC/Supps

and in this Appeal.

D.

As NCSTAR 1 merely offered a “probable [hypothetical] 'collapse’ sequence” [or properly

speaking, hypothetical destruction sequence] purporting to explain the sequence of events leading

up to the ‘collapse’ of the WTC towers,” NIST should modify the stated objective of NCSTAR 1 by

deleting the claim that it was seeking determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 ‘collapsed’

following the initial impacts of the aircraft... ” Had NIST determined why and how WTC 1 and

WTC 2 were destroyed, it would necessarily have had to deal with the following phenomena that

are visually confirmed to have occurred during two separate and discrete time intervals.

The first time interval is the entire course of the (+/-) <11 second destructive phase, something that NIST

avoided by curtailing and cutting off, literally stopping its analysis, at a point defined as “leading up to

‘collapse’.”

The second time interval is the aftermath of the initial destructive phase that was confirmed by the visible

rendering of steel and concrete into dust as it fell, followed by the continuing spread of a toxic and

destructive cloud that brought about the destruction of vehicles as and when the said toxic cloud came

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59-19 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 5 of 15
45 sec. D.

into contact with vehicles blocks away from the WTC complex and the spreading of fine particulate dust

up to a certain point and the sudden cessation of the effect.

In each of the two time intervals above referenced, the precise capabilities of NIST contractors, like ARA

and SAIC, would have permitted them to accurately indicate the exact weapons and lethality effects that

were seen.

Instead, NIST’s contractors engaged in a fraudulent cover-up.

I demonstrate this aspect of the Appeal as follows:

The initial denial letter of July 27, 2007 is incongruent in that in the one paragraph it stated what it

actually did -- namely propose a sequence of events that stopped short of the actual destruction of the

towers -- and, then, in another paragraph it continued to claim that its objective was to “determine why

and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts... ” NIST did not do that. Had it

done so, it would, of necessity, have had to take into account not just the phenomena mentioned in section

C, above, but it would also have had to take into consideration the evidence of what else happened and

how the site was cleaned up.

In this respect, NIST and its contractors did not take into consideration the obvious clean up process that

is associated with the after effects of exotic weaponry, including directed energy weapons.

Here is what NIST and its contractors fraudulently ignored:

The dust cloud

Figure 88. (9/11/01) Source http://hereisnewyork.org//jpegs/photos/5704.jpg 5704.jpg

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59-19 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 6 of 15
46 sec. D.

Figure 89. (9/11/01) Source

http://hereisnewyork.org//jpegs/photos/5717.jpg

Figure 90. (9/11/01) Source

http://911wtc.freehostia.com/gallery/originalimages/GJS-WTC56.jpg

This is a ground-level view of the enormous quantity of dust wafting skyward. Conventional demolition dust does

not do this.

Figure 91. (9/11/01) Source

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/original_imag

es/Reuters/rtr08.jpg

Figure 92. ((9/11/01) Source

http://uploads.abovetopsecret.com/ats37434_wtc_2_60kb.jpg

This is a view north, across Pine Street, which is parallel to Liberty Street and a block or two south of Liberty

Street. The second photo above shows the destruction of WTC2 enveloping lower Manhattan in a blizzard of ultrafine dust.

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59-19 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 7 of 15
47 sec. D.

Steel turns to dust in mid-air.

Figure 93. (9/11/01) Source: Shannon Stapleton,

Reuters

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/DustifiedWTC2.jpg

Figure 94. (9/11/01) Source

http://hereisnewyork.org//jpegs/photos/1539.jpg

Toasted cars

Figure 95. source

http://www.hybrideb.com/source/eyewitness/nyartlab/DSC07998.jpg

Figure 96. source

http://www.worldfiredepartments.com/animations/images/firetruck-3.jpg

Peculiar wilting of car doors and deformed window surrounds on FDR Drive.

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59-19 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 8 of 15
48 sec. D.

Figure 97. (9/11/01) Source

http://image03.webshots.com/3/3/40/70/21934070XFlNSYUYrp_ph.jpg

Figure 98. (9/11/01) source

http://image03.webshots.com/3/3/41/28/21934128ZFFrTnkajW_ph.jpg

Burned out cars and bus along West Broadway. Consistently, they seem to have missing door handles.

And the gas tanks don't appear to explode, but several engine blocks appear to disintegrate.

The oranges

Figure 99. Source http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/images/aris11.jpg

Dust covers an abandoned produce stand in lower Manhattan.

E.

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59-19 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 9 of 15
49 sec. E.

NIST should, likewise at a bare minimum, modify NCSTAR 1 by changing the wording of its

objective by admitting that it did not determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 ‘collapsed’

following the initial impacts of the aircraft... ;” and, instead, acknowledge that its work actually

consists in the proposal of a “probable ‘[hypothetical] ‘collapse’ sequence” explaining the sequence

of events leading up to the ‘collapse’ of the WTC towers.”

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

The August 8, 2006 Fact Sheet (Answers to Frequently Asked Questions) by NIST states, "NIST

estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in

each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2."

(Question #6.)

Quoting NIST August 8, 2006 faqs:

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9

seconds (WTC 2)— speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from

similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground

after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds

for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were

based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and

(2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were

precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see

NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show

that:

“... the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance

to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy

released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded

the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of

deformation.

Since 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. As the stories below

sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on

the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28

stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure

below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above

and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly

exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below)

was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum

felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59-19 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 10 of 15
50 sec. E.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly

60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25

seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the

duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view

caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each

building to collapse completely.

A 9-second "collapse" time for WTC2 is impossible. It violates the laws of physics.

F.

NIST can confirm that directed energy weapons have been used by making inquires at the Directed

Energy Directorate, as I have done, and by calling in ARA and SAIC witnesses, together with the

First Responders, such as Patricia Ondrovic.

NIST has, unfortunately, approached the level of negligence in not responding directly to my assertion

that directed energy weapons were used to destroy the WTC towers. NIST is to be commended, as I

indicated earlier, for procedurally acknowledging that it understood and would respond to my claim.

However, despite the recognition of the claim, NIST did not address it.

I can now demonstrate that I, myself, have sought the input of those agencies of the US government that

are responsible for maintaining our stockpile of directed energy weapons; namely, the Directed Energy

Directorate, located at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico and headed by Susan A. Thornton. I have

communicated with Ms. Thornton and have received two responses submitted on her behalf by her deputy

Rich Garcia, the content of which is set forth below:

CORRESPONDENCE:

DEW Information Request Letter, with comments, 7 April 2007, Judy Wood, comments by Jerry Leaphart

 (posted) http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/DEW_letter.html

Attached: Susan_J_Thornton.pdf, ThorntonConfirmat,4_9_07.pdf

DEW Information follow-up letter to response from the Office of Public Affairs, Directed Energy Directorate,

Kirtland Air Force Base, May 3, 2007, from Jerry Leaphart to Rich Garcia (posted)

http://drjudywood.com/pdf/070503_letterGarcia.pdf

Attached: 070503_letterGarcia.pdf

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59-19 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 11 of 15
51 sec. F.

Response from Juventino R."Rich" Garcia via fax, Directed Energy Directorate, Air Force Research

Laboratory/DEO-PA, Kirtland AFB NM, May 4, 2007, from Rich Garcia to Jerry V. Leaphart (posted)

http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Garcia_letter.html

Attached: Garcia1.gif

More recently I have sent a request for information to Dr. James A. Tegnalia, head of the Defense Threat Reduction

Agency who, by virtue of what his agency does, would be well-suited to acknowledge that the clean up process at

Ground Zero was entirely consistent with cleanup the after effects of the use of directed energy weapons and/or

other exotic weaponry. NIST should have done this either during its investigation; or, at a minimum, in

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59-19 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 12 of 15
52 sec. F.

determining its response to my RFC/Supps. In the absence of so doing, NIST literally lacks a proper foundation for

denying my request for correction and for asserting that it lacks evidence to support the claims I have made

concerning directed energy weapons use and/or ARA’s involvement with such weapons, which I have now

confirmed and which should have been known to NIST if, as is claimed, it engaged in a “rigorous organizational

conflict of interest analysis.”

DEW Information Request Letter to DTRA, 20 August 2007, from Dr. Judy Wood to Dr. James A. Tegnelia.

Attached: 070820_ Tegnelia.pdf

Any such analysis would, of necessity, have revealed that ARA is, first and foremost, at the epicenter of what is

known as “the military industrial complex.” Why is that expertise relevant to a report on what caused the

destruction of the WTC towers? The answer is that ARA’s expertise is best suited to preventing the report on what

caused the destruction of the WTC towers from focusing on all of the abundant evidence that has been put forward

in the RFC/Supps pointing clearly and unequivocally to the use of such weapons.

Pictures are often worth “a 1000 words.” I conclude by offering this comparative photographic array showing what

ARA claims its capacities are and the similarity between that and what happened to the WTC towers.

I think you will agree with me that the following photographic comparison is startling:

 Figure 100(a). source defens1_poof_l.jpg Figure 100(b). source sec_1_lwtc.jpg

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59-19 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 13 of 15
53 sec. F.

III.

Conclusion

I conclude by once again acknowledging appreciation for the procedural handling of my RFC/Supps. I now request

that the procedures be followed up with the proper analytical approach that will result in the retraction of NCSTAR

1 in its entirety because the report does not properly account for the destruction of the WTC towers because it fails

to address the use of directed energy weapons and because those who assisted NIST had clear conflicts of interest

that resulted in the issuance of a fraudulent report.

If any additional information is needed properly to process this Appeal, please revert.

Respectfully,

Dr. Judy Wood

Cc

Jerry V. Leaphart

Attorney for Dr. Judy Wood

8 West Street

#203

Danbury CT 06810

203-825-6265

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59-19 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 14 of 15
54 sec. III.

Attachments:

Pages

RFC March 16, 2007 070316_PROD01_002667.pdf 43

Supplement#1 March 29, 2007 070329_PROD01_002722.pdf 2

Supplement#2 April 20, 2007 070420_PROD01_002899.pdf 28

NIST Extension June 29, 2007 070629_PROD01_003260.pdf 1

NIST Response July 27, 2007 070727_PROD01_003222.pdf 3

Minh Vuong August 17, 2007 Jsleaphart@cs.com, 02-29 PM.pdf 4

editor@nationaldefensemagazi

ne.org

August 17, 2007 Jsleaphart@cs.com, 02-45 PM.pdf 5

Thornton letter April 7, 2007 Susan_J_Thornton.pdf 4

Thornton confirmation April 9, 2007 ThorntonConfirmat,4_9_07.pdf 2

Garcia phone call

Jerry Leaphart follow-up May 3, 2007 070503_letterGarcia.pdf 18

Garcia fax response May 4, 2007 Garcia1.gif 1

Dr. James A. Tegnelia August 20, 2007 070820_ Tegnelia.pdf 5

116

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59-19 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 15 of 15