Journal of 9/11 Studies: New Letters in response to Judy Wood’s Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis

INTERVIEW WITH DR. JUDY WOOD AND DR. GREG JENKINS (May 15, 2007)Analysis by Greg Jenkins and Arabesque

Responses to "Interview" Letter, by Judy Wood; Greg Jenkins and Arabesque (May 15, 2007)
Judy Wood; Greg Jenkins and Arabesque

A Brief Analysis of Dr. Judy Wood’s Request for Correction to NIST: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (May 15, 2007)
Greg Jenkins and Arabesque

Responses to "Brief Analysis" Letter, by Judy Wood; Greg Jenkins and Arabesque (May 15, 2007)
Judy Wood; Greg Jenkins and Arabesque

Judy Wood Responds to “INTERVIEW WITH DR. JUDY WOOD AND DR. GREG JENKINS”

Dear Dr. Jones,

This acknowledges your many courtesies in letting me know of your intention to publish yet another version of the January 10, 2007, interview between myself and Dr. Greg Jenkins . The original transcript was already posted on my website.   I respectfully decline to comment in detail, but would ask that you post this letter, as you have stated you would do, as a 'simultaneous letter.' http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Jenkins_transcript.html

The many criticisms of my interview replies serve little useful purpose at this time as the causal theory that I espouse has moved well beyond where it was in January. It is fair to say that much has happened since January that would render the criticism of the critical interview (a form of double-dipping, perhaps?) rather out of date, in my opinion. That said, I do not here claim that you should not publish the criticism if that is what you think is best for your journal.

The DEW causal theory is now pending as an official Request for Correction (RFC) within the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), that I filed on March 16, 2007, some two months after the January 10th interview. More recently, I have supplemented the RFC on two separate occasions wherein I have specifically called attention to fraud within the meaning of the False Claims Act, 31 USC @ 1329 et seg., that enables me to file law suits against certain parties, which law suits must be filed under seal and kept confidential until permission is received to say more about them.

My RFCs further reveal that NIST was assisted in the preparation of a false and fraudulent report on what caused the destruction of World Trade Center 1 and 2 (WTC1,2) by major developers of directed energy weapons; namely: Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA) and Science Applications International Inc. (SAIC), among other contractors who should have known that fraud was being committed.

In the case of ARA and SAIC, the extent of their knowledge is derived, in part, from having developed directed energy weapons. Between the two of them, ARA and SAIC had some 25 persons assigned to work on the NIST project, leading to the publication of NCSTAR1, the report on what caused the destruction of WTC1,2.

I can tell you that the response to my RFCs and to the revelations of fraud that they contain and the identification of major DEW contractors, that they also contain, has resulted in a new interest in and emphasis upon DEW theory that did not exist as at January 10th. 

I can also reveal that the DEW theory has been presented to numerous responsible governmental officials whose work on directed energy weapons would put them in a position of knowing what effects would result from use of such weapons. 

Finally, I can reveal that the queries I have caused to be submitted are being taken seriously. As this letter is being written, Dr. Jones, I can tell you that evidence of support of the correctness of DEW theory and corresponding correctness of assertions of fraud in the official reporting is accumulating rapidly with respect to both causation and fraud.

I do not find it necessary to respond directly to the interview criticism in either its original content or in the further criticism in the new letter. My line of research in furtherance of DEW causal theory has taken a different direction that neither benefits nor suffers from public criticism of the theory. Opinions on the matter differ and I respect those who have differing opinions.

Please post this letter in its entirety. If you do not, I will reveal that you invited this reply and promised simultaneous posting, then reneged.

With sincere good wishes, I am

Very truly yours,

Dr. Judy Wood

A response to Judy Wood’s letter in reply to “Greg Jenkins interview Judy Wood: An Interview and Analysis”

By Dr. Greg Jenkins and Arabesque

Judy Wood has made the claim that her theory has advanced beyond the reaches of scientific scrutiny since January:

It is fair to say that much has happened since January that would render the criticism of the critical interview (a form of double-dipping, perhaps?) rather out of date

In reality Wood has not changed her theory much at all.  What need would there be for “double dipping” if Judy Wood had addressed our criticisms in the first place? 

Amazingly, she explicitly claims that her research has now moved beyond the original claims that were so suspect in the first place, thus neutralizing all past and present scientific scrutiny: 

I do not find it necessary to respond directly to the interview criticism in either its original content or in the further criticism in the new letter. My line of research in furtherance of DEW causal theory has taken a different direction that neither benefits nor suffers from public criticism of the theory.

Clearly, Wood is implying here that her theory is beyond critique. To vividly elucidate the fact that Wood has repeated the same points in contention, our RFC analysis references the interview analysis on several occasions, as well as Dr. Jenkins’ paper “The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center”.  Apparently, “double dipping” was not enough to elicit a legitimate scientific response. 

Judy Wood Responds to “A Brief Analysis of Dr. Judy Wood’s Request for Correction to NIST: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”

Dear Dr. Jones,

Thank you, once again, for alerting me of the pendency of a second publication that will appear in your journal. You have indicated that "A Brief Analysis of Dr. Judy Wood's RFC to NIST: the good, the bad and the ugly" by Dr Greg Jenkins and Arabesque will appear and that I should provide you with my reply by May 15th.

I do so as follows:

I decline a peer-reviewed approach, but would ask that you publish this letter as you've indicated you would.

The article, which I will henceforth refer to by the second part of its title "the good, the bad & the ugly" helps to advance interest in the subject of directed energy weaponry as a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center complex, and, in particular, WTC 1 and 2 (WTC1,2). It does so by way of criticism, but criticism is fair. That said, criticism is not self-validating and much of the content of the forthcoming good,bad,ugly article have been articulated elsewhere. One would hope that the technique of repetition of wrongly oriented criticisms will not become the operating norm of these authors. That said, please know that I respect the right of Dr. Jenkins and of Arabesque to disagree with me.

I here assert that any further commentary from me would be inappropriate at this time and should, instead, be reserved until such time as NIST provides its officially mandated reply to my RFC, together with other procedures applicable to the official RFC process. 

I do not want to prejudice NIST's review. I will reiterate, however, that I stand by the validity of the assertions contained in the RFC that is the topic of "the good, the bad & the ugly" in full.

Thank you in advance for publishing this letter in its entirety.

Very truly yours,

Dr. Judy Wood

A response to Judy Wood’s letter in a reply to “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”

By Dr. Greg Jenkins and Arabesque

The tone and demeanor of Dr. Wood’s response to the submission of this letter seems cordial and professional at first glance.  However, the necessity to reiterate previously published scientific scrutiny of her hypothesis is apparent:

criticism is not self-validating and much of the content of the forthcoming good, bad, ugly article have been articulated elsewhere. One would hope that the technique of repetition of wrongly oriented criticisms will not become the operating norm of these authors.

Of course, we agree that criticism is usually not self-validating.  However, simply because criticisms have been articulated elsewhere is not the relevant point here: none—not one, of the issues raised by the authors and others (James Gourley & Tony Szamboti) have been acknowledged, addressed, or redressed.  These criticisms remain unanswered since no scientific dialog between the scientific community and Dr. Wood exists.

Furthermore, it is difficult to respond to the vague claim of “wrongly oriented criticisms” when these are not enumerated or demonstrated to be so.  Instead, Wood has confirmed that it is her “operating norm” to ignore all critiques of her work: 

I will reiterate, however, that I stand by the validity of the assertions contained in the RFC that is the topic of "the good, the bad & the ugly" in full.

By claiming that all of the assertions in her RFC are valid, Wood assumes that all criticisms raised against her hypothesis are either invalid or not worth considering.  This assertion is clearly not supported by the authors of the following articles and letters published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Gregory S. Jenkins

“Scientific Critique of Judy Wood’s Paper “The Star Wars Beam Weapon” (January 9, 2007) James Gourley

Why the damage to WTC Bldgs. 3 and 6 does not support the beam weapon hypothesis and some correspondence with Dr. James Fetzer about it (Updated March 20, 2007) Tony Szamboti

"Introduction to and Interview with Dr. Judy Wood conducted at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. regarding the use of Directed Energy Beams in the Demolition of the World Trade Center Towers" (Febuary 9, 2007) Greg Jenkins

A Brief Analysis of Dr. Judy Wood’s Request for Correction to NIST: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly  Greg Jenkins and Arabesque

Greg Jenkins and Judy Wood: An Interview and Analysis Greg Jenkins and Arabesque

Since the scientific dialog remains closed, reiteration of our criticisms is the only defense against the relentless promulgation of discredited notions by Dr. Wood. Our specific questions and criticisms (expressed in detail in publications listed above) have remained unacknowledged for many months.