Jerry Leaphart On Nist 9/11 Fraud

[CBBrooklyn]

Attorney Jerry Leaphart Fights NIST 9/11 Fraud
Three Request For Corrections (RFC) were filed with NIST regarding its handling of their World Trade Center 9/11 report. Jerry Leaphart represents the three filers. See the official press release for full details:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/3/prweb515 165.htm

Be sure to check out the scientific evidence for directed energy weapon usage at the WTC in former mechanical engineering professor Dr Judy Wood's RFC. (This 43 page PDF is the last link given in the government site linked in the press release above.)

I am well acquainted with the subject matter above and will be happy to answer any intelligent questions regarding it.

[Demosthenez]

. . . what the hell is a directed energy weapon and why have I never heard of them before.

[troubles1]

At 4/4/07 02:12 AM, CBBrooklyn wrote:
I am well acquainted with the subject matter above and will be happy to answer any intelligent questions regarding it.

Are you another of these Crazy people claiming conspiracy theory's surround the tragedy at ground zero? our government did not set it up, unless you are a terrorist or a Muslim desperately trying to prove your religion of peace Theory , I don't see why any intelligent person would think otherwise.

also there are lots of 911 conspiracy threads why start another one?

if this was not your intention then what is it?

[BlisteringFreakachuu]

The Jews who faked the Holocaust did 9/11, everyone knows that.

[BlisteringFreakachuu]

At 4/4/07 02:12 AM, CBBrooklyn wrote: Attorney Jerry Leaphart Fights NIST 9/11 Fraud
Three Request For Corrections (RFC) were filed with NIST regarding its handling of their World Trade Center 9/11 report. Jerry Leaphart represents the three filers. See the official press release for full details:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/3/prweb515 165.htm

Be sure to check out the scientific evidence for directed energy weapon usage at the WTC in former mechanical engineering professor Dr Judy Wood's RFC. (This 43 page PDF is the last link given in the government site linked in the press release above.)

I am well acquainted with the subject matter above and will be happy to answer any intelligent questions regarding it.

Why, oh my gosh, I JUST realized who you are! You're the internet troll who has spammed the IMDB boards for "World Trade Center" and "Flight 93", along with trolling around the wikipedia articles for anything to do with 9/11, trying your BEST to try to assert conspiracy theory into the articles. I'm sure you've been trolling around other forums, but now look where you've ended up, Newgrounds!

Before you start trolling around, I must warn you, 9/11 conspiracy theory is not taken lightly around here, you'll get 12 pages of flaming courtesy of it, and then you'll be permanently looked down, upon, but it doesn't matter, 'cause you're just another 9/11 spam-troll.

In any case, please cease and desist, most of us know about all the conspiracy theories on 9/11, from blaming Jews to explosives in 1, 2, and 7 world trade to a missile at the Pentagon, to F-16s shooting down United 93.

Just stop. Honestly, just stop.

[Eoewe]

Anyone seen Maddox's latest update?

[EndGameOmega]

At 4/4/07 02:12 AM, CBBrooklyn wrote: Attorney Jerry Leaphart Fights NIST 9/11 Fraud
Three Request For Corrections (RFC) were filed with NIST regarding its handling of their World Trade Center 9/11 report. Jerry Leaphart represents the three filers. See the official press release for full details:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/3/prweb515 165.htm

Be sure to check out the scientific evidence for directed energy weapon usage at the WTC in former mechanical engineering professor Dr Judy Wood's RFC. (This 43 page PDF is the last link given in the government site linked in the press release above.)

I am well acquainted with the subject matter above and will be happy to answer any intelligent questions regarding it.

Well after reading both the website and the PDF, I've come to the following conclusion: who ever wrote it has no idea what there talking about. Since the PDF is more compressive then the article, and I'm fairly certain the article is heavily, if not solely, based upon the PDF this will be the focus of my attack, unfortunately the fucking thing is DRMed and I can't copy paste the text, so I'll simply be pointing out the location of the errors vs. coping the whole argument (sorry guys you'll have to open the PDF and read along if you want to follow :P ).

First mistake:
The author is overly critical of the word usage when describing the event, and makes reference to using the term pulverization over collapse. The point is a mute one as collapse is the industry slandered term for a building collapse.

Second mistake:
“Law of conservation of momentum; and” (Page 2->3)
The law can not be used, as momentum is not conserved in this case. The building was experiencing a force equal to gravity and this was adding kentic energy to the system, and incressing velocity. Also due to the highly plastic nature of the building fragment the force experienced was in no way instantaneous, and lasted for a good couple of milla seconds at lest.

Third mistake:
“Law of conservation of energy” (Page 3)
In order for this to work the kentic energy of the system has to be conserved, it isn't because of gravity.

Fourth mistake:
“With that level of expertise, it seems highly likely that some among them...” ( Page 7)
None of the statements made here are correct, First the jet fuel was more then hot enough to weaken the steel structure of the building. It WOULD cause massive deformations and a general load weakening in the building. When factoring in the actual impact damage from the plane it's enviable that building would collapse, especially with the additional burring office equipment. As an aside that the building stood as long as it did is in my eyes fucking amazing.

Fifth mistake:
“The NCSTAR 1, document...objective set forth in E1” (page 8)
The author has misinterpreted the both the nature of the report and what is being address by the footnote. They are referring to the simulation of general building destabilization up to and including the initial collapse event, not the whole building collapse but simply part of the investigation process into the collapse.

Six mistake:
“In addition... ongoing fraud.” (Page 8)
They are stating there own conclusion, namely that the towers did not “collapse”, yet have failed to explain ether fully or in part how and why this is the case. They are using there conclusion as proof of it self, a logical fallacy.

Seventh mistake:
“The height of...ground in free fall” ( Page 8)
The towers collapsed at about free fall velocity, makes quite a bit of sense actually. Your under the assumption that the floors would have to pan cake, that's incorrect. When the tower began to collapse the entire superstructure of the building was severely weakened. In addition the collapsing building produces pressure waves down it's superstructure causing quick and massive deformities. In effect the destruction of the building happened a head (only a couple of ms, but still) of the actual fall.

Eight mistake:
“Columbia University...” (Page 8)
The initial high energy seismic shock wave lasted only a few seconds, and less then the time it took the towers to collapse, this is what you would expect. The shock wave is caused by the ruble actually impacting the ground which should happen more or less at the same time. Hence the short shock wave.

Ninth mistake:
“The top 300 feet...to dust in mid air” (Page 11)
The statement is incorrect. All large towers are, by desine, meant to collapse vertically when undergoing collapse. The internal structure compensated for the eastern collapse by having a more rapid structural degradation on the west side in effect evening out the collapse and causing a vertical drop. However more then likely the top of the building didn't even have time to correct it self the massive KE of the falling building caused large parts of it to fragment and disintegrate upon falling, this is where your dust comes from.

And I'm going to stop my critique here, as it's quite obvious this person has no idea what the hell there talking about or is being deliberately deceptive. I will make one further comment on the “Direct Energy Weapon” scenario, BULLSHIT! There has only been one successful implementation of energy weaponry, it a huge laser system mounted on a modified 747, and isn't even capable of melting a car let alone a building. I might come back later and further analyze this, but I doubt it.

Note: For reference here are the two PDFs, the conspiracy one times out after 30 minutes so you may have to refresh the page if you can't read it.

http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/s/groups/public/@d oc/@os/@ocio/@oitpp/documents/content/prod01_
002667.pdf (Conspiracy One)

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowe rs.pdf ( The NCSTAR 1)

[emmytee]

At 4/4/07 03:29 AM, Eoewe wrote: Anyone seen Maddox's latest update?

You mean the one about mac users? lol

[emmytee]

my bad lol. Its awesome anyway

[Korriken]

so, the american government used some kind of experimental "energy weapon"? I reckon I'll take it to the next level of bullshit conspiracy then.... Aliens with super powers did it!!! ZOMGZ ITS TEH CUVURUP!!!

no one saw the little green cucumber man blasting the buildings with energy bursts from his fingers after the jets hit it? I mean the media already knew about it, but they decided not to say anything about it, but ironically, found it perfectly fine to give up information on our war plans which got a lot of our soldiers killed...

[Tony-DarkGrave]

LOCK THREAD

[CBBrooklyn]

EndGameOmega, and the few others with intelligent post, I'll respond to you:

First let me say this: The 9/11 "Truth Movement" was created and is being controlled by the 9/11 Cover Perpetrators. They have been controlling the information that has been coming out. The information I posted is new!

Here's a blog I made with tons of articles/videos on directed energy weapons: http://www.911researchers.com/node/25

I'm not a physics expert so cannot respond directly to the comments about conservation laws. But I can say that a steel framed building cannot collapse at freefall speed unless the underlying floors start moving first. Dr Wood has already proved this here: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.h tml

Regarding the collapse.... if you look at the available data you will learn that the towers did not collapse, but were pulverized. This is confirmed by all the data. See the animation on this page: http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/
Pages/HTRHome.html

Where did all the building material go? Where's all the steel? Where's the thousands of desks, chairs, computers, xerox machines, filing cabinets, etc?

Also, there's a new development:

NIST contracted with Applied Research Associates (ARA) for the 9/11 NIST report.

Not only is ARA a manufacturer of directed-energy weapon technology,
but are also a founding sponsor of Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).

DEPS, founded in 1999, put out their first newsletter one year before 9/11.
An excerpt from this newsletter is as follows:

"Lasers in space, lasers in the stratosphere, lasers
on and over the battlefield - we're at the
beginning of an evolutionary new wave of
weaponry."

http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/graphics/wavefr ont2.pdf

[CBBrooklyn]

Here are Dr Judy Wood's Qualifications:

Dr. Wood received her degrees from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia:

B.S. Civil (Structural) Engineering
M.S. Engineering Mechanics
Ph.D. Materials Engineering Science

She was an Assistant Mechanical Engineering Professor at Clemson University from 1999-2006.

She has taught courses including:

Experimental Stress Analysis
Engineering Mechanics
Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials)
Strength of Materials Testing

Dr. Wood has over 60 technical publications in refereed journals, conference proceedings, and edited monographs and special technical reports.

See here for more info:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Wood_Bio.html]h ttp://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Wood_Bio.html

[In early 2006, her 9/11 research student, Michael Zebuhr, was murdered.
A few months later, Dr Wood was released from her teaching position.]

[Draconias]

At 4/4/07 11:33 PM, CBBrooklyn wrote: I'm not a physics expert so cannot respond directly to the comments about conservation laws.

Middle schoolers are tought about the Laws of Conservation. Any of them should have known that much. Do they count as experts?

But I can say that a steel framed building cannot collapse at freefall speed unless the underlying floors start moving first. Dr Wood has already proved this here:

It can, however, fall at near freefall speed, and when no one is there to measure the exact speed, then you have to rely on the human eye or a relatively low quality video-- both poor methods of indirect information gathering.

From my observation of the collapses, I do not believe that the debris fell at the maximum gravitational speed because it visibly piles up on the remaining building below, causing a progressive collapse, and you can see other debris thrown to the side falling faster.

Regarding the collapse.... if you look at the available data you will learn that the towers did not collapse, but were pulverized.

Pulverized is only an expression. It is never used in a scientific or other expert sense, so your over-emphasis of this one word is odd. Did you ever take a look at the final collapse debris? Thousands of pounds of weight smashing downward so fast that walls become dust and falls into a chaotic mess sounds like "pulverized" to me, and that's exactly what a collapse does.

Where did all the building material go? Where's all the steel? Where's the thousands of desks, chairs, computers, xerox machines, filing cabinets, etc?

Don't you remember the weeks spent clearing out the massive piles of debris? Steel supports and pieces of other items are plainly visible, although most of it was "pulverized" by the collapse and the sheer weight crushing it.

Not only is ARA a manufacturer of directed-energy weapon technology,
but are also a founding sponsor of Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).

Oh wow, ARA knows something about lasers. Did you ever watch the live footage of the second impact and subsequent collapses? That's all the proof I need to completely destroy your conspiracy here. It is plainly obvious that no laser was involved, even one outside of the visible range.

What is obvious is a plane exploding through a building and the building collapsing-- with the outer edge of the debris falling quicker, forming a convex shape. Any lasers from above would create a concave shape because of the impact force and any lasers from the side would create an obvious concave impact depression or deformation. The footage shows no evidence of laser impacts or anything except for planes, fire, and gravity.

Besides, I have an ear to the research going on with industrial lasers. We're no where near the point where a laser could take down a building, and especially not in that fashion. Maybe punch a hole through a concrete wall, but not much more and it can't currently be scaled up because of energy consumption.

[CBBrooklyn]

take another look at this animation. Where's all the material?

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/
Pages/HTRHome.html

[EndGameOmega]

At 4/4/07 11:33 PM, CBBrooklyn wrote: EndGameOmega, and the few others with intelligent post, I'll respond to you:

First let me say this: The 9/11 "Truth Movement" was created and is being controlled by the 9/11 Cover Perpetrators. They have been controlling the information that has been coming out. The information I posted is new!

OK, and do you have any proof of this?

Here's a blog I made with tons of articles/videos on directed energy weapons: http://www.911researchers.com/node/25

The energy weapons are very low powered. There nothing like your insinuating them to be.

I'm not a physics expert so cannot respond directly to the comments about conservation laws. But I can say that a steel framed building cannot collapse at freefall speed unless the underlying floors start moving first. Dr Wood has already proved this here: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.h tml

But the underlying floors where heavily weakened by the collapse above them; The building didn't pancake. When the building started to collapse it sent energy shock waves down the superstructure that created very severe weaklings and deformites bellow.

Regarding the collapse.... if you look at the available data you will learn that the towers did not collapse, but were pulverized. This is confirmed by all the data. See the animation on this page: http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/
Pages/HTRHome.html

As I said earlier, it's an irrelevant argument, collapse is the industry slandered term used. You making an argument Ad Hominem by focusing on word usage over actual data.

Where did all the building material go? Where's all the steel? Where's the thousands of desks, chairs, computers, xerox machines, filing cabinets, etc?

See my last response.

Also, there's a new development:

NIST contracted with Applied Research Associates (ARA) for the 9/11 NIST report.

Not only is ARA a manufacturer of directed-energy weapon technology,
but are also a founding sponsor of Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).

DEPS, founded in 1999, put out their first newsletter one year before 9/11.
An excerpt from this newsletter is as follows:

"Lasers in space, lasers in the stratosphere, lasers
on and over the battlefield - we're at the
beginning of an evolutionary new wave of
weaponry."

http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/graphics/wavefr ont2.pdf

Again the stuff there talking about is low energy. Most of ARA's research is going into laser biased missile “shields”, which don't have the power to melt through more them a few mm's of aluminum much less concrete, and steel! Hell the physics and chemistry needed to develop any energy weapon capable of doing the damage you've suggested haven't even been worked out yet. A few of the grad students in my department work for defense contractor and they have even said it's damn near impossible; nothing like what your suggesting exist.

At 4/5/07 12:12 AM, CBBrooklyn wrote: take another look at this animation. Where's all the material?

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/
Pages/HTRHome.html

Your image is deceptive. Not all of that building is material, a lot of it is empty space. The amount of material recover from the sight is in very close agreement with how much the building was made of, the very small discrepancy can be easily attributed to building material that was effectively atomized on the plane impacts and during the non controlled fall of the buildings.

Our government can be accuse of a lot. Hell there are even a few conspiracies that there guilty of, but this 9/11 stuff is complete bullshit.

[Korriken]

most people forget about the concussive force that a jet hitting a building would produce, especially when the jet explodes.when something explodes, it doesn't explode horizontally, or vertically, it explodes in a sphere of expanding gases and flame. when the jet hit the building it probably blew away several floors above and below it.

you're probably saying "but the windows exploded!" irrelevant. when something explodes, whatever exploded is sent outwards by the blast at a very high rate of speed, kind of the way a bullet works in a gun. the bits of jet hull digs into the walls and floors, weakening them as it breaks the concrete, then, it collapses due to heat weakening the metal supports and the weight of the now cracked/shattered concrete chunks. then the it falls on the floor below it, adding its weight to the floor below it, it can't hold up because it wasn't designed to hold the incredible amount of weight, and a domino effect happens, slowly but surely the floors give way.

also like they said, the jet fuel was hot enough to weaken the steel, not enough to melt it, but enough to weaken it.

and think of this. had the twin towers been hit by some kind of energy weapon from space that was sufficient to bring down the towers, how did anyone inside survive it? if the government fired a laser strong enough to destroy the metal and concrete structure, then how on earth did the people trapped inside of the building happen to survive the exposure? it f it can melt metal, it will char flesh.

[Proteas]

At 4/4/07 11:33 PM, CBBrooklyn wrote: First let me say this: The 9/11 "Truth Movement" was created and is being controlled by the 9/11 Cover Perpetrators. They have been controlling the information that has been coming out. The information I posted is new!

I've got a question for you...

How is it, that the Government has been able to keep THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE quiet about what really happened on 9/11 for the past 6 years, yet they can't seem to keep the media from going around and grossly blowing everything in Iraq out of proportion on a nightly basis and thereby severely ruining their reputation with the American People? I mean, if our Government was willing to sacrifice a couple thousand innocent people and cause untold BILLIONS of dollars worth of damage to the economy and in property just so they could go to war for oil, why can't they keep the media quiet about that war so they would look good to the American people?

Now kindly explain that one to me, Mr. Fountain of untold knowledge.

[SuperDeagle]

Uh Oh LooseChange!

[Korriken]

the problem with "energy weapon usage" would be this, as well.

if it was a laser, people would have seen an enormous flash of light.

if it was a concussive energy wave, no one would have been pulled out alive, it would have killed them all.

if it was a sound wave, everyone within MILES would have heard the boom.

if it was a nuke... new york would have its very own smoldering crater.

conspiracy theories are so incredibly stupid.

[CBBrooklyn]

Response to comments:

The 9/11 truth movement has been infiltrated and is being controlled by the 9/11 coverup perps. They've been distracting people with nonsense such as molten metal. There was no molten metal. It was a fabrication to distract the Truth Movement from what really happened. See here for evidence of molten metal fabrication: http://www.911researchers.com/node/147

The biggest promoter of molten metal is Steven Jones. See this writeup: http://www.911researchers.com/node/125

Loose Change is being used as a government tool to distract from the real evidence. Ever wonder why LC was mentioned on network news?

There is absolutely nothing deceptive about the animation here: http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/
Pages/HTRHome.html

The proportions of the buildings are correct. (If you disagree, feel free to try to prove me wrong:-) ) The last picture (of the rubble) is confirmed by the all other available photos.

So.... I ask again: Where did all the material go?

The government is light years ahead in technology of what they publicly disclose.

The beams at the WTC need not have been visible. Think of your microwave oven.

[CBBrooklyn]

At 4/5/07 02:33 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 4/4/07 11:33 PM, CBBrooklyn wrote: First let me say this: The 9/11 "Truth Movement" was created and is being controlled by the 9/11 Cover Perpetrators. They have been controlling the information that has been coming out. The information I posted is new!

I've got a question for you...

How is it, that the Government has been able to keep THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE quiet about what really happened on 9/11 for the past 6 years, yet they can't seem to keep the media from going around and grossly blowing everything in Iraq out of proportion on a nightly basis and thereby severely ruining their reputation with the American People? I mean, if our Government was willing to sacrifice a couple thousand innocent people and cause untold BILLIONS of dollars worth of damage to the economy and in property just so they could go to war for oil, why can't they keep the media quiet about that war so they would look good to the American people?

Now kindly explain that one to me, Mr. Fountain of untold knowledge.

The idea that thousands of people would need to be involved is untrue. And not everyone involved would need to know all the details. Many of those involved would just follow orders.

However, it's been proven the TV newscasters were in on it!!
http://www.911researchers.com/node/241

[Memorize]

At 4/6/07 11:01 PM, CBBrooklyn wrote:

However, it's been proven the TV newscasters were in on it!!

If I could, I'd set your house on fire and claim the government did it.

[CBBrooklyn]

At 4/6/07 11:03 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/6/07 11:01 PM, CBBrooklyn wrote:

However, it's been proven the TV newscasters were in on it!!

If I could, I'd set your house on fire and claim the government did it.

Being in denial does not help the current situation of the country. You are advised to wake up, and gear your anger toward those who deserve it.

[Elfer]

At 4/4/07 02:46 AM, Demosthenez wrote: . . . what the hell is a directed energy weapon and why have I never heard of them before.

A directed energy weapon is a term used to talk about spacelazers without sounding like as much of a kook.

[Memorize]

At 4/6/07 11:06 PM, CBBrooklyn wrote:

Being in denial does not help the current situation of the country. You are advised to wake up, and gear your anger toward those who deserve it.

My anger is set on you because you are an idiot who refuses to actually look at the facts of the situation.

You being dead would provide me great joy in knowing that there's one less moron out there.

[CBBrooklyn]

At 4/6/07 11:18 PM, Memorize wrote: My anger is set on you because you are an idiot who refuses to actually look at the facts of the situation.

You being dead would provide me great joy in knowing that there's one less moron out there.

You think you know the facts?? Ha! Ha! Ha! You're going to wind up owing your freedom to me buddy!

Also, your childish namecalling shows you to be the moron.

You think I have the facts wrong? Prove it!

[Memorize]

At 4/6/07 11:24 PM, CBBrooklyn wrote:

You think I have the facts wrong? Prove it!

I believe that's already been done.

I love conspiracy theorists. How else would I be able to laugh so hard that my gut burst?

[CBBrooklyn]

At 4/6/07 11:32 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/6/07 11:24 PM, CBBrooklyn wrote:

You think I have the facts wrong? Prove it!

I believe that's already been done.

I love conspiracy theorists. How else would I be able to laugh so hard that my gut burst?

So it's been done, eh? How long have you been having delusions?

You might be one of the small percentage of Americans who will never wake up

[Memorize]

At 4/6/07 11:37 PM, CBBrooklyn wrote:

You might be one of the small percentage of Americans who will never wake up

Take a look around and guess who's in the minority right now.