by Dr. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez (M.D.)
The technical details of 9/11 are very important, because understanding WHAT actually happened to the WTC buildings on 9/11 must be understood with a high degree of accuracy and precision before proceeding to determine WHO did it and WHY. We must present and discuss the empirical evidence from 9/11 as accurately and precisely as possible, so that others will view this important evidence with serious consideration. To help emphasize this important point, I would like to share some words from a fellow scientist.
"Anyone declaring who did what or how they did it before they have determined what was done is merely promoting either speculation or propaganda. The popular chant, "9/11 was an inside job," is, scientifically speaking, no different from the chant that "19 bad guys with box cutters did it." Neither one is the result of a scientific investigation supported by evidence that would be admissible in court. Neither identifies what crime was committed or how it was committed. The order of crime solving is to determine:
1) WHAT happened, then
2) HOW it happened (e.g., what weapon), then
3) WHO did it. And only then can we address
4) WHY they did it (i.e. motive).
Let us remember what is required to (legally) convict someone of a crime. You cannot convict someone of a crime based on belief. You cannot convict someone of a crime if you don't even know what crime to charge them with. If you accuse someone of murder using a gun, you'd better be sure the body has a bullet hole in it. Yet, before noon on 9/11/01, we were told who did it, how they did it, and why they did it (they hate us for our freedoms); before any investigation had been conducted to determine what had even been done.
Many people have speculated as to who committed the crimes of 9/11 and/or how they did so. But without addressing what happened, speculation of this kind is nothing more than conspiracy theory. My research is not speculation. It is a forensic investigation of what happened to the WTC complex on 9/11." -Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D (Materials Science Engineer)
As for the question of 'who' truly orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, the large and conclusive body of verifiable, physical evidence from 9/11 mostly points to a relatively small number of private weapons, defense, and security corporations, which happen to be some of the leading corporations involved in directed energy research. These corporations are some of the primary 9/11 suspects which must be brought to court for evidence-based interrogation and public questioning. Although it's possible that these corporations, their owners, and/or their employees could be affiliated with other organizations, agencies, or individuals, it is at these corporations specifically which the large body of evidence from 9/11 mostly points.
The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and many private weapons, defense, and security corporations [e.g. Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC), Applied Research Associates (ARA), and many others] engaged in an enormous conflict of interest when NIST contracted these private corporations to conduct the fraudulent 9/11 "investigations" using our tax dollars (it's like paying a fox to investigate the attack on a farmer's chickens even though the fox is the primary suspect). It is NIST and these private weapons, defense, and security corporations, many which are associated with the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS), that are the primary suspects of the 9/11 attacks, not necessarily our government. It is NIST and these suspect corporations that we must bring to court for evidence-based interrogation and public questioning.
The primary connection between the federal government and the corruption surrounding 9/11 is the organization known as the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), as they are the government entity that committed science fraud based on the Data Quality Act during the fraudulent 9/11 "investigations", which ultimately gave rise to the extremely unscientific "official story" known as the '9/11 Commission Report'. NIST has clearly helped promote a 9/11 cover-up by committing science fraud, ignoring large amounts of evidence, and using unscientific explanations to deceive most of the public into mistakenly believing a gravity-driven "collapse" occurred on 9/11. Although it's uncertain how deeply the federal government is involved in this corruption, there is irrefutable evidence linking the government entity NIST to the 9/11 cover-up. If we focus on the large and conclusive body of verifiable, physical evidence from 9/11, it will lead us to those corporations, organizations, and entities that were involved in the 9/11 cover-up, and ultimately the 9/11 attacks.
In 2007, Dr. Judy Wood and her attorney Dr. Jerry Leaphart took legal action against the private corporations that the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) had contracted with to conduct the fraudulent 9/11 "investigations", many which are the leading weapons, defense, and security corporations involved in directed energy research (an enormous conflict-of-interest). The filings in these legal efforts included Requests For Corrections (RFC) based on the Data Quality Act, and a Qui-Tam federal whistleblower lawsuit. The federal qui-tam case was so strong, thanks to all the physical evidence that Dr. Wood has gathered, that it was successfully appealed to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2009, despite the attempts of the corporate defense lawyers pushing for premature dismissal of the case at each level of appeal. The case was then unlawfully dismissed without being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, and this is detailed in the legal documents found on Dr. Wood's website and in her textbook 'Where Did The Towers Go?'. To this day, Dr. Judy Wood is the only individual who has submitted physical evidence in the form of a lawsuit to pursue truth and justice for our nation and planet. The legal documents from her court cases can be viewed at the following links:
1. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_RFC.html
2. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml
Sincerely,
-Abe
