An Interview with 9/11 Counselor Jerry V. Leaphart

Jerry V. Leaphart

Reynolds: My first question is who is Jerry Leaphart? In
other words, your short biography.
Leaphart: OK Morgan. I’m probably not even the best
person to ask that; in any event, as you know I am a
practicing lawyer. I’ve been practicing law now for the
better part of 40 years. I graduated from New York
University School of Law in 1971. When I went to law
school, I fully expected that at some point in my career I
would probably be what is called an activist attorney.
That is why I went to law school, that is how I perceived
myself but then a funny thing happened along the way and
that is that life comes along and the requirement to earn a
living and raise a family happens and that is what
happened to me. And as a result I spent the first 20 years
of my legal career essentially as a corporate lawyer and
not only was I a corporate lawyer but I was a corporate
lawyer in the oil industry, during which time I essentially
did the best I could as a corporate lawyer, knowing that at
an internal level it was not really what I wanted to do with
my career. Nonetheless, I engaged in corporate law for
about as long as I could, during which time I acquired a
fair amount of experience in the international side of the
oil business and worked in various countries around the
world, pretty much on every inhabited continent. And
then in 1993 I had had enough and from that point
forward I did embark on an activist legal career, becoming
essentially a litigator or trial lawyer in pursuit of various
causes, some of which were very personal to the clients I
represented, others were more generally directed toward
the issue that I was representing.
That brings us Morgan to the year 2007, by which time I
had the good fortunate and privilege to meet up with you
and also with Dr. Judy Wood.
Reynolds: Let me interject a question that occurs to me as
an economist and might interest our readers, and that is:
can you make a living as an activist attorney? How do
you …are there any fees that you can realize?
Leaphart: Essentially the answer is: with great difficulty.
Now often people who pursue the kind of career path that
I pursued in the second half of my career do so on the
basis of having become financially secure or having
started out that way or for other reasons decide to take on
a certain degree of financial sacrifice and to practice law
without the security of a large income. I would say
Morgan that my situation is a combination of both factors:
Some financial security, occurring in the first half of my
career as you might expect. As a corporate attorney in the
oil industry, I enjoyed fairly significant income; the
second half of my career as an activist attorney, not so
much. But, that is not to say I have not earned fee
income. I have, just not as much as before.
Reynolds: [laughter] OK, let’s go back to 2007.
Leaphart: By that time I had come to the recognition that
the common storyline of 9/11 was false and as an activist
attorney and essentially as a citizen I found myself in the
position of just simply not being able to live with, on the
one hand, the recognition that the common storyline was
false and, on the other, not doing anything about it or just
accepting it as a fait accompli or accepting it as something
I could not do anything about. And what I meant when I
said that I had the good fortune and privilege of meeting
you and Dr. CONTACT _Con-423C89322 \c \s \l Judy
Wood and Edward Haas, among others whose names I
will also mention during the course of this interview, was
that I was not alone in knowing the common storyline was
false and having the commitment and the willingness to
do something about it. So as these things tend to develop,
when people of like mind learn of one another, they often
figure out ways in which they can combine their various
areas of expertise and join together and take group action.
Morgan, that is essentially what you and Dr. Wood and I
and Edward Haas did at a certain point in time. We put
our various areas of expertise together and we figured out
a way in which to challenge the common storyline of 9/11
in various ways using legal process to do so. And I’m
very pleased with the fact that we did that and I’m also
very pleased with the outcome.
Reynolds: Really!
Leaphart: The thing that you learn as an activist attorney,
Morgan, is that the concept of winning, losing, victory,
defeat, take on a meaning is sometimes counterintuitive.
Usually when you go into any situation where an outcome
tied to it involves some notion of winning or losing you
tend to think of winning as being getting a specific victory
in the way that victory is traditionally defined or
conversely a loss in the way that loss is traditionally
defined. That is not how life actually works. I mean we
can all think of examples of how winning turns out to be a
loss and vice versa. There is nothing uncommon about
that, for example, even in everyday sports where there is
always a definite win and a very definite loss it’s often
said that losing hurts worse than winning feels good.
Reynolds: [laughter]
Leaphart: What that tells us is that when you’re in a
competitive situation trying to get some outcome or
another, it’s inherently a stressful, aggravating process,
and often what you have to do to win requires a greater
sacrifice than what the loser may sustain.
Let’s take it back to the origin of the Olympics. What
happened? Yes, some guy who ran from wherever it was
to the next town over and he made it, however, he then
dropped dead. This is all just a metaphor for saying that
winning is not always what we think it is and losing is not
always what we think it is.
The success of the cases that we pursued in federal court
and also administratively through the National Institute of
Standards and Technology was that we put the issue, in
your case Morgan, we squarely put the issue that there
were no Boeing 767s jetliners involved in the episode of
destruction in NYC on 9/11 into the public record,
accompanied by a significant degree of proof. We also
put into the public record the fact that NIST had
circumscribed their investigation of the event to begin at
the point of impact or of explosion at the Twin Towers
and to end at the point that the towers had only just begun
to be destroyed. That was fraud. NIST defined the
timeline of its investigation so as to exclude having to
account for whether there wer planes or not, on the front
end, and they stopped their investigation prior to the
actual episode of destruction. We put that into the public
record, called it by its right name, that is, we called it
fraud and there it is.
Reynolds: Let me have you back up a moment and give a
brief statement of each of these three cases because some
of our readers won’t be familiar with them.
Leaphart: I’ll try to do that as briefly as I can. Basically,
Morgan, what happened on 9/11 was never properly
established or confirmed by any reliable, publicly funded
investigatory process. Not ever, up to and including the
present. So the first thing to understand is that the events
of 9/11 have not ever been explained in a governmentally
funded forensic investigatory process. We know that
perhaps starting in the year 2002 the Congressional
investigations on the matter essentially accomplished
nothing except to offend the victims’ family members
who at that time were strenuously calling for an
investigation into the matter. That then led to the socalled
9/11 Commission which was operative during the
years 2003, ultimately issuing the 9/11 Commission
Report in the year 2004 which we now know even on the
basis of books published by active members of the
Commission, that essentially the Commission determined
nothing and publicly acknowledged that what happened
on 9/11 as presented by witnesses in the Commission
hearings is false.
The next…at about the same time you had a preliminary,
underfunded voluntarily staffed investigation conducted
by some engineers associated with FEMA, the Federal
Emergency Management Administration, or got
themselves associated, resulting in an inconclusive report
about what had happened in New York.
That then led to Congress enacting a law that the National
Institute of Standards and Technology undertake a study
to determine why and how the towers of the WTC
complex got destroyed. That was NIST’s mandate.
Reynolds: Yes.
Leaphart: Now by the year 2005 NIST had first issued a
preliminary report on what destroyed the twin towers and
as it turns out, there was an administrative process that
allowed members of the public to comment upon the
NIST report and to officially request corrections to errors
that seemed apparent in this report. And that is what you
and Dr. Wood and Mr. Haas each independently did by
submitting what are called requests for correction to the
NIST report. Your request for correction (RFP) focused
on the fact that…or focused on what we all refer to as the
“no planes claim,” OK? Dr. Wood’s RFP focused on her
proof that means of destruction of the WTC were brought
on by the use of Directed Energy Weapons (DEW), that is
to say secretive, high-tech weaponry that produced the
visually unprecedented effects that we saw, that is,
basically having two 110-story buildings together with a
third building, the 22-story Marriott Hotel, that almost
never even gets mentioned and that’s not even to further
mention WTC building 7, which does get sometimes
mentioned as the forgotten building in the destruction of
the WTC. But the real forgotten building in the
destruction in the WTC complex is probably the 22-story
Marriott Hotel.
Bottomline: Those buildings disappeared leaving virtually
no trace by way of a destructive process that cannot be
explained on the basis of simple gravity and simple
kerosene being the destructive components.
So, then Edward Haas independently challenged the story
on the basis of the methodology by NIST to come to its
conclusions. So you had three separate challenges to the
common storyline within the context of what NIST was
mandated to do. Ultimately, we determined that what
NIST had done was actually fraudulent. They used a
technique that is not uncommon in science fraud and the
technique that they used was basically to define their
objectives in such a way as to make sure that they
basically did not investigate what happened.
Reynolds: [laughter] Yeah.
Leaphart: NIST set up its investigation so that it
literally…so that the starting point was the moment after
the alleged jetliners hit the towers which literally meant,
as you know, that they did not have to confirm that
jetliners hit the towers and the fact of the matter is no
jetliners did hit those towers. And then they concluded
their investigation at the point where or when the towers
were about to be destroyed. Here you have a 10,000-page
NIST investigation that investigated everything that
happened after the towers suffered damaging explosions
and then ended before the towers underwent their final
Reynolds: As I recall, their language was “up to the
initiation of collapse.”
Leaphart: That is correct and that is science fraud. Now,
what we also then determined, as is often the case in
government endeavors, they contract out most of the work
and so the endeavor becomes a so-called public-private
partnership where the lines of responsibility and control in
the project are blurred or obscured, if not just totally
eradicated such that it’s impossible to determine who
actually was in charge of what. But in any event, the
NIST project that engaged in this science fraud,
investigating any and everything except what actually
happened, was led by two giants of the military-industrial
complex and I think, Morgan, one of the unique
contributions made to the entire process of determining
what happened on 9/11 was the fact that you and Dr.
Wood identified the following two companies: Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and
Applied Research Associates Corp (ARA) as companies
who essentially had contracts with NIST and whose
contributions to the NIST project were greater than that of
any of the other contractors, primarily because those two
companies had more of their employees involved with the
NIST project than did any of the others.
Now SAIC and ARA are each companies that have a great
deal of involvement in the development, the manufacture,
the testing of the lethality effects and other involvement in
precisely the causes of the destruction of the WTC,
namely, directed energy weaponry and the use of military
psychological operations, that is to say, operations that use
media and other sources like high-tech holography and
other forms of illusion to create psychological operations
or what are called “psyops.”
Reynolds: That’s a form of warfare on the civilian
population and this whole…these lead contractors, it’s just
outrageous on its face.
Leaphart: That is correct, Morgan. There is scarcely any
greater revelation…if you have to boil down your and Dr.
Wood’s contributions to the world of determining of what
happened on 9/11, than that which was accomplished in
the identification of SAIC and ARA for their participation
in the NIST project and for the implication that that had in
connection with the weapons development that those
companies are involved with, and the actual causes of the
destruction and deception taking place on 9/11.
Now, an element here that is essential, especially on the
no planes side, is the ability of the MIC to conduct its
operations in secret. You have undoubtedly received the
criticism countless times that, well, all of this sounds well
and good but for something like that to happen, too many
people would have to be in on it and it could not be kept
secret. Well that’s false because the secrecy apparatus
associated with military operations involves security
clearance procedures and involves compartmentalization
of information such that you can have an operation can
take place where a handful of people or fewer might
actually know what is going on.
Case in point: it just so happens that on 9/11, as you know
Morgan, certain military exercises were taking place
involving nothing short of an actual exercise simulating
the hijacking of aircraft. That was taking place on 9/11,
OK? Now, one of the individuals who was singled out by
the 9/11 Commission for being less than truthful, to put it
no more harshly than that, was General Larry Arnold.
Now, among the literature put out by those who support
the common storyline of 9/11, is a book entitled
“Touching History” by Lynn Spencer. Lynn Spencer was
motivated to write her book based squarely on her
recognition that the 9/11 Commission Report was
inadequate. And so Lynn Spencer set about the task about
finding out a bit more about what had actually happened
as it related to the FAA and NORAD and essentially the
defense apparatus of the U.S. Lynn Spencer’s concern
was that 9/11 Commission had not really adequately
explained how a jetliner could be hijacked and
successfully avoid detection such that they could reach
their targets in three of four alleged instances. I’m going
to give you a brief quote concerning Larry Arnold. Now
Larry Arnold was basically the NORAD commander who
was actually in charge of the military exercises taking
place that day. Now, Lynn Spencer’s book says, “Even as
NORAD’s commander for the continental United States,
Arnold is not privy to everything concerning the
exercise.” So, here you have a specific recognition or
acknowledgement I should say, that Major General Larry
Arnold who is heading up the military exercise involving
simulated hijacking of jetliners on 9/11, he himself is not
privy to everything that is to transpire in connection with
the exercise. So the point that I have made here is
confirmed, that there are very few people who may have
actually known what was to happen and how it was to be
done on 9/11.
Reynolds: And that certainly would, I would argue,
include the POTUS, George W. Bush, otherwise known as
Boy George, who was no doubt warned that something
big was going to go down but he was not really scripted,
the way it looked.
Leaphart: That’s correct. Now, earlier this year, just three
or four months ago, The Washington Post put out an
investigative piece entitled, “Top Secret America,” that
did provide some useful information about how the
secrecy apparatus works. The Washington Post article
essentially reminded us that the admonition back in
January 1961 by then departing President Dwight
Eisenhower, warning us about the undue and growing
influence of the military-industrial complex was and
remains a warning that we have to take seriously.
Morgan, I think in some of the documents submitted in
your court case, the Eisenhower admonition warning us
about the military industrial complex was quoted. You
essentially did your duty. You took the Eisenhower
admonition warning us against the power, the influence
and the capability of the military industrial complex to
conduct operations in secret motivated by their desire to
make profit, very seriously. And that is what you did and
that is what we must continue to do as we seek to implant
in the public consciousness the awareness of what actually
transpired on 9/11.
Reynolds: To fast forward this a little bit, in all three
cases, well, I know in Judy’s case and mine, they were
very well argued, I was very impressed with the
documentation and of course I hoped the defendants
would be put under oath and, oh my goodness, what a
field of joy that would have been, but we didn’t get there.
In fact, Judge Daniels dismissed our cases with prejudice
and while I wasn’t surprised, it was very disappointing of
course. Then Dr. Wood’s case was taken to the Appellate
level and you were able to argue orally, at least in brief,
and then it was rejected. It was apparently listened to by
the court with respect, but it was rejected there and then
you took it to the Supreme Court where it was denied the
writ of certiorari, and that was only in January, 2010, so
you’ve had a chance to reflect on these cases, and you’ve
already given us summaries.
I think we had to try this. It was a wonderful battle if you
will, and we certainly did not get really close, but
comment on the quality of Judge Daniels’ decision which
I was very disappointed with, it was very dismissive and
prejudicial and, as I understood it from you, the Court was
supposed to treat our positive facts as acceptable or
correct until found otherwise and proceed on the basis of
law, whether there was jurisdiction and the like.
Leaphart: I certainly am not going to…nothing I say is to
be heard or understood as criticism of either the court or
judge per se. Suffice it to say that we considered that the
judge’s decision was legally incorrect and that is why in
the case of Dr. Wood, it was appealed. Now what we also
need to point out here, Morgan, is that the judge
consolidated the three cases, yours, that of Dr. Judy Wood
and that of Edward Haas, essentially into one case or one
decision. And he did that on his own. That is not
treatment that was requested, the court just did that sui
sponte, the legal phrase used that means that the court is
doing something on its own volition and not at the request
of one or the other of the parties.
So basically and ultimately a decision was made to craft
one appeal and Dr. Wood’s case was then appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals and then as you noted
ultimately to the US Supreme Court.
Now legally speaking, I’m going to just ask that it be
understood that I’m giving a very brief summary here and
not addressing the underlying, more technical legal issues
associated either the decision or the appeal. The court
records are a matter of public record. I know that a lot of
the documents have been posted up on various websites
and various discussion forums. One of the things a lot of
people look for was whether or not these cases would be
treated as frivolous and therefore would result in sanctions
or penalties being imposed upon either of the parties or
the attorney representing the party. And what I can tell
you is that while that outcome does sometimes happen in
connection with activist cases, and perhaps in some cases
that sought to challenge the explanation of 9/11, I can tell
very fully and clearly that the defendants in cases that
you, Dr. Wood and Ed Haas brought, actively sought to
get sanctions and sought to require you and us to be held
liable for expenses but the court denied all of those
motions. And at the end of the day we were found to
have, at least passed muster, in presenting meritorious
You do not have to win a lawsuit to have a meritorious
claim. In fact, your case was not determined on its merits.
As you noted, we could have made a tremendous lot of
progress in unraveling 9/11 had we been given the
opportunity to take depositions of SAIC and ARA
personnel. That is what we were seeking to do. Small
wonder, then, that SAIC and ARA defended their cases so
vigorously. In any event, we did not get to that stage,
which literally means the merits of the cases simply was
not decided one way or another by the court. And, as I
said Morgan, you were not required to pay a penny of
expense because the defendants’ attempts to get sanctions
or to get the cases to be considered sufficiently frivolous
so that you would be required to pay their expenses were
all denied, every step of the way.
Reynolds: That is a powerful and heartening point, Jerry,
and the critics of Dr. Wood, Dr. Reynolds and Ed Haas, in
that order, since Dr. Wood’s work has come under the
most fierce fire on these forums, claim that the dismissal
with prejudice is sufficient to show the frivolity of the
cases, but that’s not true.
Leaphart: That was their back-up position. They knew
that the defendants sought to get us to pay their expenses,
and have sanctions imposed, but they also were aware that
the defendants’ attempt to do that failed. They
acknowledged it.
Reynolds: Now here’s another point that I’d like you to
address. Our critics in the 9/11 research and education
industry argue, that is, they say that these cases somehow
preempt other legal actions to bring other legal actions to
bring justice in the whole 9/11 hoax. Why does this
forestall other legal suits?
Leaphart: In my view and without benefit of knowing
specifically what they’re claiming, but those claims are
contradicted by the fact that there has been other 9/11
litigation. I don’t think there’s been enough 9/11-related
litigation, for sure, Morgan.
Reynolds: I agree.
Leaphart: But the only thing that I can say about claims of
that nature is that factually it’s shown to be not true and
legally my going-in position is that it is simply incorrect.
I think all I can do is state that claim in general terms here
in the absence, you know, a specific discussion with
someone who is making that claim.
Let me also say here that insofar as other people who are
making claims about 9/11 that challenge the common
storyline on one hand but who on the other hand disagree
with you or disagree with Dr. Wood, Morgan, I don’t have
any truck with those people, so to speak. I do not get into
arguments with other people who are challenging the
common storyline of 9/11. I don’t get into argumentation
whether you are right and they are wrong or vice versa.
There is room among those who challenge the common
storyline of 9/11 for different approaches to be taken. My
argument is not with other proponents of challenging the
common storyline. My argument is with the common
storyline and that’s where I’m focusing.
Reynolds: OK, of course I wonder why we haven’t had
more 9/11 suit, etc., by some of our scientific rivals in the
9/11skeptic industry but I don’t think we need to address
that here.
Leaphart: There is something here, if I could, that I would
like to get out on the table so to speak and that is that it’s
said that 9/11 is essentially an emotional issue centered on
what people believe and what people hold to be true. I
don’t challenge what people believe. People are free to
believe whatever it is they have a need to believe for as
long as they can believe it. The issue here that I think we
need to have common recognition of, is that the events of
9/11 have not ever been officially explained and/or
confirmed in a reliably run, forensic investigation that has
been made part of the public record.
Reynolds: And on the contrary, they hid evidence, planted
evidence—we can prove this—and destroyed evidence.
They block investigation wherever they find it necessary.
Leaphart: That is correct Morgan. So the one thing that
can be and needs to be factually pursued, whatever your
belief about 9/11 is, that belief is not substantiated by a
reliable, factual, forensic determination of what happened,
with the only exception being that which you and Dr.
Wood put into the public record in your challenges to the
NIST report. I submit to you Morgan that your Request
For Correction (RFC) and the RFC put forward by Dr.
Wood were each comprehensive and done in accordance
with forensic examination practices that make what you
and Dr. Wood published the only publicly accessible
information found on a governmental website as to what
happened on 9/11. As you know your RFC and that of Dr.
Wood are each a part of the public website found at the
NIST, so what you did is part of the public record and
contained on a governmental website.
Reynolds: So that is an important element of your
argument that we have at least a partial victory, if not the
full victory we would ultimately seek. Let’s go to the
more general…
Leaphart: There is something more that should be
commented upon quickly and that is your reference to the
discovery process. You are quite correct that had your
case survived the motion to dismiss, then, in that event,
we would have been able to question SAIC and ARA.
Now something that did not get mentioned definitively
enough in the early part of the discussion was that you did
not sue the government claiming that they had covered up
9/11. That was not the approach that you took. You and
Dr. Wood, as I said earlier, I really want people to register
Reynolds: By the way, SAIC is a top 10 DoD contractor
and it is “CIAs” [laughter]…
Leaphart: …CIA’s spelled backwards. People really do
need to take some time to research SAIC and Applied
Research Associates, ARA. ARA on its website, Morgan,
had two images that were used to describe their
“capabilities,” keeping in mind that ARA is essentially a
weapons manufacturer. They manufacture WMDs,
Weapons of Mass Destruction, and they manufacture a
variety of Directed Energy Weaponry and essentially
there’s a pipeline between DARPA, the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Administration, and ARA.
That’s what “applied research” means. DARPA does the
advanced research and then ARA manufactures the
goodies. OK? Now, on ARA’s website, they had two
images that looked for all the world like an admission as
to what had destroyed the World Trade Center, they had
one photo showing buildings that looked a lot like the
World Trade Center being destroyed, saying this is what
we can do. Another image used a color combination of
orange, black and gray where the twin towers were
depicted in orange and the immediate surrounding area
pictured in black and gray, essentially posing the question,
look what we can do, make the World Trade Center
disappear and not harm the surrounding buildings. That’s
what happened.
Photo inserts:
Reynolds: Yes, and of course the intelligence services and
military around the world knew what was going down
right away when they saw this. This was a signal: here’s
what we can do to you.
Leaphart: That I think is essentially correct Morgan.
What happened here is a manifestation of advanced
weaponry that we as part of the general public know little
about. That is why I cannot emphasize too much the need
to take your time, learn about SAIC, learn about ARA.
Those are the entities you would have been questioning
had your cases gone forward and it is quite likely that in
the process of questioning we would have been able to reconfirm
the truth of your claim. The discovery process
could have served to bring about the kind of victories that
we would normally define as victories.
Reynolds: Because these were civil suits and you only
need a preponderance of evidence and we would have
wanted a jury trial of course but how can, we could follow
this a long way but what occurs to me is “stonewall,” they
couldn’t just say, “No comment,” I mean they would end
up perjuring themselves, I would imagine but we as
interrogators, we know so much about this, we would be
tripping them up. It would have been just a phenomenal
thing to get these people under oath subject to perjury
Leaphart: That is correct. I think had we basically…an
outcome that was likely here was that had you survived
the motion to dismiss, and by the way, the cases that you
and Dr. Wood brought are called Qui Tam cases. Well,
guess what Morgan? It’s not unusual for Qui Tam cases to
be dismissed. I can’t give you the statistics on the number
of such cases that are dismissed but anecdotally I can say
that the majority of such cases are dismissed. It is very
difficult to get a Qui Tam case beyond the dismissal stage
and that is because procedurally they demand a level
initial proof, and it’s not just a question of the quantum [?]
of proof, but the proof has to come from a certain limited
range of sources. Otherwise, even if you have the
information on them, if it doesn’t come from a source that
was not previously known to the government, you still
cannot proceed with your case.
Reynolds: But of course we argued that we were, and I
think very persuasively, original relators…
Leaphart: Original source.
Reynolds: Original source. And the Qui Tam is really a
whistle-blowing legislation or law.
Leaphart: It’s a whistle-blowing form of legislation and it
represents a compromise between on the one hand the
need for the public to have a way to make sure the
government is not being defrauded but at the same time
the reason given for the difficulty of taking that path is
that the law does not want to be seen as encouraging just
anyone and everyone to making these claims at the drop
of a hat. So on the one hand it’s important under the law
to have a procedure where citizens can advance the
interest of detecting fraud in governmental work but on
the other hand the law has made a decision to make such
cases difficult to pass the initial threshold.
Now, one of the interesting things that happened during
the course of the appeal of Dr. Wood’s case, Morgan, was
that the Qui Tam law was changed and it was made in
some respects a little less difficult to proceed on, and,
drum roll, some of the provisions of the Qui Tam law
were made retroactive to cases that were pending as of the
day that your cases were pending. So technically had the
appeal on Dr. Wood’s case succeeded, your case could
have been reinstated. And you had the very unusual
occurrence of a law being retroactively changed. Now if I
were a conspiracy theorist, which I’m not, I would stake
out a claim that the law was changed in order to help you.
Reynolds: [laughter]
Leaphart: Now bear in mind another point that should be
made here Morgan, and that is while you and Dr. Wood
and others appeared to have a lot of critics who show up
in various places around the internet, it should be
understood and specifically mentioned that you and Dr.
Wood have a lot of supporters. There are a lot of people
inside government who know, inside government and
industry, who know that the common storyline of 9/11 is
false, who know that the claim that jetliners were involved
on 9/11 is not proven and likely false on the basis of a
psyop using TV to project false images. They know that.
But at the same time not everyone wants to be an activist,
in fact very few people want to do that precisely because
of the financial and other sacrifices that it entails and
people are literally forced to go along to get along, not to
mention keep their jobs. But yet and I both know that
you’ve gotten a lot of confidential messages of support
that encourage you to keep at it but which are done on the
basis of confidentiality and/or anonymity because people
are not in a position where they can come forward on
these things plus based on the highly compartmentalized
approach used to protect information within the MIC,
there are a lot of people who really can only suspect or
have a part of the picture and who really do not enough
information that they can come forward with clinching
information and that is done by design. That is essentially
the system you’re up against.
Reynolds: Yes, one kind of metaphor or parallel would be
the Soviet Union which everybody within it knew within
a few decades, surely, that it was all a lie about the
workers’ paradise and yet people went through the
motions for decades more before it fell of its own
infirmities and the general public knows that there is a lot
of rot at the top and maybe we’re approaching the point
some serious changes if only because of the financial
follies. Maybe 9/11 will catch lightning in bottle. We’ve
already gone from the cases to a more general assessment
of the 9/11 scam and I’d like you to look backward.
We’ve recognized the ninth anniversary of 9/11 and look
backward and hit some high points and low points in our
journey and how you see this unfolding over the next few
Leaphart: Sooner or later the façade that keeps the
common storyline intact is going to break. But I do not
have crystal and I do not of anyone who has one. I don’t
think it’s possible to predict future human events.
Reynolds: One of our problems of course is that we have
an alleged independent press but they are shills by and
large and lapdogs employed by the corporate media, an
echo chamber for the government, visible or invisible.
Leaphart: That’s correct. Going back again to the concept
of belief, it is difficult to come to grips with the fact that
the common storyline of 9/11 is false because in so doing
it’s literally an event that has the potential to be cathartic.
It would basically require that people then consider the
inference that someone within the realm of entities that
we trust implicitly basically betrayed us in ways that are
not possible probably for the majority of people to
confront. It requires too much in the way of a
fundamental reassessment of things that we hold dear.
Reynolds: But once realized at the individual level, you’re
saying that often or in every case it would be cathartic, the
truth will set you free.
Leaphart: That’s correct. So it’s essentially a question of
time where sooner or later a tipping point will likely be
reached, where the truth of what was done to us on 9/11
will manifest in a way, and as you mentioned, it could be
in conjunction with other issues such as the financial
crisis and the potential that that crisis has in and of itself
to result in catharsis within the society. So I think 9/11 is
certainly one of those potentialities when the tipping point
comes, where there are enough people who have the
recognition that the common storyline is false, a, and who
can no longer mentally or emotionally deny it or set it
aside or in some way convince themselves that no action
on their part is needed, when those two things happen you
have basically conditions set in motion that could lead to
social change in a meaningful way. I do think ultimately
here that 9/11 will be a part of the next wave of change if
you will that people in our society are going to have to
confront or come to grips with. The financial crisis
certainly holds real potential to manifest in catharsis
within the next year and I think that in conjunction with
that that 9/11 could very well continue to be part of that,
although as you said it is now some 9 years later.
Morgan, I think that what you and I and Dr. Wood and our
close colleagues in this and I said at the very outset I
would mention some other names and one of them is
Johnson and another is our friend, and I’m not going to
mention his last name because I haven’t spoken with him
recently, our friend Russ, we are probably going to need
to meet and determine whether we can accomplish a more
comprehensive publication of the work that has been done
and the information that has been garnered. I know that a
couple of books have been written and we all know that
it’s difficult to get information like this published even if
it is written but I think that is probably the next indicated
step for us. We’ve got to do a more comprehensive job of
publishing the information that we have, and that’s not
easy. There is a vast amount of information and the
process of editing it down and putting it into a publishable
format is just simply not easy but I foresee that that is
something that needs to be done.
Reynolds: OK, very good. I appreciate all the great work
you have done and we all hope and pray and work for
more success down the road. Every day, I believe, we are
making advances in terms of knowledge and spreading the
word. I think that a very high percentage of Americans
know that there is something terribly wrong with the
official 9/11 storyline and it is probably higher than a few
of these public surveys have indicated and where there’s
life there’s hope.
Leaphart: That’s absolutely correct and keep in mind,
Morgan, that our duty to draw attention to this also gives
pause for concern about the possibility of other such
events being done to us. That too is a very real measure
of success of the endeavor that you and Dr. Wood have
undertaken here. I think that you’ve literally made it
more difficult for a psyop operation of that type to be
done to us again.
Reynolds: I think that that’s a very powerful point. More
and more people are in the know, only a handful, I would
guess something under five percent of the population on
9/11 knew almost immediately that this was a scam, a
false-flag attack, and today I would guess it would be
more like one in three or very high fraction would know.
Leaphart: Yes, correct and there have been other
temptations that have come along to try something like
that and I think that’s going to continue to be the case.
We have got to be vigilant here. Now is the time for all
true patriots to come to the aid of their country.
Reynolds: Yes, the enemy within is still powerful. Thank
you Jerry Leaphart for all your wonderful work and this
interview today.
Leaphart: Thank you for asking me Morgan. As usual,
awfully good to be in touch with you and, as I said just a
few moments ago, I think we’ve got a little more work
that we’ve got to set about doing.
Reynolds: Yes, I agree. Thank you.
Leaphart: OK Morgan, thank you.

This entry was posted in 911. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to An Interview with 9/11 Counselor Jerry V. Leaphart

  1. Dr Pinque Pointier says:

    RE: *OPTICAL SPECTROSCOPY (OS): WTC | Microsoft’s scientist John Snider’s “dot/pixels/point           behavior” research & PATENTS eg, 3D light objects-modeling

    Saturday, March 17, 2018

    TO: Dr Judy Wood
    CC: Mr. Jerry V. Leaphart, Esq


    Dear Dr Judy Wood, please perform *OPTICAL SPECTROSCOPY (OS): (1) re-assemble extant video footage, re all towers’ angles: disintegration aka disassociation aka “dustification” aka ablation. (2) Recall: “color” video imagery can be (re)rendered as 3-RGB, 4-CMKY or more color channels in furtherance of spectral properties ie, reflective light, materials signatures evaluations/recordings. (3) Plasma physicists eg, SAFIRE Project team; next-step: ID materials/behaviors: Verification & Validation as per videos’ layered channels. (4) Microsoft’s scientist John Snider’s “dot/pixels/point behavior” research & PATENTS eg, 3D light objects-modeling …. (5) simulations: WHAT [happened]; WHICH [chemicals & materials’ bonds went haywire]: WHEN: 3D *OS. Tremendous best wishes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.