FAO: Judge Judy/ Legal Team, CBS Television Distribution, 2450 Colorado Ave., Suite 500E , Santa Monica , CA 90404, Phone 310-264-3300, Legal Questions E-Mail: email@example.com,
Technical Support: E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Dear Judge Judy/ CBS Legal Team,
My name is Heidi and I’m an elementary-level student of Science. I’m currently undertaking a science project to prove to my science teachers that Roadrunner-cartoon type pseudo-science is just fiction and never fact. However, a leading physicist named David Griscom says that my hypothesis is wrong. He says that a “reinforced plane” is able to produce the sort of plane-shape cut out image we all saw on the twin-tower on 9/11 – he explains the ‘science’ behind this in the e-mail exchange below. However, many scientists, including experienced pilots, say that such ‘science’ is just nonsense – as no plane – reinforced or otherwise – could possibly do such impossible air flight speed manoeuvres, and cause such a cartoon-like impact hole in reinforced concrete steel.
David Griscom has challenged leading scientists to debate with him, and claims that should he lose the debate he will forfeit the money he once won by default – at the time when nobody allegedly came forward to debate with him. David has again recently challenged scientists to win the money back, and says that he is now keen to debate with even lay people. However, when Steve De’ak responded to his challenge, David immediately chickened-out and made some pathetic excuse that he was too busy working on other projects, stating: “…I am still improving a four-year-old manuscript, which if-and-when published would be mentioned in the US evening news.”
Steve De’ak and I believe that the money David won “by default” is no-longer his –because, our contention is that: to advertise an open T.V. debate, but then ignore legitimate contestants who seek to apply to debate with you, is tantamount to committing fraud, or a scam. David Griscom now refuses to donate the money he fraudulently won “by default” to a good cause – namely Steve De’ak’s 9/11 Crash Test Project. We now seek to settle this matter in a court of law.
I have seen your Judge Judy T.V. show and I’m confident that Judge Judy would be an impartial judge – able to consider all evidence in an unbiased and fair manner. Perhaps David Griscom only advertised a science debate for money for “showmanship” purposes – to highlight the need for a new 9/11 truth investigation. Nevertheless, his unorthodox tactics are unfair and not conducive to the promotion of the “scientific method”, as they only confuse gullible science students such as me. I’ve unwittingly become a victim in this diabolical dispute, because I cannot now submit my science project on time, and I’m afraid my parents will now “whoop me” if I fail my exams as a result.
Tony Rooke is a prominent 9/11 Truther and he often boasts about his successful British 9/11 Truth court case. He basically tells me, in no uncertain terms, that Americans “are as about as revolutionary as a table-cloth”. He is a proud British citizen and often mocks Americans for their cowardice in bringing 9/11 truth to a court of law. Ever since his successful British Court Case against the American False-flag evildoers and the BBC, he can often be heard singing from the rooftops: “…rule Britannia, Britannia rule the waves, Britain never, never, shall be slaves (adding sarcastically)… unlike Americans who seem too chicken-shit to win for 9/11 Truth in any court of law!” Consequently, the word-on-the-street now is that the American Court House is a place of “great evil”. For example, the real-life American Superhero named Master Legend states in the movie “Superheroes”, that Court Houses are “places of great evil” – because, he says, they only ever jail the weakest people of society – such as the homeless down-and-outs, whilst ignoring the major crimes of hardened wealthy criminals of the Deep State . Master Legend is one of the most well known Real Life Super Heroes of all time. (He is also the co-founder of the Justice Crusaders, an RLSH group that operates out of Orlando , FL.)
He may-well have a point considering the American “Supreme Court” is housed in a pyramid-shaped building structure – much like the Supreme Court of Israel with its “Eye of Providence” pyramid-shaped building. However, We the People still have hope that at least Judge Judy will be able to save the day, considering her famous straight-talking T.V. persona.
If your CBS T.V. network courageously decides to air the “David Griscom versus Steve De’ak” court case on the Judge Judy T.V. show, then it would be a great victory – not just for restoring the ‘good’ reputation of the American court system, but for 9/11 Truth, Science, and for the very notion of Freedom itself! I don’t share Tony Rooke’s belief that Americans, particularly those in law-enforcement, are all just a bunch of tight pants wearing snowflake paper-bitches.
Please let us know (ASAP) if you would be willing to consider such a highly contentious court case, but if you’d prefer to chicken-out, and instead air brain-deadening court hearings about neighbour disputes concerning puppy dogs barking too loud, or something as equally boring as that, as you often do, then we’d all understand – Tony Rooke and the Superhero Master Legend would certainly understand such cowardice. To paraphrase Prince’s song lyrics: “…what’s the use of a court hearing if you ain’t gonna break the mould, all that glitters ain’t gold.” Isn’t it about time that your T.V show strikes real gold? I hope you’ll at least see the financial incentive of airing such an interesting court case – as your audience viewing figures will likely skyrocket as a result, as millions, at least those in the 9/11 Truth movement academic community, will be clued to their T.V. sets watching – and especially all the professors from The University of Western Australia who are still mourning the death of a prominent 9/11 truther named Stephen Phillips (a violinist with the Queensland Symphony Orchestra who died in a mysterious tragic car accident whilst promoting 9/11 truth for the sake of all Americans).
Please prove the naysayers wrong and help us to stand up for real justice, freedom and liberty in America – as the whole world will be watching! Steve De’ak has “balls of steel” and is willing to fight this court case singlehandedly, and we’re sure David Griscom is able to bravely put his money and his morals where his mouth is too, whilst proving his case on the Judge Judy T.V. show!
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Heidi and Grandpa Steve De’ak
David Griscom’s Debate Challenge:
9/11 Physics Debate Intro, Host Kevin Barrett with Dr. David Griscom:
9/11 Physics Debate 2014 – Dr. Griscom wins. No top physicists support Bush Story of 9/11 (BS911)
9/11 Physics Debate 2015 – Dr. David Griscom wins again
28 top universities (including Harvard and Cal Tech) were invited to participate, and 2 Physics societies.
An honorarium of .911 Bitcoin was offered to a charity of the winner’s choice.
Ph.D. in Physics from an accredited university
Hirsch Index of at least 40 (a measurement of a scientist’s references in scientific community)
Please apply at info@ANETA.org
No physicists applied to support the U.S. Government’s official conspiracy theory (OCT) – the Bush Science of 9/11 (BS911). There should be 100’s of physicists clamoring to defend the U.S. Government story. It would show patriotism, and might help them get Government research grants.
But where are they?
Dr. Griscom is a PhD in Physics from Brown University . He has published over 190 studies in peer reviewed independent scientific journals. He worked at the Naval Research Laboratory for over 30 years, and was selected by NASA as a Principal Investigator of the Moon rocks, a very competitive position.
http://CA911.org – Collected Articles
http://ScientistsFor911Truth.org – co-founded by Dr. John Wyndham (PhD, Physics, Cambridge University ), Dr. Steven Jones (PhD, Physics, Vanderbilt University ), and Dr. Frank Legge (PhD, Chemistry, University of Western Australia )
David Griscom’s recent email to Steve De’ak:
It’s nice to hear from you in your present mode. I have been staying away from your group for a long time because most of the people there have been either trolls or members of the tower of Babble .
But if you have some issues that you would like me to discuss, I will be happy to do so. I think that if you accept that I know a hell of a lot more physics than you do, you might find better ideas as who did it and how.
This time I dropped my Hirsch index in favor of remarking that all of my publications and conference attendees of the past 10 years when I payed most of my costs out of my own pocket. Yet, none of this will push up my Hirsch Index for the rest of my life. (I am now 79 and my parents and my younger brother all dead.) So you should understand that my life is not glorify myself but rather advancing science.
So I am sticking my nose back into 9/11 issues to help clear up wrong ideas …provided that you and the others can see me as “wise”.
Steve’s reply email:
I’m not sure what you mean by “present mode,” I’m still the same sarcastic and childish Steve you know and love, but I do sincerely wish to put the 9/11 infighting to rest for good, and I believe the best way to accomplish that is by comparing notes.
I would never claim to know more about physics than you do, David, but I do take issue with we (who don’t share your knowledge) being forced to take your word for it. If you are so learned then please share your knowledge with the rest of us – you’ve got nothing to lose but at 79 you’d better make it snappy. If you’ve got the answer you’ve got to explain it in such a way that we laypeople can understand it. I am a layman and I sincerely doubt that shock waves cut through the steel of the WTC to create he plane-shaped holes. I learned my physics by falling off of bicycles, breaking things, blowing them up, shooting things, and building things, so I may not have the fancy book-larnin’ you do but I picked up a thing or two as a graduate from the school of hard knocks. I am not what I would call “wise,” although I’m not sure wisdom has as much to do with academia as you think it does.
I too have spent the last ten years paying for all of my research, websites, experiments, and activism out of pocket, so we have a lot in common, not the least of which is the crime of 9/11. I’m all for conducting that “independent investigation” I keep hearing about, so if you’re saying you’d like to reopening the case, then I’m all in:
Equal and opposite reactions tell me the first nine columns from the left in both WTC1 and WTC2 holes were caused by the lateral impact of something that was very small and not very dense, as can be seen in the lightly-damaged and very thin aluminum cladding at the far left of the gashes, but also much bigger and much more dense as can be seen in the sliced cladding and sharply bent steel columns a few feet to the right. Physic s tells me that the trajectory of this projectile was at an oblique angle somewhere around 15 degrees from parallel to the face of the tower. If I was a missile jockey and my task was to cut a hole in the parallel columns of the Twin Towers , I would do so by targeting them from the side so as to strike as many in a row as possible with each missile. Not all missiles are created equal, by the way.
David Griscom’s reply:
From: David Griscom
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 9:03 AM
To: Steve De’ak
I commend you for using your brain to try to explain how the 9/11 attacks. But that is just a beginning to understand physics. For me that was 4 years as a physics major which had physics, chemistry, and math, as well as history and literature. But my first three years at Brown was pure physics and math …far deeper than the under undergrads. Several failed their final test and/or their thesis quality. During those three years I had a feeling that I spent three times longer studying than any of my fellow postdoc physicists. And in my three-quarter Quantum Mechanics course I was the only one to ace the final test …thanks to the fact that I deduced that one of problems was given incorrectly, so I solved what it should have been.
So things like that are simply impossible for the layman to think about, much less do anything with it. So when you say that I should to “stop being forced to take [my] word about it” you would need me to play my entire life in physics to you. Quite impossible.
When two will proven physicists deduce that one of them had made a mistake, that person doesn’t say that the other should be forced to prove it. In fact, any real physicist would fix his error and publish it …as I have done at least once. Otherwise the one who pointed out the mistake would then publish it himself thereby embarrassing the other.
So you and I live in two different worlds. Mine understands and advances physics, whereas yours fail to note the wisdom of my 9th grade teacher who remarked “a word to the wise should be sufficient.”
In any event I am still improving a four-year-old manuscript, which if-and-when published would be mentioned in the US evening news. So, for now, I have no time at all to aid your present tower-of-Babel 9/11 truth groups.
Steve’s reply e-mail to David Griscom:
When you wrote the below I thought you were willing to discuss it.
“So I am sticking my nose back into 9/11 issues to help clear up wrong ideas …provided that you and the others can see me as “wise”.
I guess we’ll just have to take your word for it. Good luck with your manuscript.