I am sure I read it in the action that was taken to make NIST revise their description of the collapse of WTC7 or alternatively explain the basis and present the facts to support their theory? As I remember ….. this group asked NIST to revise the description and if NIST did not do so within a certain period of time then they had to explain how they came to their conclusions. The time they had to do this expired without NIST complying. If they had actual evidence then surely they would be able to publish it? If they didn’t publish, which was the case, then they clearly do not have any evidence to present. I understand this to be an admission that NIST have no evidence to support their claims. If I misunderstood the explanation in the article …. then please accept my apologies.
Are you talking about when the high school teacher took them to school about freefall? Maybe when they gave their nonresponse when they said they were not commissioned to figure out why it totally collapsed, only up to the point of initiation, which of course is useless.
No! In fact NIST did reply and corrected their final WTC 7 report to reflect free fall but, to retain their 5.4 second total collapse time, they divided their collapse sequence into three parts First: 1.75 seconds of collapse ..... where nothing actually moved. Second: 2.25 seconds collapse from static to instant free fall acceleration Third: some 1.4(?) seconds after the collapsed roof line vanished and the collapse slowed down. So NIST did admit to free fall with WTC7 ..... Sunder even explained what free fall was. I was referring to a challenge that was supported by several engineers and AE911T some time last year. I am sure the action was posted by Bob on here somewhere?
NIST did respond after an extension of time but they revised nothing from their Final Report, see below reposted: What is late now and well beyond the deadline is the response to the Appeal. As forecast above, I'm guessing they will not respond to the Appeal and it will end up in the courts.
Uhh so this is some internal administrative hearing? The fox protecting the hen house? always a waste of time when they are lying and they are trying to dodge the fact that they are lying......or are they defying a grand jury order to produce?
This is from the Appeal document itself, it says in part: Pursuant to the OMB Guidelines, the NIST IQS provides an administrative appeal process to allow for objective and independent review of the agency’s Initial Decision. Under the OMB Guidelines, “An objective process will ensure that the office that originally disseminates the information does not have responsibility for both the initial response and resolution of the disagreement.” (See OMB Guidelines, Summary of OMB Guidelines.) The NIST IQS thus requires that appeals be made in writing to the NIST Associate Director for Laboratory Programs within 30 calendar days of the date of the Initial Decision and that “No individuals who were involved in the initial denial will be involved in the review of or response to the appeal.” (See NIST IQS, Part III(D)(3). The NIST IQS further requires that appeals “include a statement of the reasons why the requester believes the initial denial was in error.” (See NIST IQS, Part III(D)(1).) The Requesters are submitting this Appeal because the Initial Decision is demonstrably in error and fails to provide a response to most of the relevant data quality arguments contained in the Request, instead offering wholly unsubstantive responses or no response at all to each of the central claims and requested corrections contained in the Request. These failures constitute a violation of the NIST IQS, which requires NIST to provide a “point-by-point response to any relevant data quality arguments contained in the request” when NIST denies a request. (See NIST IQS, Part III(C)(3).) So yes it is the fox guarding the hen house regardless that it says “An objective process will ensure that the office that originally disseminates the information does not have responsibility for both the initial response and resolution of the disagreement” and it will very likely end up as yet another Mandamus action.
I'm bringing this thread back to the top because there's currently a lot of noise coming from the US government about establishing a "9/11 style" commission to investigate the 1/6 insurrection. So this is a reminder that the 9/11 Commission was an epic scam that did nothing more than to promote the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. The 9/11 Commission's own claimed directive was to hold no one accountable (see below). While I understand that 1/6/21 does require a thorough investigation to try to determine all the actors who were directly and indirectly involved, holding no one accountable is completely contrary to that objective. A "9/11 style commission" would be an egregious slap in the face to everyone in the US and would lend a false legitimacy to the 9/11 Commission. In fact just the idea that the US government wants a "9/11 style commission" is a sickening farce. How about an apolitical independent commission? That would make too much sense I guess.
Good question and I don't have an easy answer because few people are truly apolitical. But it should at the very least be made up of a select committee of expert criminal investigators unaffiliated with any member of Congress. They each should be vetted to insure they are not Trump supporters and have not been activists opposed to Trump. Certainly not a bipartisan committee of members chosen from either the House or the Senate.
That the 911 Commission members noted 60+ times that "we found no evidence" regarding various elements of the OCT is enough for me. A certain number of good men and patriots were on the commission, and that was their way of signaling that the official findings were invalid.
Newly discovered eyewitness account puts NIST in a corner on WTC 7 explosions A recently discovered eyewitness account of an “incredibly loud explosion” during the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001, has put the National Institute of Standards and Technology in a very uncomfortable position. NIST claimed in its 2008 report on Building 7 that there were “no witness reports” of an explosion when the 47-story skyscraper fell symmetrically into its own footprint. The account of correspondent Gigi Stone Woods, who was reporting that day for local cable news channel NY1, categorically contradicts NIST’s claim. Anyone familiar with the unscientific way that NIST conducted its investigation would expect the agency to simply ignore Woods’ account. But that won’t be so easy in this case because of the pending “request for correction” submitted last April by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The organization is now leveraging the request for correction to compel NIST to interview Woods, who confirmed her account to AE911Truth in January 2021. Skipping ... According to Walter, if NIST does not contact Woods and ignores her account, it contravenes the Data Quality Act, which requires NIST to issue information that is objective and unbiased. Failing to contact a witness whose account categorically contradicts the claim made by NIST would demonstrate NIST’s bias and would thus make the agency vulnerable to legal action. If, on the other hand, NIST contacts Woods to confirm her account, Walter foresees that NIST will have little choice but to retract its claim that “there were no witness reports” of a loud explosion — unless NIST pressures Woods into altering her story. “This could be the first big step toward forcing NIST to reverse its conclusion altogether,” Walter says. NIST based its claim that there were no witness reports of a loud explosion on the false premise that the quietest way to destroy Building 7 would have been to use nine pounds of RDX explosive to sever one column, and this would produce a sound of between 130 and 140 decibels. NIST then claimed that no one had reported such a loud sound. In the request for correction, AE911Truth pointed out that it is false to assume that RDX is the only material that could have been used. (NIST’s assumption ignores the possibility of noise abatement in the form of thermite-based devices, for example.) Furthermore, AE911Truth argued that it is categorically false to assert that no one heard a sound loud enough to be an explosion. In fact, in addition to the Woods account, there were several others indicative of explosions that AE911Truth included in Section G of the request for correction: https://www.ae911truth.org/news/747...unt-puts-nist-in-a-corner-on-wtc-7-explosions
In the unlikely event that NIST changed its position, nothing important would really change. Those who understand the many failures of the official narrative have that understanding no matter what NIST says. Those who still buy into the official narrative will still do so no matter what NIST says.
While that's probably true for the most part, what makes it true is the complicit behavior of the MSM's silence no matter what discoveries are made that irrefutably contradict the official 9/11 narrative.
Eight months and counting: AE911Truth pressures NIST for decision on Building 7 report Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth today sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce and to the National Institute of Standards and Technology urging NIST to issue a final decision on the pending request for correction to its 2008 report on the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7. https://www.ae911truth.org/images/P..._NIST_re_RFC_Appeal_Decision_Delay_060121.pdf AE911Truth, together with ten 9/11 family members and 88 architects and structural engineers, appealed NIST’s initial decision on the request for correction on September 28, 2020 — more than eight months ago. Per NIST’s policy, the agency usually responds to appeals within 60 days. The letter warns NIST that if it does not respond within the next 30 days, i.e., by July 1, 2021, AE911Truth will sue NIST to compel the agency to issue its final decision. AE911Truth also copied the chairs and ranking members of the three congressional committees that have jurisdiction over NIST with the goal of spurring those committees to investigate and hold hearings on the NIST Building 7 report. This letter is a perfect opportunity for you to educate your members of Congress about NIST’s fraudulent Building 7 report. We encourage you to send the letter along with links to the four key documents — (1) request for correction; (2) NIST’s initial decision; (3) appeal; (4) supplemental letter — to your U.S. representative and senators (click the links to find their info), and urge them to do everything in their power to hold NIST accountable. https://www.ae911truth.org/news/755...Ai21n0J2F1ONhqT6yBtBp0x6CRTP6pqql4FqGN0KbyyfI
As fully expected, the criminals at NIST failed to legitimately address the substance of the appeal to the Request for Correction. NIST issues blatantly unresponsive — and unlawful — decision on WTC 7 request One day before the July 1 deadline that AE911Truth gave NIST to issue its final decision on our “request for correction” to its report on Building 7 or else face legal action, NIST responded with a blatantly unresponsive — and unlawful — denial of our request. NIST’s cursory five-page decision boils down to one paragraph, in which NIST baldly asserts that AE911Truth’s approach “has many differences” from NIST’s and that “[d]ue to these differences, the resulting outcomes . . . do not have an impact on the findings and recommendations of NIST’s Final Report….” We invite you to read NIST’s final decision as well as the preliminary analysis of our attorney in this effort, Mick Harrison (who is also litigation director of the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry). Other documents related to the request can be found below. As with its initial decision, NIST’s outright refusal to address the arguments in our request leaves no doubt that the agency is unable to rebut any of our claims. AE911Truth and its fellow requesters will now sue NIST for its flagrant violation of the Data Quality Act. The goal will be to force the agency to genuinely address our arguments, which would ultimately result in NIST reversing its conclusion that fire was the cause of Building 7’s destruction. https://www.ae911truth.org/nist A lawsuit will now be filed by AE911T which I anticipate will be summarily dismissed on the usual phony "lack of standing" defense. 20 years later and the lies about what happened on 9/11 are still mainstream mythology peddled as fact. And questioning these massive and blatant lies will still get you labeled a conspiracy theory wacko.
My cynicism is justified Bob. The system will avoid the truth, whether related to 911 or the Plandemic and its lethal injections.
Unfortunately given the history, I'm sure it will go nowhere and worse, no MSM publication will print one word of this or make any public announcement. CNN for example repeatedly praises the 9/11 Commission despite the facts exposing it as a massive fraud. Exposing NIST's fraud in court: Mick Harrison and Ted Walter on 9/11 Free Fall This week on 9/11 Free Fall, public interest attorney Mick Harrison and AE911Truth Director of Strategy Ted Walter join host Andy Steele to discuss the lawsuit that AE911Truth will soon file against NIST over the agency’s unlawful response to the damning request for correction that AE911Truth submitted last year in an attempt to compel the agency to revise its report on World Trade Center Building 7. https://soundcloud.com/user-989685163/exposing-nists-fraud-in-court https://www.ae911truth.org/news/760...ick-harrison-and-ted-walter-on-9-11-free-fall
Set up to fail is definitely the best way to describe the situation with the Commission. It noted in its report 60+ times that "we found no evidence...." to support various elements of the official narrative. Thanks for that Bob, it has been years since I watched that. Thanks to Mr. Corbett too.
9/11 families sue NIST over World Trade Center Building 7 report A group of eight family members who lost children, parents, siblings, and spouses on 9/11 filed a lawsuit today against the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The lawsuit alleges that NIST violated federal law in its denial of a request for correction calling on the agency to throw out the conclusions of its 2008 report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. The eight family members were joined by 10 structural engineers and architects and by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. All three groups of plaintiffs were signatories to the original request for correction, which identified eight ways that NIST’s fire-based scenario for the collapse of Building 7 was both physically impossible and inconsistent with the available evidence. The goal of the lawsuit is to obtain a court order that forces NIST to perform new analyses and to develop a new “probable collapse sequence” that is physically possible and consistent with the available evidence. The plaintiffs argue that the only such scenario is a controlled demolition of the building. In August 2020, NIST issued its initial decision denying the request for correction. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth decried the decision as a “blatant avoidance of the arguments and facts contained in the request.” Following the group’s subsequent appeal in September 2020, NIST took until June 2021 to issue a final decision — seven months longer than the agency usually takes to respond to such appeals. The lawsuit alleges that NIST’s denial of the request for correction is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law because the agency’s responses to the arguments in the request are irrational, evasive, and unsubstantive. “We submitted hundreds of pages of documents showing that their story for how Building 7 collapsed is totally bogus,” said Bob McIlvaine, whose son Bobby died in the World Trade Center — and who was slated to appear in the excised 30 minutes of Spike Lee’s NYC Epicenters 9/11 → 2021½. “NIST failed to give any meaningful response because their report is false and they know it.” Matt Campbell, a UK citizen whose brother, Geoff Campbell, died in the attacks and whose family last month applied for a new inquest into Geoff’s death, said after the filing, “It is deeply troubling that NIST continues to mislead the public about what really happened. Anyone who watches the collapse of Building 7 with an open mind can see it’s a controlled demolition. It’s difficult to comprehend that this is even a debate and that so many people are complicit in preventing the truth from coming out.” Chief among the counts in the lawsuit is NIST’s admitted omission of a key structural feature from its computer model — coupled with the agency’s “irrational” explanation for leaving it out. The plaintiffs argue that including the structural feature would prevent the initiating failure in NIST’s collapse scenario from taking place. They have asked NIST to rerun its analysis with the structural feature added, but NIST has refused to do so. The plaintiffs also take aim at NIST’s refusal to study a piece of melted steel recovered from Building 7 and at the agency’s refusal to interview witnesses who reported explosions. These included Gigi Stone Woods, a reporter for NY1 whose videotaped account of an “incredibly loud explosion” surfaced last year and who in January confirmed her story to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. https://www.ae911truth.org/nist?fbclid=IwAR13gmtrPjsz3Xl5yMAeaUtacPCWpvdcHHJDGGSUNeY2hzfH4rkjPzNCB-w I fully expect NIST's defense to be a motion to dismiss for "lack of standing" and the court siding with NIST. This is the usual US government "get-out-of-jail-free" card used to dismiss all lawsuits that question/challenge their phony narratives.
NIST is not the only federal agency to mislead and deceive the public. FDA, CDC, NIAID and other arms of the medical industrial complex do the same. Deception and mendacity are the Modus Operandi of the US government.
You can add to the long list the FBI, CIA, DOJ, NSA, DHS and many more alphabet agencies. In fact, is there one that's not corrupt?
Would I be correct in assuming that you have already seen this video? If so.. what did you think of this....? I haven't seen this yet but it was just recommend to me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7md2QzNsAe4 Flight Attendant sheds new light on 9/11. 4,039,743 views Sep 11, 2017 So far... I just haven't felt motivated to bother looking into this extensively.... but I suppose... I might be persuaded to give this a look. If you have the free time what three time near death experiencer Dr. P. M. H. Atwater was shown going on in the hours and days after that attack is also truly encouraging. http://www.pmhatwater.com/resources/PDFs/911.pdf
