TOTAL 911 INFO
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
 The National Institute of Standards and Technology finally responded earlier this month and denied a Request for Correction (RFC) filed by Dr. Morgan Reynolds regarding its 9/11 report. Reynolds has offered some preliminary thoughts at his NoMoreGames.net: "At the appropriate time I will formally appeal NIST's decision, but meanwhile I have filed two requests to obtain NIST data under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) so that I may properly exercise my appeal rights:
• Video evidence from original sources of airplanes at the WTC, held on a secure NIST server
• NIST contract with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and related documents regarding the NIST work performed by SAIC
[...]
Airplane Video Fakery
So-called live videos of the south tower plane "event" showed a plane image disappearing behind the South Tower wall, although at least one shows a plane's nose momentarily exiting the opposite north side, then fade to black, an obvious "overshooting" error in video fakery. Subsequent videos of airplane image entry into the south tower emerged in days, months and years later. These "penetration" videos show impossible physics like little or no deceleration, which NIST and its contractors have accepted at face value. These impossibilities were modeled, allegedly via sophisticated methods, according to the NIST response to my RFC: "The models used to analyze the aircraft impact into the towers fully capture the constitutive properties of the aircraft and the building materials and account for the deformation, fracture, and failure of these materials as well as conservation of momentum and energy." NIST, of course, did no such thing. NIST did not account for the conservation of momentum and energy because energy can only be spent once. Energy consumed in fracturing tower materials and impressing a cartoon-like outline of an airliner's silhouette of passage is not available for constant speed. The event as depicted by NIST is impossible.
NIST asserts in its defense, "By using original sources of photographic and video evidence and by using a NIST expert to obtain copies of material directly from these original sources, NIST was able to ensure the integrity of the photographic and video evidence used in the investigation. Further, all photographs and video records obtained by NIST are kept on a secure server with access limited only to authorized NIST personnel." Am I supposed to accept NIST assertions at face value? Does NIST deny, for example, that the FBI had custody of the Evan Fairbank video for hours and returned only part of the video to Fairbank? NIST does not comment. NIST claims it "collected photographs and videos from original sources only," yet evidence showing physically impossible events like no crash and no deceleration in the plane image must be fake unless NIST believes Newtonian mechanics no longer apply. "Further, all photographs and video records obtained by NIST are kept on a secure server with access limited only to authorized NIST personnel," NIST asserts. Secret evidence is no evidence at all. Until shown otherwise, I am told to rely on NIST assertions, undocumented, without proof. To properly pursue my appeal, that is, confirm NIST's claims independently, I must have access to the photographic and video evidence NIST has denied to me and other taxpayers. I will file a FOIA request to obtain this evidence in order to properly exercise my appeal rights.
Are SAIC's Hands Clean?
In my supplemental letter, I asserted that SAIC had a clear and palpable conflict of interest and offered evidence to support that proposition. "SAIC was contracted by NIST to provide administrative support to the team conducting the investigation," NIST responds. "They did not perform technical work in support of the investigation." Yet NIST offers no proof and no documentation for the claim that SAIC did no technical work, only administrative work. SAIC was the largest NIST contractor with 25 employees assigned, followed by ARA with 9, so it is hard to believe that SAIC performed no technical work. SAIC does not reveal the job titles and professional training of its employees and NIST likewise has kept its WTC contract with SAIC secret. I will file a FOIA request to obtain this NIST contract and all related evidence to discover the work SAIC performed.
Are ARA's Hands Clean?
My original RFC identified ARA as the principal contractor hired to analyze plane impacts and create relevant animations. I obtained this data from the NIST contract with ARA as presented on NIST's website. But NIST is silent about the role ARA played in plane analysis and animation. The NIST published contract with ARA clearly specified that ARA would perform analyses and animations of plane impacts on the towers. If accurate, ARA plainly violated Newtonian mechanics and substituted patently false physics in its analyses and animations and is therefore culpable for fraudulent and misleading misrepresentations. What role did ARA play? Unless NIST reveals ARA's role with supporting evidence, I may have to file a FOIA request regarding the work ARA performed.
----- Labels: ARA, NIST, SAIC, tvfakery
.....---
.....| Posted by Total at 1:48 AM | PERMA-LINK | Feedback?|
(0) comments
Thursday, August 23, 2007
 Dr. Morgan Reynolds has announced that his qui tam lawsuit against the federal government's National Institute of Standards and Technology has been unsealed. Reynolds posted the announcement to his NoMoreGames.net August 21, 2007: "Last month the U.S. District Court, Southern New York, unsealed a 9/11 case filed by Dr. Morgan Reynolds, thereby making the case public. Reynolds is suing on behalf of the United States of America after the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York who represents "the government" declined to intervene in the case. The suit, a so-called qui tam case, alleges that the 9/11 contractors NIST hired to investigate destruction of the WTC Towers on 9/11 defrauded the U.S. government of substantial money by rendering bogus, impossible physical analysis and animations about how two hollow aluminum aircraft (allegedly Boeing 767s) flew into a steel/concrete tower and disappeared. Yet it can be easily demonstrated, after a great deal of hard work by dedicated 9/11 researchers, that no planes hit the towers. The office of Reynolds' attorney, Jerry V. Leaphart of Connecticut, is now serving(notifying) the defendants in the suit, including Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Applied Research Associates (ARA), Boeing, American Airlines, United Airlines and Silverstein Properties. I will post new information on the case as developments warrant.
-----
And some exceprts from the unsealed complaint, available in toto here [ PDF]
"DR. MORGAN REYNOLDS on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Relator vs. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.; APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, BOEING; NuSTATS; COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.; DATASOURCE, INC.; GEOSTAATS, INC.; GILSANZ MURRAY STEFICEK LLP; HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC.; AJMAL
ABBASI; EDUARDO KAUSEL; DAVID PARKS; DAVID SHARP; DANIELE VENEZANO; JOSEF VAN DYCK; KASPAR WILLIAM; ROLF JENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC; ROSENWASSER/GROSSMAN CONSULTING
ENGINEERS, P.C.; SIMPSON GUMPERTZ HEGER, INC.; S. K. GHOSH ASSOCIATES, INC.; SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL, LLP; TENG & ASSOCIATES, INC.; UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC.; WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES, INC.; AMERICAN AIRLINES; SILVERSTEIN PROPERTIES; and UNITED AIRLINES, Defendants
[...]
THE DEFENDANTS' SCHEME
50. The destruction of the WTC on September 11, 2001, was caused, in whole or in part, by the use of Directed Energy Weapons, consisting in High Energy Lasers and or other operational, but largely secret weapons that are, nonetheless, known to exist and known to have been deployed and/or deployable in the year 2001, before and after. It is also clear and apparent on its face that NIST’s explanation of the destruction of WTC1,2, issued in or about the month of September, 2005, is blatantly false, incomplete, misleading and fraudulent.
[...]
SAIC engaged in fraud, then, in the wrong place and in the wrong context. Between ARA and SAIC, some twenty-five (25) persons were assigned to work on, by literally surrounding and, accordingly, controlling and manipulating, NIST officials such that fraud, the intended outcome, did, in fact, occur. It is telling that the two contractors who were most numerous among NIST’s contractors were those whose primary expertise includes the development of Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) and psychological operations (psy ops), as that term is understood for military and warfare purposes, respectively. Small wonder, then, that NIST did not investigate what caused the destruction of WTC 1,2; namely, DEW, carried out in the manner of a psy op.
[...]
-----
Dr. Reynolds is demanding a jury trial.Labels: ARA, NIST, SAIC
.....---
.....| Posted by Total at 3:25 PM | PERMA-LINK | Feedback?|
(0) comments
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
.....---
.....| Posted by Total at 4:24 PM | PERMA-LINK | Feedback?|
(0) comments
Monday, August 13, 2007
.....---
.....| Posted by Total at 7:00 PM | PERMA-LINK | Feedback?|
(0) comments
Sunday, July 01, 2007
 U.S. Commerce Department's National Institute for Science and Technology June 29, 2007: "A team of scientists and engineers at the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that is investigating the collapse of New York City's World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) building expects to release its draft report for public comment by the end of the year. WTC 7 was a 47-story office building adjacent to the WTC towers (WTC 1 and 2) that collapsed following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. WTC 7 collapsed later that afternoon.
NIST's investigation of WTC 7 includes an extremely complex analysis that incorporates detailed information about the building's structure and construction, as well as data about fires, damage sustained from falling WTC 1 debris and other technical factors to determine its probable collapse sequence.
[...]
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.
Updated information with the specific date for the public release of the NIST team's draft report will be posted on the WTC investigation Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov.
----- - CONTACT: Michael E. Newman, (301) 975-3025, michael.newman@nist.gov
Labels: NIST, wtc7
.....---
.....| Posted by Total at 5:09 PM | PERMA-LINK | Feedback?|
(1) comments
Saturday, March 24, 2007
 DrJudyWood.com March 22: "Dr. Judy Wood (with degrees in Civil Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, and Materials Engineering Science), widely acknowledged as the leading proponent of the theory that Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) were used to destroy the World Trade Center (WTC) complex, has filed a Request for Correction under the Data Quality Act with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), located in Gaithersburg, MD.
Dr. Wood is represented in this effort by Attorney Jerry Leaphart, a Connecticut-based trial lawyer, who states that NIST now has 60 days to respond to the RFC. After that, an appeal can be taken and/or other legal action may then follow.
Leaphart further states that Dr. Wood knows that the implications of her theory that DEW were used to destroy the WTC complex shatter certain key beliefs that Americans as a whole cherish and hold dear. Her theory has generated a lot of interest and commentary within the 9/11 Truth Movement that relies primarily upon the Internet as its media source. Mainstream print and broadcast media do not cover the 9/11 Truth Movement, but may need to take heed of this administrative action filed by Dr. Wood, according to Attorney Leaphart.
Leaphart said that to his knowledge, only three RFCs concerning NIST's WTC report have been filed to date. One by Dr. Morgan Reynolds, another by Edward F. Haas and the one filed by Dr. Wood. All three are currently pending.
The 43 page RFC filed by Wood asserts that the basic integrity of NCSTAR 1 is lacking because, by its own admission, it did not investigate the actual destruction of the World Trade Center Towers.
NCSTAR 1 admits:
"The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." [See NCSTAR 1, pgs xxxvii, footnote 2 and/or 82, footnote 13]...
Thus, to this day, Americans have not been given any explanation whatsoever for the destruction of the WTC complex that comports with information and quality standards.
In contrast, Dr. Wood's RFC contains a stunning array of visual evidence confirming highly unusual energy effects seen by all as the twin towers were almost instantaneously destroyed in less time than it would take a billiard ball to hit the ground if dropped from the height of the twin towers.
That fact is assessed on the basis of the two other laws of physics in Wood's RFC, thus confirming its scientific rigor. Wood also points to other compelling evidence that NIST ignored. Wood's RFC shows visual evidence of unusual and unexplained blast effects on vehicles parked blocks away from the complex. Wood also demonstrates unexplained visual damage in the form of perpendicular gouges in WTC 4,5,6 and the near disappearance of WTC 3, all of which remain unexplained by NIST to this day. Wood goes further and points out that the incredible amount of dust resulting from the visible process of steel disintegrating before our very eyes all point to the use of directed energy weapons. One other element of Wood's proof is the almost complete lack of even a rubble pile at the WTC complex. Wood asks: Where did it go?
Added to all of that is the fact that whatever the energy and heat source was, it had no effect upon paper that was seen floating everywhere and not burning very much, if at all.
Dr. Wood's RFC demonstrates all of the above mentioned effects in its 43 pages of text and pictorial proof. The combined effects of gravity, jet fuel (a form of kerosene) and plane damage could not possibly have caused the massive destruction that occurred on September 11, 2001, in New York City, according to Dr. Wood. The wonder of it all is that more engineers and scientists have not come forward to challenge the woeful, scientific inadequacies of the official explanation.
Dr. Wood invites her peers and colleagues to set aside their emotional attachments and to view the evidence objectively. Then and only then can America come to grips with what happened on 9/11/01, according to Dr. Wood.
-----
Labels: directed-energy, NIST, WTC
.....---
.....| Posted by Total at 2:17 AM | PERMA-LINK | Feedback?|
(0) comments
Monday, February 19, 2007
 From 9/11 activist attorney Jerry Leaphardt via 911Researchers.com 2007-02-16: "It was recently learned that NIST scientist, Richard Gann, wrote the so-called "Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers" also known as NIST NCSTAR 1 (NCSTAR 1). There has been precious little public discussion about NCSTAR 1 and only one published article mentioned Richard Gann's name, that I could find.
Within the 9/11 Truth Movement, NCSTAR 1 is regarded as an incomplete treatise on what caused the destruction and pulverization of World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 (WTC1,2), when the document is viewed in the most charitable light. To some, NCSTAR 1 does not meet data and/or information quality standards and is, therefore, fraudulent, deceptive and/or misleading.
Having learned that Richard Gann wrote NCSTAR 1, it was assumed that he might be an appropriate NIST official to correspond with on the 'data and information quality' aspects of NCSTAR 1. That is what I did and the correspondence is reproduced below, with a minor redaction of one email address.
What the correspondence yielded was a reply, not from Richard Gann himself, but rather a reply from NIST's Deputy Chief Counsel for Technology, one Melissa Lieberman, Esq. However, Attorney Lieberman's reply also includes portions of certain communications BETWEEN and AMONG other NIST officials about the correspondence addressed to Richard Gann. The extent of the communications is unclear, but we are clearly told that it includes both a "confidential pre-decisional document" as well as allegedly privileged "attorney-client communications."
However, mere assertion that a document is confidential and merely claiming that communications are "privileged" does not make them immune from public disclosure. Indeed, Deputy Chief Counsel Melissa Lieberman actually asserts in her reply to the email communication sent to Richard Gann that "NIST's WTC Investigation reports were prepared and disseminated in accordance with NIST's Information Quality Standards." Thus, by providing a reply to a query, I believe Attorney Lieberman is obliged to disclose the information upon which the reply is based. It is well-understood that disclosure of partial information results in waiver of privilege claims with respect to portions of the same communication that have been withheld. In other words, partial disclosure serves as a waiver of privilege.
Moreover, as an attorney for a governmental agency, with duties that likely include administrative and other duties, it is by no means clear that Deputy Chief Counsel Lieberman can properly assert that her communications with, say, Drs. Shyam Sunder and Richard Gann are privileged. I use those two names because they are included below in a way that suggests she did, in fact, communicate with each of them concerning the data and information quality query that had been addressed to Richard Gann.
What information was exchanged between and among those and other NIST officials about NCSTAR 1 that would allow her to claim that NIST's reports on the World Trade Center complied with information quality standards?
I think we have a right to know that and related information and to obtain copies.
Accordingly, I have, this date, submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to NIST, specifically requesting that information and specifically asserting that claims of privilege and of confidentiality do not apply and cannot properly be asserted.
I here assert that it is possible that whistleblower material may be found in the information that Melissa Lieberman is seeking to shield from public disclosure.
----- - Follow hyperlink for appendices of original correspondence
Labels: NIST
.....---
.....| Posted by Total at 2:12 AM | PERMA-LINK | Feedback?|
(0) comments
|
MP3 DOWNLOAD -LISTEN HERE
FEED
KEY DOCUMENTS ]
DAVE EMORY
