The Bombshell Slides Slides 67 to 69 are the bombshell slides. They show that the NIST assumption – that the exterior columns in the northeast corner were fixed and immovable (necessary to create the results of the thermal expansion central to NIST's progressive collapse hypothesis) was inappropriate. Without this assumption, the floor assembly thermally expanded in a direction opposite from what NIST forced their model to show. The result of allowing the structure to expand freely, resulted in minimal stress throughout the floor assembly. NIST leaving out inconvenient structural components ... by mistake. Because after 6 or 7 years of studying the Frankel drawings, all those NIST experts just missed these. Slides 77 to 81 show, the movement of floors 12 and 13 in respect to the thermal centroids. Professor Hulsey states, “So notice that our results in the SAP2000 model [shows] column 79 [moving] 1.92 inches to the right and; 1.85 inches to the right in the ABAQUS model. We did [the analysis in] two different ways and got very close answers. NIST said the movement was 5.5 inches to the left; which they revised to 6.2 inches to the left.” NIST's key assumption was completely undercut. Sounds like not only opposite results but heavily exaggerated results on NIST's part. Maybe the software NIST used was not SAP2000 or ABAQUS and maybe it was primitive compared with Hulsey's tools. But we'll never know, will we? Because NIST refuses to release data and methodology ... for everyone's own good.
Conclusion Slide 83 provides Professor Hulsey's concluding statements, “Did Building 7 collapse due to fires? No. This is based on our calculations. This contradicts the findings by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). [Our analysis provides] what I viewed as the real way it (e.g. WTC 7) actually behaved. Not what you assumed, not what you do in terms of boundary conditions – making things perhaps easier for yourself – or whatever." And here is where I'm having a bit of a problem. Hulsey claims WTC7 did not collapse due to fires based on the calculations. But the calculations only show that WTC7 did not collapse based on NIST's probable collapse initiation theory so I don't see how Hulsey's calculations show that it did not collapse due to fires, but that's a side issue that's extremely minor compared to the following. What Hulsey's study (and other studies posted in this thread) also shows beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt is that NIST deliberately omitted structural components and fudged the data. The author of this article is Wayne H. Coste. He is also the co-author (along with John D. Wyndham) of a paper called Ethics and the Official Reports about the "Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2) on 9/11: A Case Study". The paper applies to NIST's "investigation" of the "collapse" of the twin towers but as seen here, it equally applies to NIST's "investigation" of the "collapse" of WTC7. This is from that paper: II. ETHICAL VIOLATIONS BY NIST – A CASE STUDY In any scientific investigation, use of selective or fraudulent data to support a hypothesis or claim is an ethical violation whose severity can depend on the circumstances. For events that involve great loss of life and property, and that may represent a criminal act, or a systemic problem that may occur again unless dealt with honestly and correctly, omission and misrepresentation become synonymous with “criminal negligence.” West's Encyclopedia of American Law defines criminal negligence in this way [17]: Criminal Negligence: “The failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome of acting in a particular manner.” All professional organizations have codes of ethics. For example, the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) requires its members “to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity.” The Association of Certified FraudExaminers (ACFE) requires an examiner to “reveal all material matters … which, if omitted, could cause a distortion of the facts.” The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has a code of ethics regarding safety, health, the environment, honesty and realism in stating claims, and the seeking of honest reviews [18]. Major events especially require adherence to ethical standards that uphold the credibility of these and similar professional organizations. In a world with many thousands of steel-framed buildings, the complete destruction of three such buildings on the same day with great loss of life is an occasion to demand a strictly open and honest investigation, use of accepted codes of procedure, and adherence to sound scientific and engineering principles in order to determine whether other buildings are at risk. If, in addition, an incomplete or dishonest investigation will encourage actions or inactions that place thousands of human beings at home and abroad at risk, such a flawed investigation can be considered an ethical violation and criminal negligence of the most serious kind. http://scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/IEEE_Ethics_Paper_030714.pdf
This article belongs in this thread: PRESS RELEASE: The 9/11 Consensus Panel’s Continuing Work at the 16th Anniversary On September 7, 2017 NEW YORK, September 8, 2017 – With the approaching 16th anniversary of September 11, 2001, and with the global war on terror still raging unabated, the 9/11 Consensus Panel continues its 7-year commitment “to provide a ready source of evidence-based research to any investigation that may be undertaken by the public, the media, academia, or any other investigative body or institution.” This year the 23-member Panel published two new Consensus Points, using its “best evidence” review model to analyse the official claims about 9/11. (The Panel has now reviewed 50 official claims and has found each to be a substantially flawed account.) The first Point, “The Claim that the Hijackers were Devout Muslims,” cites many media reports that the hijackers were engaged in “decidedly un-Islamic sampling of prohibited pleasures,” including lap dancing in Las Vegas night clubs. The second 2017 Consensus Point, “The Claim that Mohamed Atta Had Become a Fanatically Religious Muslim,” explores the question asked by a member of the press to 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste: “If Atta belonged to the fundamentalist Muslim group, why was he snorting cocaine and frequenting strip bars?” Ben-Veniste replied: “You know, that’s a heck of a question.” But it was a question that the 9/11 Commission never addressed. These two Points build upon the already overwhelming evidence that 9/11, which has been used to justify America’s imperialist agenda in the Middle East, was a deception across the board: the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the hijackers, the phone calls from the planes, the fake security video exhibits, and the whereabouts of the political and military commands. Consensus panelist Dr. Niels Harrit, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, has published more than 60 peer-reviewed papers in the top chemistry journals and has given more than 300 presentations about the World Trade Center demolitions, speaking in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Holland, France, Switzerland, Spain, United Kingdom, Canada, USA, China, Australia, Russia and Iceland. Frances Shure, a licensed professional counselor on the 9/11 Consensus Panel, was interviewed on Progressive Spirit in August, 2017 about the extraordinary denial that continues to surround the events of 9/11. The title of her interview was “Why Do Good People Become Silent—Or Worse—About 9/11?” Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Professor Emeritus of Peace Studies at McMaster University, has published a recent article with an entirely new slant, “9/11: The Pentagon’s B-Movie,” which re-awakens our sense of the horrific yet still-concealed nature of this world-changing deception. Two other Panelists, physics teacher David Chandler and engineer Jonathan Cole, maintain a separate website, in which their independent research, which is also affiliated with the 2900-member Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Scientists for 9/11 Truth, is documented. Panel co-founder, Dr. David Ray Griffin, has recently released his 11th scholarly book on 9/11, Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World, perhaps his best-selling title to date. David’s August 2017 interview with John Shuck may be heard here. The Panel wishes to thank its fine team of voluntary translators, who continue to make best-evidence research about 9/11 much more widely available through other languages. http://www.consensus911.org/
So here's my summary of Dr. Hulsey's Interim Report from what I know so far. 1. At minimum, it confirms by additionally exposing the fact that NIST's theory is based on concocted data. 2. It exposes the fact that NIST failed to conduct several basic types of analyses that a forensic investigation and standard investigation protocol requires. 3. It clearly shows (pending peer review) that NIST's theory is impossible given the actual data and even given NIST's own concocted data. 4. It confirms the fact that 9/11 was never legitimately investigated. As to #4, the US government is constitutionally mandated to provide for the common defense. In order to do that it is an absolute requirement that all threats to the US be legitimately and thoroughly investigated. Any deliberate attempt to thwart, minimize or otherwise compromise such an investigation can be considered providing aid and comfort to the enemy and is defined as treason under Article III Section 3.
I'm not operating under any false hopes, I'm just stating the facts. You see what Congress did after the Senate Intelligence Committee on Torture published its expose of the CIA torture program ... absolutely NOTHING. In a true Constitutional Republic, there would be many arrests and heads would roll, perhaps even a Congressional investigation looking into disbanding the CIA. It doesn't matter if nothing is going to be done by the criminals running our pretend government, the facts that are being deliberately suppressed must be exposed as they are discovered and disseminated to everyone who cares (or not).
Ex-FBI agent says 9/11 Commission misled public about hijackers who attacked Pentagon By Dan Christensen, FloridaBulldog.org In a powerful sworn statement, the FBI agent who led a 400-member Los Angeles-based task force on the 9/11 attacks has accused the 9/11 Commission of making “incorrect” statements to the American public about his team’s investigative findings. The 9/11 Commission Report, published in July 2004, included statements that tended to absolve a pair of Saudis living in Southern California before the attacks of sinister involvement with two Saudi hijackers – Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar. The two were among five terrorists who seized control of American Airlines Flight 77 and crashed it into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. But now-retired FBI agent Stephen K. Moore said in a declaration filed last week in federal court in New York City that the 9/11 Commission misstated his team’s findings. “Based on evidence we gathered during the course of our investigation, I concluded that diplomatic and intelligence personnel of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia knowingly provided material support to the two 9/11 hijackers and facilitated the 9/11 plot. My colleagues in our investigation shared that conclusion,” Moore said in his statement filed on behalf of thousands of 9/11 survivors and the relatives of nearly 3,000 dead. Moore, an agent for nearly 25 years before his retirement in 2008, said he was put in charge of the Los Angeles task force investigating 9/11 – code-named PENTTBOM – within days of the attacks and continued through 2003. He described himself as a hands-on leader whose duties included regularly providing information “to FBI headquarters for Director [Robert] Mueller’s daily briefing to the President.” Moore’s declaration is part of a trove of new court documents filed as part of the sprawling, 14-year-old lawsuit that seeks to hold Saudi Arabia, its official charities and others accountable for the attacks. The Saudi government is seeking the complaint’s dismissal. Specifically, Moore took issue with the 9/11 Commission’s conclusory statements about Fahad al-Thumairy and Omar al-Bayoumi. Thumairy was a Saudi diplomat and Imam at Los Angeles’ King Fahad mosque with a reputation for extremist views. Bayoumi was a suspected Saudi agent in the U.S. on a student visa who FBI records say drew a salary from the kingdom for a job he never performed. Read the rest ... http://www.floridabulldog.org/2017/11/ex-fbi-agent-says-911-commission-misled-public/ The 9/11 Commission lied, NIST lied, the FBI lied, the CIA lied, the FAA lied, the Pentagon lied, the White House lied, etc. This isn't conspiracy theory, this is conspiracy fact documented on the historical record. Yet there are multiple posters who defend every single minutia of the official narrative 24/7 and question not one single thing. Most of these same posters ridicule other posters who don't believe the official narrative and derisively call them "conspiracy theorists", yet the official narrative itself is nothing more than an official conspiracy theory manufactured from a mountain of lies.
still no scam exposed by a reputable journalist ... just internet cranks squawking about imaginary scenarios ...
And? Many reputable people have analyzed and exposed the scam. The 9/11 Commissioners themselves have exposed it. Is there anything in this list you can contradict with any supporting evidence? 1. The Bush administration is directly responsible for the wholesale destruction of 9/11 evidence, in violation of federal and local law, thus hampering/corrupting any investigation. 2. The Bush administration did not want to investigate 9/11, in fact they (or more specifically Cheney) asked Sen. Tom Daschle not to investigate 9/11 on several occasions. 3. The Bush administration reluctantly yielded to investigating 9/11 due to pressure from the 9/11 families, specifically the Jersey Girls but wanted the investigation to only focus on intelligence failures. 4. The Bush administration appointed Henry Kissinger as the chairman of the 9/11 Commission who was subsequently forced to resign due to conflicts of interest. 5. The Bush administration stocked the 9/11 Commission with cronies, especially Philip Zelikow. 6. All members of the 9/11 Commission had conflicts of interest and were covering for someone. 7. The 9/11 Commission cut a deal with the Bush administration essentially allowing them to dictate who on the 9/11 Commission could see what evidence and also limited the evidence the 9/11 Commission had access to. 8. According to the 9/11 Commission, there are 570 cubic feet of textual records, a large percentage of it classified, presumably inaccessible to the 9/11 Commission itself (see #7). 9. Sen. Max Cleland resigned as a result of #7, labeling the 9/11 investigation a scam and obstruction. 10. The 9/11 families or more specifically the Family Steering Committee sent over 400 questions to the 9/11 Commission and the vast majority of the questions were either unanswered or insufficiently answered. 11. Philip Zelikow created an outline of the 9/11 Commission Report prior to the first meeting of the 9/11 Commission. 12. Philip Zelikow admitted that most if not all of the 9/11 Commission Report relied on 3rd party relayed torture testimony. 13. The source of over 25% of the Commission Report's footnotes is 3rd party relayed torture testimony. 14. The 9/11 Commission were lied to by the CIA who told them they gave them everything they asked for but withheld torture tapes which they never revealed their existence to the 9/11 Commission. 15. The torture tapes were deliberately destroyed by the CIA despite a federal court order to preserve them. 16. The Senate Intelligence Committee on Torture report claims that the CIA's torture methods yielded NO USEFUL INTELLIGENCE (see #12 and #13). 17. The FBI lied to the 9/11 Commission (and Congress) when they told them they gave them everything. They were discovered a decade later to be holding over 80,000 pages of documents from their PENTBBOM "investigation" that they never revealed existed. 18. NORAD and other key Pentagon officials told the 9/11 Commission different stories that were in conflict with each other or outright lies. 19. The 9/11 Commission agreed to interview Bush and Cheney together unsworn and unrecorded. 20. There is no evidence that the 9/11 Commission conducted any criminal/scientific/forensic investigation in accordance with universally accepted standards appropriate for such an investigation. Especially within the vast scope required by a major historical event such as 9/11. Much of the contents of the 9/11 Commission Report is unvetted and/or unsupported by legitimate evidence (any evidence obtained via the use of torture is illegitimate/unreliable - see #16). 21. The 9/11 Commission claimed in their report that "their aim has not been to assign individual blame", thus making a mockery of the "investigation". 22. Eyewitnesses who were to testify to the 9/11 Commission were coached by Soviet style government "minders" prior to their testimonies, thus tampering with, biasing and corrupting the "investigation". 23. Many potential crucial eyewitnesses were never interviewed by the 9/11 Commission. Potential whistleblowers were not granted immunity and therefore many did not testify as a result. 24. Some key eyewitness testimonies were excluded from the 9/11 Commission Report. 25. The 9/11 Commission failed to investigate key events and issues, such as the destruction of WTC7 (unmentioned) and the financing of 9/11, deeming it of "little practical significance" (in direct contradiction to all criminal investigation standards). 26. The 9/11 Commission co-chairs admitted they were set up to fail, starved of funds, denied access to the truth, misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the FAA, did not examine key evidence, claimed the report was incomplete and flawed and that many questions remain unanswered. 27. Philip Zelikow had complete control over the final edit of the 9/11 Commission Report and was responsible for keeping the classified 28 pages from the 9/11 Commission. Zelikow fired an aide who wanted to bring the 28 pages to the attention of the 9/11 Commission. 28. The published version of the 9/11 Commission Report in general is similar to the official 9/11 conspiracy theory disseminated as fact by the Bush administration prior to the establishment of the 9/11 Commission. 29. The 9/11 Commission Report was severely criticized by many, especially the Jersey Girls, who were responsible for pressuring the Bush administration for an investigation. "we knew it was a farce, we wanted their words, their lies down on paper" - Patty Casazza. What "internet cranks squawking about" what "imaginary scenarios" that has anything to do with the 9/11 Commission, their report and their own quotes are you talking about? Do you have anything real you want to discuss with respect to this thread?
Although Dr. Hulsey claimed his paper will be released in October or November 2017 for peer review, this has not yet happened. I'm guessing he wants to be sure of all the details before publication and it's taking more time than he anticipated. I'm also guessing it will be released in January or February. It's quite understandable though, NIST took 7 years to publish their report.
It's going to be a bit longer. According to the website: Project Dates May 1, 2015 - April 30, 2018 http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/ If it takes a bit longer to get it right, so be it. I'm fully confident Dr. Hulsey and his team will scientifically prove beyond any doubt that NIST's report on the "collapse" of WTC7 is full of dung from start to finish. Many of us have believed that since it was first published. I'm also fully confident the controlled MSM will be totally silent on this.
Here are a few tips none of the "Experts" have covered, what has New York City that makes it somewhat unique ? . Underground commercial steam to include massive underground tunnels. Compare the timelines for construction of towers 1 and 2 and building 7.... Concrete pour schemes. How much underground presure, directed pressure was directed at building 7 through underground tunnels and the defunct pour conduit.
And what is your point? 1. What "experts" are you referring to? 2. How does your point (whatever it is) relate to the topic of this thread (the NIST "investigation" methodology)?
A draft report of the study is scheduled for release in early 2018 and will be open for public comment for a six-week period, allowing for input from the public and the engineering community. The final report will then be published in May or June 2018. http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
The latest update on Dr. Hulsey's research is that the results will be delayed until later this year. There are apparently many technical hurdles to overcome to come up with something his team can confidently publish for peer review. Excerpt: We are still in the process of studying hypothetical collapse mechanisms and attempting to simulate the building’s failure. Our goal is to determine, with a high degree of confidence, the sequence of failures that may have caused the observed collapse and to rule out those mechanisms that could not have caused the observed collapse. Read the entire letter ... http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92355/wtc7_hulseystatement_20180327.pdf
The following is a recent debate between Tony Szamboti and Mick West. For those who are not familiar with these 2 people, Tony Szamboti is a structural engineer and a member of AE911Truth. He has thoroughly studied the NIST reports on the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11 and has authored and co-authored several peer reviewed technical papers on the subject. Mick West is a self professed "debunker" who spends much of his time criticizing anyone and everyone who disagrees with the official 9/11 narrative and as most of those who fit that criteria, rarely or never questions any of it and defends virtually every minute detail of the narrative. I have to apologize but I am not familiar with West's professional background but I imagine he does have a fairly reasonable understanding of engineering. I'll let the viewers judge for themselves the debate points. It is helpful if one has an engineering or physics background in order to understand the finer technical details presented but not necessary. It is a long video over 1 hour 44 minutes but some may find it interesting and educational.
Mick banned me from this thread: https://www.metabunk.org/use-of-sca...or-investigating-9-11-collapses.t3828/page-11 even though the OP uses a model that I put on Youtube years ago. I have communicated with Szamboti a few times. I find it very amusing that the Eiffel Tower is in the background of that video. Look at how the IRON had to be distributed in that structure. It is wrought iron not steel, but obviously there is a lot more toward the bottom than the top. But since the Eiffel Tower got much thinner at the top it did not have the wind resistance issues of the WTC.
I take it because you didn't buy the official 9/11 narrative and refuse to go along with his program. I understand the design of the flexibility of the towers accounted for high wind loads.
Specs say it was supposed to sway 36 inches at the top in a 150 mph wind. Someone posted that wind speed hit 100 mph six times during the life of the towers. I have not verified that anywhere yet.
Either way the towers obviously withstood high winds during their existence. I personally saw the tower sway from the top of the other tower back in the day. They also withstood the alleged impact of the planes as well.
From the Lawyer's Committee for 9-11 Inquiry, annotated by selections from the key 29 points I listed earlier in this thread. This will show that the Lawyer's Committee accounted for most if not all the many issues I listed within those 29 points. Background In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, Congress initiated the “Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001″, also known as the “Congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11”. It was comprised of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. This was followed in January 2003 by the U.S. Government’s public investigation known as the 9/11 Commission. Their task was to fully investigate and explain what had occurred on 09/11/2001. Beginning almost immediately and persisting to the present, serious questions have been raised about both the Congressional Joint Inquiry and the 9/11 Commission’s version of events surrounding 9/11. There has been extensive media coverage of anomalies in the official account, destruction of evidence, obstruction, and even perjury. Many observers, including notably the families of the victims, criticized both inquiries for failing to address hundreds of key questions. [Points 1 and 10] An objective analysis, even quoting admissions by members of the investigations, leads to evidence of cover ups. Given that the events of 9/11/01 has been used to shape U.S. foreign and military policy and ushered in an era of all-encompassing surveillance of all Americans, much more scrutiny and fact-finding is warranted. Many chapters listing anomalies and problems cited by government officials which illustrate the shortcomings of the official 9/11 Commission’s investigation. Here are just a few facts to consider: Evidence at the scene of the World Trade Center and Pentagon was destroyed or confiscated and withheld from public scrutiny. [Points 1 and 7] Evidence given by the CIA to the 9/11 Commission was obtained through torture and is inadmissible. [Points 12-16] Tapes held by the FAA were destroyed.Eyewitness reports from firefighters, police officers, and other reliable witnesses present in and near the WTC buildings on 9/11 have never been submitted as evidence in a legal action. [Points 1 and 23-25] News reports, most notably from local New York City television stations, containing coverage of loud explosions were never presented as part of any official investigation. A FOIA case has revealed that NIST had made false statements claiming there were no samples of steel from WTC 7 for analysis when a photo that was obtained proves there is a sample. [Points 1, and 23-25] There continues to be thousands of pages of classified documents. A forensic analysis of physical evidence at the crime scenes has yet to occur. [Points 8 and 20] In a properly functioning judicial system, federal and state attorney generals or special prosecutors would have taken actions to establish all the facts and obtain the fullest measure of justice. The reality has fallen far short of this. Understanding the Scope of Obstruction There has been widespread media coverage of the administration of George W. Bush’s attempts to stall, limit, and underfund the 9/11 investigation. The refusal of Bush and Cheney to testify under oath, separately, and in public was highly problematic and suspicious. [Points 2-7 and 19] From the Washington Post: Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate. [Point 18] “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described,” John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. “The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true.” [Points 18 and 26] From the NY Times: The panel [i.e. the 9/11 Commission] also said the failure of the Bush administration to allow officials to be interviewed without the presence of government colleagues could impede its investigation, with the commission’s chairman suggesting today that the situation amounted to “intimidation” of the witnesses. [Point 7] [9/11 Commission co-chairs] Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton suggested that the Justice Department was behind a directive barring intelligence officials from being interviewed by the panel without the presence of agency colleagues. [Points 23 and 24] At a news conference, Mr. Kean described the presence of “minders” at the interviews as a form of intimidation. “I think the commission feels unanimously that it’s some intimidation to have somebody sitting behind you all the time who you either work for or works for your agency,” he said. “You might get less testimony than you would.” [Point 22] “We would rather interview these people without minders or without agency people there,” he said. [Point 22] From “Without Precedent”, authored by chairs of 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton wrote: “Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations, and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue”. [Points 18 and 26] “We never had full confidence in the interrogation reports as historical sources…. I think the commission could have successfully challenged the CIA on both access to detainees and release of names, but it chose not to fight these battles.” [Points 12-16] Four years after Tenet testified to the commission, Kean said the CIA director had been “obviously not forthcoming” in some of his testimony. Tenet said under oath that he had not met with President Bush in the month of August 2001, Kean recalled. It was later learned he had done so twice. [Point 26] “Did Tenet misspeak?”, we asked the New Jersey Republican. “No, I don’t think he misspoke,” Kean responded. “I think he misled.” The implications are clear. As Kean and Hamilton stated, the investigation was “doomed to fail from the start”. [Point 26] The 28 Pages Component and the Lawyers’ Committee For 9/11 Inquiry [Point 27] The classification of the chapter from the Congressional Joint Inquiry report which provides details on “the money trail” leading to two of the alleged hijackers who took up residence in San Diego struck a serious blow to the principle of transparency in government. The 28 pages contained nothing that would compromise national security. From the time of classification, key members of the Senate Intelligence Committee voiced their opposition. A letter of protest signed by 46 senators was delivered to Pres. Bush on August 1, 2003. This was followed by years of effort by key senators and 9/11 family members to pressure Pres. Bush, then Pres. Obama to declassify the 28 pages. A few members of Congress hearing the pleas of 9/11 family members as well as understanding the negative effects that secrecy on the 28 pages had upon national security took the unprecedented step of submitting legislation in Dec. 2013 to gain their release. This bi-partisan effort was led by Congressmen Walter Jones (R-NC), Steven Lynch (D-MA), and Thomas Massie (R-KY). A companion bill in the Senate followed, submitted by Rand Paul (R-KY), Kirsten Gillebrand (D-NY) and Ron Wyden (D-UT). Over the next 2 ½ years pressure mounted as a result of more lobbying by 9/11 family members, and an even higher level of media scrutiny which approached saturation coverage in the spring of 2016. This began with a major exposé on CBS’ 60 Minutes on April 10th. In another influental mainstream report we learned through journalist Philip Shenon’s article in The Guardian, that Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, deliberately obstructed a full investigation of leads on funding of the plot. He went so far as to fire investigator Dana Leseman to prevent information from the 28 pages from being included. He manipulated the outcome to protect the oil-rich monarchs of the Saudi Kingdom. This included the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar, close friend and confidant of the Bush family. This further proves that the public was deprived of key knowledge on logistical and geopolitical aspects of the attacks. This led to the actual declassification of the 28 pages. In the latter stage of this campaign for declassification, Mick Harrison, Legal Director of the Lawyers’ Committee For 9/11 Inquiry, composed a legal opinion which established that the Congressional Joint Inquiry’s report was a product of Congress and therefore, the Executive Branch had no jurisdiction over it. This assertion was based on the speech and debate clause of the Constitution. Former Senator Mike Gravel, who was charged with criminal conduct for his reading of the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional record, was exonerated by the Supreme Court on this very principle. Therefore, Mr. Harrison, with the help of Sen. Gravel and lobbying efforts by dedicated legislative activists, informed members of Congress who championed efforts to declassify the 28 pages that they could release them on their own, bypassing the president. In a meeting with Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, he was forced to admit this very fact. Within weeks Walter Jones, Steven Lynch, and Thomas Massie submitted another resolution which took matters to the next level, stating that if the president failed to declassify the 28 pages, they would follow through and act on their own. Although there were still nearly 100 redactions, the bulk of the information was released for the world to see exactly what key Senators and three members of the 9/11 Commission, Bob Kerry, Tim Roemer, and John Lehman, had all been claiming evidence exists leading to financing and support by high level officials and agencies of Saudi Arabia, of covert actions of agents tied to the Saudi consulate, as well as obstruction and cover up by U.S. agencies. Of utmost significance, the release of the 28 pages disproves the official narrative and 9/11 Commission’s assertions that the 19 Arabs acted alone. To this day, the full implications of the matters contained in the 28 pages have not been probed, the intelligence agencies have yet to be held to account for their questionable actions, nor have steps been taken to rectify the unsavory geo-political relationships which the 28 pages brings light to. However, the release of the 28 pages combined with the passage of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) has provided a new foundation upon which several legal actions by 9/11 family members can finally proceed. This development has the potential to open up additional avenues of inquiry and evidence. More Unsettled Issues Regarding the Saudi Role [Point 17] A FOIA case in Florida has revealed obstruction and concealment by the FBI regarding information it holds about a wealthy Saudi couple in Sarasota known to have contacts to some of the figures blamed as hijackers. They were visited by Mohammed Atta and a few others accused as hijackers, and fled at a moment’s notice just weeks before the attacks. Although the FBI claimed for years it had no information on this couple, the judge overseeing the case ordered the FBI to fully examine its computer files and produce the results. This resulted in the FBI being forced to submit over 80,000 pages to the court. This volume of information continues to be under review. The FBI released a report in March of 2015 with findings by its 9/11 Review Commission which was formed to conduct an “external review” of the FBI’s performance in implementing the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations and to assess new evidence. It contains information contradicted by investigative journalism by a Florida media outlet centrally involved in FOIA cases which corroborates what Sen. Bob Graham refers to as “a pattern of cover up” and “aggressive deception”. From an ongoing FOIA action we learned that as late as 2012 the FBI had continued to review information regarding the Saudi couple in Sarasota, as well as events connected to two of the Saudis blamed as hijackers who spent time in San Diego as depicted in the 28 pages. So this body of evidence remains unsettled. Where We Stand 15 Years Later Although there are legal actions pursuing the money trail, more than 15 years after the attacks, an unfettered, comprehensive explanation of other vitally important aspects of the events on and surrounding 9/11 has not been established in a court of law or by an objective and thorough investigation. For example, evidence exists indicating the National Institute of Standards and Technologies has delivered an official report containing items contrary to scientific fact and rebutted by expert, peer-reviewed analysis. More recently, a former NIST analyst and whistleblower, Peter Michael Ketchum, has referred to NIST using tactics that are “an avoidance of inconvenient evidence”. These facts make clear the necessity and provide the foundation for a new level of legal analysis, strategy, and action. In summary, we as a dedicated team of lawyers and advisors, stand ready to pursue legal actions for the crimes of 9/11 with the intent of focusing on areas of evidence yet to be legally examined so as to reach a comprehensive review as required by law of the most consequential event of our time. We owe it to all adversely affected, to the general public, and to future generations to obtain truth and justice in this unprecedented effort. Your donations and grass roots support will help us make history. Time is of the essence. https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/compelling-evidence/
Sounds to me like people were trying to cover their butts because the 9/11 terrorist threats were not handle very well procedurally. How does any of the above provide evidence that the NIST report/investigation is wrong about WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 collapsing due to fire and/or plane impact damage? How does any of this evidence provide doubt that a plane hit the Pentagon? Are there facts within that show it was NOT a plane that hit the Pentagon? Maybe one of those statements shows that WTC7 did not collapse from fire? You haven't provided proof that any of the above is true. It's all hearsay. Just like you have doubt that many people saw a plane impact the Pentagon because you claim there is no physical evidence.
he probably claims that because a plane that size would have left 1000 times more debris than you have ever produced for evidence. Not to mention people found that the engines were not from the alleged planes that we are to ASSume went in. Most of the witnesses just happened to be reporters or actors associated with television media.
