AE911Truth To File LawsuitTo End FEMA/NIST Stonewalling

econ41

Senior Member
David Cole seems to be a micro focussed details obsessive. I've tried discussing with him in "other places"

Relatively easy to find errors and inconsistencies in the details of such a complex event. Proving them true may or may not work BUT he consistently fails to prove them significant. And typical truther runs away from any attempt to establish a reasoned claim set in a rational context.

As for AE911 the strategy - same as most recent efforts:
1) "Send Money" so that we can
2) File losing law suits to get attention. (Remember Pepper?)
((3) Actually get less money and less attention than they want...))

...chasing the last dregs of a fading supply market.
 
David Cole is chasing a lost cause. Not only do truthers run away, but they'll back up their claims with quotes or videos from You Tube. Either way it's always something vague and nothing concrete.

1) Send money to pay attorney's fees
2) Who is/was Pepper?
3) Less money and less attention? They'll do anything for attention

They'll find a way to find "More Explosive Evidence."
 

Oystein

Senior Member
...
((3) Actually get less money and less attention than they want...))

...chasing the last dregs of a fading supply market.
Careful with that!
After the 10th anniversary in september 2011 I observed a decline in interest in AE, as measured by traffic and by new signatures. This lasted for about a year, which led me to predict that the trend would continue and in its wake fading revenues. I even went so far as to predict that: Be the end of 2012 revenue would decline; by 2013 Gage would be in serious financial trouble; by 2014 he'd essentially go broke / AE would ni longer be his primary income. But then, Gage somehow managed to rekindle the craze, and I see that in 2012 (?) he made more money than before.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
There've been individuals talking about lawsuits like this for a while, just like the rumblings from chemtrailers the last year or so.

It will not happen. At best it's posturing for followers or pure fantasy, at worst it's pure trolling for donations. The internet has a term for it: Lawlsuit.
 

econ41

Senior Member
2) Who is/was Pepper?
Another recent publicity seeking legal suite initiative by AE911Truth based on the T Szamboti false claims to rebut NIST's wtc7 report. Pepper was the lawyer.
See here

The source Szamboti claim and the Pepper version have both been argued on several forums - mostly at detailed engineering level. IMO his claim is without merit. There are several higher level problems - I identified one which is fatal to the claim and stood on that without gong to more detail. The one I identified was that Szamboti's analysis is based on an assumption favourable to his claim and that assumption is unproven. Others have apparently falsified his detailed engineering. And there are other issues in the area of "so what".
 

trevor

Active Member
ahhh yesss...looks like they have found a new way to try to make money, instead of setting up gift shops and asking for donations, they are now going to file lawsuits...GENIUS!!!
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
The NIST reports in my opinion are flawed. Correct on the causes, wrong on the mechanisms. Does it matter? Yes and no. For the big picture, I would argue that it doesn't matter... heat from fires was the straw that broke the camel's back...gravity did the main part of the destruction...mechanical crushing/interactions they termed global collapse. But there may be some lessons to learn about the design of those structures which I would argue played some role in how they came apart/down/globally collapsed as they did. I don't suspect that there should have been an arrest or partial collapse with other designs. It's an almost absurd exercise... what design of similar size would not collapse from the same heat and mechanical inputs. However, if these designs facilitated there own designs... what design features played a role. And what was the reason for those decisions. Usually economics is in there some place. What seems to have been missing was a vigorous debate about the design of the towers and not so much how they resisted collapse as long as they did but how they didn't.
Is NIST covering this up with its what I believe wrong explanations for the initiations of the collapse of the buildings. Who knows. The agenda of the AE is appears to be to show that the collapses were CDs and inside jobs... not to understand the precise mechanisms of their collapse. In that light this effort is going to bear no fruit and will not get support from the engineering or scientific community.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
...The agenda of the AE is appears to be to show that the collapses were CDs and inside jobs... not to understand the precise mechanisms of their collapse. ...
Do you really think so?
How is "showing that the collapses were CDs" possible without "understanding the precise mechanisms of their collapse"?

Do you suppose if NIST and FEMA gave AE every record they have, that AE would then get to work, hire independent engineering consultants and do actual research?
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
AE is dodgy and doesn't even suggest what happened as the towers came down... they very strongly imply it is being exploded all the way down in some sort of explosion sequence... They make no distinction between initiation period and the collapse post *release*. I don't think they can deal with the implication that to collapse phase.. post release was unassisted... sort of blows their "collapsing through the path of most resistance at close to FF acceleration" out of the water. They've never renounced or retreated from a single claim...
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Here's more on their intended lawsuit:

http://wtfrly.com/2014/11/01/ae-911...000-documents-held-by-fema-nist/#.VFVXZYfysy4

Is the list supplied accurate?
I'm not sure I understand your question.

There's a wacky laundry list on the bottom of a "WTF" web page...seemingly
just a time waster of everything AE9/11 "researchers" could think of to keep
asking questions and demanding attention.

Of course, as we learned in another thread,
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wh...-engineers-for-9-11-truth-fund-research.2832/
to AE9/11, "researcher" equals: "the guy who ordered the USB hard drive from Amazon"

Presumably, the FOIA request would be to get more digital documents to
mostly fill up that hard drive, and then more fund-raising would be in order...
another $500,000.00 in 2015, mostly for a second USB hard drive.
 

econ41

Senior Member
...Is the list supplied accurate?
I cannot say. The list is to support their claim so they are the only ones who can say if it is accurate - for their purposes.

The broader issue is that they have never been able to construct a reasoned case worthy of serious consideration.. Once again they are on "fishing expedition". The identified lead researcher is David Cole AKA "kawika" who recently has been focussed on proving NIST wrong on nit picking details whilst failing to establish that the details are of any significance. Other than prove NIST was wrong on insignificant or irrelevant details. Several of us are familiar with his "discussion style" from experience on another forum.

Bottom lines:

A) AE911 has shifted strategy to making legal claims which they lose - apparently for any benefit they can get playing "we wuz robbed agin" - which surely must only work for their already obsessively committed followers; AND

B) Their tactics in chasing data reminds me of the dog who kept chasing cars...


...wouldn’t be able to drive it even if he caught one.
 
A) AE911 has shifted strategy to making legal claims which they lose - apparently for any benefit they can get playing "we wuz robbed agin" - which surely must only work for their already obsessively committed followers; AND

B) Their tactics in chasing data reminds me of the dog who kept chasing cars...


...wouldn’t be able to drive it even if he caught one.

IF he catches one. Seems to me they are on the road to nowhere. It's been thirteen years. Too many people involved and somehow word would've leaked out if it were an inside job. Besides, they couldn't get away with it.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
The thing about a dog chasing cars is that when he finally catches one, the judge will sanction him for filing repeat junk lawsuits and bar him from filing anything in court again without prior review.
 

econ41

Senior Member
The thing about a dog chasing cars is that when he finally catches one, the judge will sanction him for filing repeat junk lawsuits and bar him from filing anything in court again without prior review.
e.g. April Gallop's lawyers.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I doubt it - it would be more "proof" that "it" is being covered up.

But despite that I'm all in favour of a hearing in open court, with the best arguments bought forth.....it might help some people who are unsure.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Nope, Jeffrey. Two separate reasons:
1. The technical content of the technical claims concerning NIST's technical work can and will never be subject to any legal consideration. Courts are not judging engineering facts, they are judging legal facts, (This might change IF somehow the NIST conclusions gave, through some causal chain, rise to damage or criminal conduct)
2. Has being shown wrong ever stopped a truther??
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
There are technical claims that are heard in courts because they involve product liability. The Ford Pinto case was example. People were dying in Pintos involved in rear end collisions at a higher than normal rate. Ford would claim the accidents had nothing to do with their designs but with the drivers involved in the accident. But it turns out that there was a faulty gas tank which exploded rather easily and this was what was killing the inhabitants. I think the dismissed Con Ed suit was related to technical issues.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
If it were framed as a class action on behalf of victims, their families, and responders, the technical facts could be brought into consideration, perhaps.

However, no matter how the lawsuit is framed, I seriously doubt any court would give the case the dignity of consideration, it would be thrown out as absurd on its face. Which is certainly what the claims deserve, but it will do nothing to actually convince anyone.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Maybe one of these cases need to get into court and have all the claims completely destroyed... Would that end this?
No. Remember Gage's aim it to lose in court. Whether on technical grounds or aspects of legal procedure matters not. To a large extent the technical issues of any CT are irrelevant. The underlying issue is usually personal insecurity/distrust of authority/limited reasoning skill. Matters not the causality sequence of those aspects.

So the technical issues - in this case 9/11 related - are only the excuse. A symptom - not a cause. That is one big reason why discussion of technical matters will have limited effect. Addressing symptoms not the real disease.

The specific technical issues are only the excuse for the CT.
 

econ41

Senior Member
I doubt it - it would be more "proof" that "it" is being covered up.
I also have no doubt that is the prognosis.
But despite that I'm all in favour of a hearing in open court, with the best arguments bought forth.....it might help some people who are unsure.
Whilst I agree with the objective I doubt the practicality. Three reasons will do:
1) Those "people who are unsure" are the ones I call "Genuine Truthers". Those who honestly had doubts about 9/11 matters. Very few of those still visible - certainly few if any on forums. I've only seen one I would classify that way in the last year or so.
2) The "truthers" we see most prominent these days are:
(a) obsessed and so locked in denial that no amount of reason will shift them. OR
(b) dishonest trolls committed to the game of trolling (including a few "Pretending Poes" - "poeing" is a subset of "trolling".)


I doubt whether a court appearance would help "people who are unsure". The situation is analogous IMO to creationism v evolutionary science. I recommend reading the judgement in "Kitzmiller v Dover" - if you have the mindset and patience for treading 139 pages of legal stuff. Convenient access is via section links on Wikipedia - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District)

A) The reality is that there are not two technical sides. There is nothing to discuss from the CT side. Science one side v pseudo science the other.

B) If it went to court the legal procedural issues would tend to swamp the technical aspects. Partly for the reasons that Oystein has identified - the difficulties of getting technical issues before the court - including the two members "yes buts" which indicate a couple of limited ways it could happen.

Bottom line I suspect is that the legal process would attempt to stop the nonsense at the earliest opportunity. So pre-emption in the legal procedural stages BEFORE discussion even gets close to the technical issues.

See the second claim by April Gallop which "suffered" much the same fate.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Nope, Jeffrey. Two separate reasons:
1. The technical content of the technical claims concerning NIST's technical work can and will never be subject to any legal consideration. Courts are not judging engineering facts, they are judging legal facts, (This might change IF somehow the NIST conclusions gave, through some causal chain, rise to damage or criminal conduct)
Agree on the thrust of what you say Oystein - but it would not be as black and white as you suggest. See two posts following yours.
2. Has being shown wrong ever stopped a truther??
That is the killer in reality.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
There are technical claims that are heard in courts because they involve product liability. The Ford Pinto case was example. People were dying in Pintos involved in rear end collisions at a higher than normal rate. Ford would claim the accidents had nothing to do with their designs but with the drivers involved in the accident. But it turns out that there was a faulty gas tank which exploded rather easily and this was what was killing the inhabitants. I think the dismissed Con Ed suit was related to technical issues.
The Ford Pinto case was not a good example cos that was mostly a myth. It was no worse than any other small compact of the time and the infamous memo spread about the place was not specifically about the Pinto and Ford was actually taking issue with the NHTSA putting a dollar value on human life.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
The Ford Pinto case was not a good example cos that was mostly a myth. It was no worse than any other small compact of the time and the infamous memo spread about the place was not specifically about the Pinto and Ford was actually taking issue with the NHTSA putting a dollar value on human life.
I think you're both right...deaths may have been a tiny bit "higher than normal,"
but yes, it's mostly remembered as a misremembered myth ("The Exploding Pinto Deathtrap!")
since the numbers weren't actually significantly worse than other little cars, hence "not a good example."

About 20 years ago Rutger's Law Review pretty much beat down the myth, but the horses were already out of the barn...
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Thanks for all the comments. Of course there are other technical liability cases such with drugs. The point being technical matters can be the basis for civil actions.

Gage et all love not getting legal standing because it becomes a sort of proof to the that there is a massive cover up in place which has the power to deny their evidence from seeing the light of day... and this is used to get more financial support. How many of these failed efforts can they mount before the cash flow dries up? Hard to say. It probably doesn't take all that many believers to fork over money for the cause because there are actually very few people living off the cash flow. These cases are no different from their debate challenges which never happen.

Why don't they send their 25 points to engineering schools and see if they will bite?
 

Redwood

Active Member
If it were framed as a class action on behalf of victims, their families, and responders, the technical facts could be brought into consideration, perhaps.

However, no matter how the lawsuit is framed, I seriously doubt any court would give the case the dignity of consideration, it would be thrown out as absurd on its face. Which is certainly what the claims deserve, but it will do nothing to actually convince anyone.

The actual NIST report cannot be used in any civil proceeding. Lawsuits over FOIA requests for details of investigations such as witness interrogations haven't fared well. Most of them have been about investigations of air crashes. See U.S. vs Weber Aircraft Corp. There's currently another FOIA lawsuit regarding air crash investigations in the pipeline, Wolk Law Firm vs. United States. I think it will suffer the same fate.

If Gage and AE911T want to sue anyone, all they need do is to find one party who was physically injured, lost family, or suffered economic loss as a direct result of 9/11, even if insured, then sue the person or persons they claim is responsible.

A person who so much as owned a concession stand in the WTC or any of the other damaged or wrecked buildings would suffice. (For example, a person who owned and operated a food stand in the Winter Garden Arcade.) The fact that they can't find even one tells you everything you need to know about the merits of AE911T and Gage.
 

econ41

Senior Member
The actual NIST report cannot be used in any civil proceeding.
Refresh my memory - wasn't it statute barred?
If Gage and AE911T want to sue anyone, all they need do is to find one party who was physically injured, lost family, or suffered economic loss as a direct result of 9/11, even if insured, then sue the person or persons they claim is responsible.
Then build it into a class action.
A person who so much as owned a concession stand in the WTC or any of the other damaged or wrecked buildings would suffice. (For example, a person who owned and operated a food stand in the Winter Garden Arcade.) The fact that they can't find even one tells you everything you need to know about the merits of AE911T and Gage.
True.
 
That is correct.

If that's the case or not than they are wasting their time and money.

Observing videos on You Tube featuring the towers collapse isn't always what is appeared. I don't call it Explosive Evidence. Once AE911Truth is washed up, I highly doubt any architectural farm would hire Gage.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
If that's the case or not than they are wasting their time and money.

Observing videos on You Tube featuring the towers collapse isn't always what is appeared. I don't call it Explosive Evidence. Once AE911Truth is washed up, I highly doubt any architectural farm would hire Gage.
Many believe that at least Gage understands that the lawsuit will fail. In fact the cynical view is that he sees that as the goal, to have the lawsuit fail. His income requires continued monetary support from the people who believe in the 9//1 inside job meme. Thus the main goal is to keep that gravy chain running and spend as little as possible on anything other than fund raising operations.
Thus in the latest NYC safe buildings ballot attempt, although it was implied that they would hire professional signature gathering agencies, that did not happen, instead it was volunteers, with the expected challenge to most of the signatures.
Also note that although this group is made up of professionals in the higher earning bracket, AND one supposes, those with the expertise they could lend, pro bono, to a research project to rival that done by NIST, for 13 years there has been nothing of the sort even proposed by AE911T.

If 2000 signatories ante up $1000 each it would create a pool of $2million. More than enough to do research on at least one of the three structures in question especially if some of the research is done at minimal or no charge.
 

Heather S.

Member
Also note that although this group is made up of professionals in the higher earning bracket, AND one supposes, those with the expertise they could lend, pro bono, to a research project to rival that done by NIST, for 13 years there has been nothing of the sort even proposed by AE911T.

If 2000 signatories ante up $1000 each it would create a pool of $2million. More than enough to do research on at least one of the three structures in question especially if some of the research is done at minimal or no charge.


This. With some truthers throw out that they have 2000 professionals on their side, I often ask why AE911T doesn't do any type of research with the money they bring in. I know they aren't in control of that money, thus having no say in its use, but I'm just trying to show them the money isn't being spent to find out the "truth". It is either met with a change of subject or I'm told it is up to NIST to prove themselves right, not AE911T to prove NIST wrong.
 
If 2000 signatories ante up $1000 each it would create a pool of $2million. More than enough to do research on at least one of the three structures in question especially if some of the research is done at minimal or no charge.

How much longer do you think donations are going to continue? I'm just speculating that many of the architects and engineers that support the CD theory will eventually recant when they realize Gage is nothing but a kook. As far as I'm concerned the whole thing is futile.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Which is the reversed burden of proof. NIST reports are out there. If someone questions the reports it is up to the questioner to prove NIST wrong, especially if the questioner is positing an extraordinary clasim such as that explosives or thermite were used to bring down buildings that had large Boeing's hit them, or had debris from a 110 storey office building hit it.

First and foremost in any such extrodinary claim would be to prove to a high level of certainty that elplosives/thermite was used. Mere suggestion that it was present or suggestive findings in the dustare not sufficient to overcome the null hypothesis that what we saw, planes into buildings, was not the cause, directly or indirectly, of the destruction wrought in Manhattan.
 
Top