AE911Truth To File LawsuitTo End FEMA/NIST Stonewalling

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
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.
It may be that publicity over requesting your name be withdrawn is not something these people want. Its a no win. Those who are not 911 truther will see it as underlining this persons lack of credibility, another reminder of a woo stance, whereas 911 truthers will see it as betrayal and perhaps being bought off.
 

econ41

Senior Member
.. 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.
That is the "reversed burden of proof" ploy which most 9/11 CTs depend on.

The true situation is simple - if someone says something is wrong they have to at least:
1) Explicitly identify what they claim is wrong;
2) Show why it is wrong to at least prima facie standard of proof; AND
3) (Preferably) What they claim is right.

It needs very little thought to see why "whoever makes a claim is responsible for proving the claim"

AND with truther claims the claim which needs proving is the truther claim that the accepted narrative is wrong.
 
Reversed burden of proof? The [truthers] can depend on a ploy no one has never heard of.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

econ41

Senior Member
Reversed burden of proof? The [truthers] can depend on a ploy no one has never heard of.
They do. At the macro level the whole of truther claims are founded on "reversed burden of proof". They cannot prove any of their claims SO they demand that we prove them wrong.

Truther states: "I think it was CD (for no definable reason). I cannot think clear enough to show why it was CD. THEREFORE you have to prove it wasn't CD."

And us silly "debunkers" fall for it.

Actually it is a sort of compliment. They are implicitly acknowledging that they cannot think - cannot reason - at the level needed to explain 9/11 events.

AND

They are acknowledging that we (some of us) can think at that level.

The base "rule" is simple - "you claim something you prove it". And the relevant claim most times is the truthers claim that the accepted narrative is wrong. They claim it. They run away from proving it.

e.g. Accepted narrative - no CD at WTC on 9/11. Truther's claim "there was CD". Their claim, their burden of proof to show that there was CD. NOT our burden of proof to show that there wasn't.

Simple stuff but beyond many truthers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oystein

Senior Member
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.
...
Losing court cases is of course a sure way to also lose money, unless your lawyer works for cheers only. Don't courts charge the cost of the procedure to the loser usually?


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.
I have been closely following the development of AE911T in terms of signers and in terms of income (fund raisers) for about 3 years, which includes looking back at figures available through archives. There was a time two years ago when I extrapolated a mid-term trend of declining sign-ups and I predicted that Gage would soon run into a financial decline and eventual demise. BUT I was wrong - he managed to reverse the trend.

Basically, since 2010 there is a steady flow of new blood - not much, but steady, allowing him to maintain the operation as is. He also seems to be getting better at squeezing more money out of a constant base ("constant" as in "dynamic equilibrium").
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
And then there is the notion that the [truthers] turn the entire discussion about 9/11 technical issues into an either or... the official or the CD fantasy. I have been arguing not that the CD fantasy has a tad of merit.. but there are flaws in the official technical accounts and stones have been left unturned. It appears to me that the technical report shoe horned some stuff to fit their conclusions... and they got the results they wanted.. and it satisfied most people... but their explanations are not precise... The truthers jump on this. I won't defend it either. The cause was correct... mech damage and heat.. but the official mechanisms leave a lot to be desired.

It's the third position and had few in that camp.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hevach

Senior Member.
Losing court cases is of course a sure way to also lose money, unless your lawyer works for cheers only. Don't courts charge the cost of the procedure to the loser usually?
Depends on location. In my area, small claims the loser pays court costs and everything is pretty mechanical, but in higher courts there are more complicated rules and it doesn't always work out that way.

If the judge feels you're wasting the their time or making a mockery of the legal process, though, you're lucky if all you're doing is paying the costs of everybody involved.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Reversed burden of truth is basically answering a question with a question combined with false equivocation.

The 9/11truth movement ignores the basic observation that, for instance, planes flew into the towers, causing mechanical damage, lit them on fire which due to a very large quantity of liquid accelerant being deposited on several adjacent floors, caused an immediate fire situation that most often would take several hours to develop. The very obvious null hypothesis is then that the combination of initial mechanical damage followed by heat damage is what doomed the structures.
That's a huge burden of circumstantial evidence right off the top, to overcome. That burden is simply bypassed by equating the so called "official story" ( the circumstantial evidence plus the technical studies giving credence to the null hypothesis) , to the "911 was an inside job" vast range of mostly handwaving arguments.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
A while ago I noted a poster on another site taking umbrage at the term "truther", and I began referring instead to " persons who disagree with the commonly accepted history of events of 9/11/01" , or similar. Since it is cumbersome and I got little love from either side for this more accurate description, I went back to "truther".
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
the official or the CD fantasy...I have been arguing not that the CD fantasy has a tad of merit..
Please avoid using imagery-inducing terms like "CD fantasy" ;)


p.s. "Truther" or any other label that becomes tied to dodgy reasoning & behavior,
will eventually be tainted, and eventually be labelled an "unfair slur" by those that did the tainting.
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
A while ago I noted a poster on another site taking umbrage at the term "truther", and I began referring instead to " persons who disagree with the commonly accepted history of events of 9/11/01" , or similar. Since it is cumbersome and I got little love from either side for this more accurate description, I went back to "truther".
The irony being that "truther" was their own choice of name.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Brilliant!!!!
People do tend to forget that it was their own name.

However it was back in the era when there were many "Genuine Truthers" - people who really did not understand some of the big questions esp. the technical ones such as "Was there CD at WTC". They were genuinely seeking the truth << note no scare quotes. Many of those persons enjoyed honest reasoned discussion, accepted valid answers and departed the scene. Some saying "thank you" - others just drifting away - most of those probably IMO satisfied. In those days 2006-7-8-9 >>> maybe 2010 the "truther" field was mostly persons who took "truth" to mean truth.

The demographic make up of "truthers" today is vastly different.
...and, sadly, the word "truther" has been reduced by usage into a term of ridicule.
 
People do tend to forget that it was their own name.

However it was back in the era when there were many "Genuine Truthers" - people who really did not understand some of the big questions esp. the technical ones such as "Was there CD at WTC". They were genuinely seeking the truth << note no scare quotes. Many of those persons enjoyed honest reasoned discussion, accepted valid answers and departed the scene. Some saying "thank you" - others just drifting away - most of those probably IMO satisfied. In those days 2006-7-8-9 >>> maybe 2010 the "truther" field was mostly persons who took "truth" to mean truth.

The demographic make up of "truthers" today is vastly different.
...and, sadly, the word "truther" has been reduced by usage into a term of ridicule.

Many of those who drifted away do you suppose they recanted?
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
People do tend to forget that it was their own name.

However it was back in the era when there were many "Genuine Truthers" - people who really did not understand some of the big questions esp. the technical ones such as "Was there CD at WTC". They were genuinely seeking the truth << note no scare quotes. Many of those persons enjoyed honest reasoned discussion, accepted valid answers and departed the scene. Some saying "thank you" - others just drifting away - most of those probably IMO satisfied. In those days 2006-7-8-9 >>> maybe 2010 the "truther" field was mostly persons who took "truth" to mean truth.

The demographic make up of "truthers" today is vastly different.
...and, sadly, the word "truther" has been reduced by usage into a term of ridicule.

This is interesting. One wonders why there are a core of supporters of the *official story* who take on the challenge of debating or demolishing the truth guys and their claims. NIST doesn't bother... professional engineering societies don't feel compelled to do it... and there are a few technical papers about collapse mechanisms even on which discuss collapse of floor plates... ROOSD by another name but not specific to the twin towers hull and core design.

Truth guys raise points from poor observations, false assumptions and lots of disbelief because they looking to find anomalies... ie things that John Q public does not associate with something collapsing.

Intellectually honest people will listened to reasoned arguments and get on with their life... and see no reason to take up the cause of trashing the arguments of the truth guys.

Ironically no one seems to be taking up a study of the initiating mechanisms.. The official ones leaves much to be desired.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
I think most debunkers are NOT supporters of anything particular but just dislike the amount of rubbish that is spread around.
We sometimes seem to be entering a new dark ages of fear and superstition where I might get burned as a witch simply because I have a wart (and weigh the same as a duck) and I would like to counter that where possible.

I do not SUPPORT the "official story" on 9/11, I just debunk anything that is clearly bunk (mini nukes, space weapons, thermite holographic planes, pull it, etc etc.) Personally I think that IF the US govt or factions within it were responsible for 9/11 they did it by pretending to be Al Qaueda and recruiting some disaffected arabs.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I think most debunkers are NOT supporters of anything particular but just dislike the amount of rubbish that is spread around.
We sometimes seem to be entering a new dark ages of fear and superstition where I might get burned as a witch simply because I have a wart (and weigh the same as a duck) and I would like to counter that where possible.

I do not SUPPORT the "official story" on 9/11, I just debunk anything that is clearly bunk (mini nukes, space weapons, thermite holographic planes, pull it, etc etc.) Personally I think that IF the US govt or factions within it were responsible for 9/11 they did it by pretending to be Al Qaueda and recruiting some disaffected arabs.
IF.... why pretend... there was Al Qaeda and disaffected radicalized Arabs... our government's policies created them!
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
Yes, but if they weren't pretending to be Al Qaeda, and the hijackers were recruited by the REAL Al Qaeda, then the US govt was NOT responsible, at least not directly. Their policies might have created the conditions, but it would not be the "false flag" attack people claim it was.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Yes, but if they weren't pretending to be Al Qaeda, and the hijackers were recruited by the REAL Al Qaeda, then the US govt was NOT responsible, at least not directly. Their policies might have created the conditions, but it would not be the "false flag" attack people claim it was.
It wasn't a false flag... it was blow back.... makes perfect sense... you reap what you sow.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
professional engineering societies don't feel compelled to do it...
Not anymore, no, but back when there were still legitimate questions to be asked and understandable reason for people to be confused, they did, extensively. That's the main reason laypeople can do that work now, they answered the questions at the time quite thoroughly, and everything new since the movement was left to the conspiracy theorists everything new has been silly enough (nanothermite, silent micronukes, orbital space lasers) that professionals rarely pay it the respect of acknowledgement and their input really isn't needed anyway.
 

Redwood

Active Member
This thread has drifted off-topic. To return to the topic of AE911T filing a FOIA lawsuit:

The NIST reports themselves are matters of public record, and cannot be used in any court of law, by the statutes that authorized them. The question is whether or not there is any public right of access to the interviews, tests, etc. done by NIST.

Legal precedent such as Weber Aircraft says no. Weber Aircraft even had a direct interest in the materials but SCOTUS did not find this sufficient. The Wolk case, now in the legal pipeline, will show if there is any sentiment to overturn the precedent set by Weber. My guess is no. In such case, any AE911T lawsuit is DOA. In fact, I doubt the sincerity of their fundraising appeal.

If there are any legal scholars or lawyers who know of another case whereby AE911T might show precedent for ordering the release of NIST's materials, I'd like to hear it.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Legal precedent such as Weber Aircraft says no. Weber Aircraft even had a direct interest in the materials but SCOTUS did not find this sufficient. The Wolk case, now in the legal pipeline, will show if there is any sentiment to overturn the precedent set by Weber. My guess is no.
Based on the FOIA Update you linked I would agree. SCOTUS 9-0 on the Weber appeal and the Ninth Circuit decision on Weber looked to be "courageous".
In such case, any AE911T lawsuit is DOA.
I would also question issues of standing.
In fact, I doubt the sincerity of their fundraising appeal.
"Doubt"? ;)
If there are any legal scholars or lawyers who know of another case whereby AE911T might show precedent for ordering the release of NIST's materials, I'd like to hear it.
Cannot help - out of scope of my AU based experience and I wouldn't be confident of my ability to research the US case law precedents - esp when a US Lawyer would know the answer off top of his/her head.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
...The question is whether or not there is any public right of access to the interviews, tests, etc. done by NIST.

Legal precedent such as Weber Aircraft says no. Weber Aircraft even had a direct interest in the materials but SCOTUS did not find this sufficient.
The Weber case (1984!) was about witness interviews only, if I read it correctly, and the decision rests in good part on the premise thar witnesses were granted confidentiality before testifying. Was that the case with NIST's witnesses? What else besides witness statements is AE after, and why would that be protected from disclosure?
 

Redwood

Active Member
...The question is whether or not there is any public right of access to the interviews, tests, etc. done by NIST.

Legal precedent such as Weber Aircraft says no. Weber Aircraft even had a direct interest in the materials but SCOTUS did not find this sufficient.

The Weber case (1984!) was about witness interviews only, if I read it correctly, and the decision rests in good part on the premise thar witnesses were granted confidentiality before testifying. Was that the case with NIST's witnesses? What else besides witness statements is AE after, and why would that be protected from disclosure?

The FOIA is restricted to executive agencies. One might argue that independent agencies such as the FAA or FEMA, which possess certain executive powers, fall under the FOIA, but NIST has no executive power of any kind. That's another nail in the coffin of any NIST claim.
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
The FOIA is restricted executive agencies. One might argue that independent agencies such as the FAA or FEMA, which possess certain executive powers, fall under the FOIA, but NIST has no executive power of any kind. That's another nail in the coffin of any NIST claim.
I'll have to read it - and stop guessing. ;)
 

econ41

Senior Member
I'll have to read it - and stop guessing. ;)
Me and my big mouth. It's a messy lot of verbiage and amendments. Hard to dig through at generic level. I'll wait and see what happens.

Forum software wont let me disagree with my previous post.:rolleyes:
 

Oystein

Senior Member
The FOIA is restricted to executive agencies. One might argue that independent agencies such as the FAA or FEMA, which possess certain executive powers, fall under the FOIA, but NIST has no executive power of any kind. That's another nail in the coffin of any NIST claim.
But hasn't NIST already released tons of data after a FOIA request? Why would they do so, if not required?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The FOIA is restricted to executive agencies. One might argue that independent agencies such as the FAA or FEMA, which possess certain executive powers, fall under the FOIA, but NIST has no executive power of any kind. That's another nail in the coffin of any NIST claim.

NIST (and the FAA) fall under FOIA, which covers a large number of Federal agencies. NIST is an agency of the Department of Commerce, the FAA is part of the Department of Transport.
http://www.foia.gov/report-makerequest.html


The are some exemptions.

http://www.nist.gov/director/foia/
 

Tom Terrific

New Member
Thanks Mick for getting this thread back on track...

I think that the Weber case need not apply to the NIST lawsuit as the reason that was given in that Supreme Court case for not complying with a FOIA request was Excemption 5 ... to wit:

"The statements in question are protected from disclosure by Exemption 5. The Exemption's plain language, as construed by this Court's prior decisions, is sufficient to resolve the question presented. The statements are unquestionably "intra-agency memorandums or letters" within the meaning of the Exemption,..."

In my opinion the work products of the NIST investigations are clearly not intra-agency memorandums. In one case a FOIA request by David Cole to NIST was for the data and methods used to calculate and model the fall of Building Seven. After a two year delay (as opposed to 20 days as stated in the FOIA statute) he was denied such information on the grounds that to release it "would cause irreparable danger to the public". Maybe I am out in left field but this seems ironic. Here some bureaucrat is saying, "Hey, trust us". We got it right", but they will not let their work be reviewed and they make up a reason for not giving out their methods.

It seems to me that the whole reason for FOIA in the first place was to make government more transparent, not less.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Irreparable danger to the public means what? How would the public be in danger? It might be possible... but I don't see how. What could be an example of information disclosed which would endanger the public? And how would they be endangered? This sounds like bureaucrats who don't want their incompetence exposed.... perhaps.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Perhaps you should ask those questions of the people who made the decision - how would anyone here know why????
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
Irreparable danger to the public means what? How would the public be in danger? It might be possible... but I don't see how. What could be an example of information disclosed which would endanger the public? And how would they be endangered? This sounds like bureaucrats who don't want their incompetence exposed.... perhaps.

Generally speaking, "information that may endanger the public" would fall into a couple different categories. The first being revealing any current security holes that may exist that havent been patched yet.. whether that be physical or cyber or what have you.. anything thatd give anyone a chance to exploit a security hole to cause phyiscal or electronic damage.. that means infrastructure etc.. basically they dont want the bad guys screwing up the traffic signals, or hacking into the grid at power plants etc and causing wide spread panic/damage.

The second category falls more with people operating around the world.. whether thats agents working for the CIA or embassy staff, or regular old civilian contractors building oil piplines etc.. any information that could be used to put THEM in danger would also be exempt from FOIA. That make sense?
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Irreparable danger to the public means what? How would the public be in danger? It might be possible... but I don't see how. What could be an example of information disclosed which would endanger the public? And how would they be endangered? This sounds like bureaucrats who don't want their incompetence exposed.... perhaps.
Problem is that revealing the reason why it's been determined that it would/could cause damage may in fact allow someone to deduce the info that has been determined may cause such damage.

For instance a detailed procedure by which a single point of massive failure in structures would not be revealed. However, simply informing the public that they found a procedure that does this, would in itself offer almost as much damage as revealing the exact procedure itself.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
In my opinion the work products of the NIST investigations are clearly not intra-agency memorandums.
How do you make that determination? Its possible that some of the data to input to the fea came from another department.
In one case a FOIA request by David Cole to NIST was for the data and methods used to calculate and model the fall of Building Seven. After a two year delay (as opposed to 20 days as stated in the FOIA statute) he was denied such information on the grounds that to release it "would cause irreparable danger to the public". Maybe I am out in left field but this seems ironic. Here some bureaucrat is saying, "Hey, trust us". We got it right", but they will not let their work be reviewed and they make up a reason for not giving out their methods.
That's quite a stretch, how does " cause irreparable danger to the public" become "trust us", exactly?
 

Tom Terrific

New Member
oops... sorry abt last post. newby don't know what he doin'

It seems that the Director of NIST used exemption 3 - Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law, not exemption 5 as in Weber. Exemption 3 seems like a big loophole as there are so many many many laws...

also, I got the quote a bit wrong.. here it is in full:

FINDING REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION
Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that the disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, might jeopardize public safety. Therefore, NIST shall not release the following information:

1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
~
Patrick Gallagher Director National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dated: JUL 09 2009

soooo.... trust us.... we know best.... move along.... nothing to see here... we are trying our best to protect you..

see http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-12/nist-denies-access-wtc-collapse-data

I will try to read Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act and see what's what...
 

Tom Terrific

New Member
okay, here it is

SEC. 7. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION.
(a) GENERAL RULE
Except as otherwise provided in this section, a copy of a record, information, or investigation submitted
or received by a Team shall be made available to the public on request and at reasonable cost.
(b) EXCEPTIONS

Subsection (a) does not require the release of

(1) information described by section 552(b) of title 5, United
States Code, or protected from disclosure by any other law
of the United States; or
(2) information described in subsection (a) by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology or by a Team until
the report required by section 8 is issued.
(c) PROTECTION OF VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION
.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a Team, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, and any agency receiving
information from a Team or the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, shall not disclose voluntarily provided safety-
related information if that informatiothn is not directly related to
the building failure being investigated and the Director finds that
the disclosure of the information would inhibit the voluntary provi-
sion of that type of information.
(d) PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION

A Team and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology shall not publicly release
any information it receives in the course of an investigation under
this Act if the Director finds that the disclosure of that information
might jeopardize public safety
.

(see http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ231/pdf/PLAW-107publ231.pdf for the complete law)
-----
So it seems that it is in the Director's sole discretion to determine what may be deemed to "jeopardize public safety" using whatever reason he wants and he does not have to disclose what that reason is to anybody.

Can anybody come up with a good faith and feasible reason why releasing their model calculations of how they determined Building 7 collapsed would jeopardize public safety? Because I am at a complete loss to do that.



He is sd
 

Related Articles

Top