AE911Truth To File LawsuitTo End FEMA/NIST Stonewalling

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.
It has been discussed multiple times. The most obvious rationale is that terrorists could use to it figure out where to put bombs to maximize damage to buildings. Now you may disagree with that, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that someone made a judgement call. Maybe it was a bad one, maybe it was just CYA, but what does it matter?
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
It has been discussed multiple times. The most obvious rationale is that terrorists could use to it figure out where to put bombs to maximize damage to buildings. Now you may disagree with that, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that someone made a judgement call. Maybe it was a bad one, maybe it was just CYA, but what does it matter?
What you are saying if I understand is that a detailed analysis of say... single point failures leading to complete collapse would be valuable to a terrorist who might want to mischief. This makes sense... It implies/ suggests that buildings... other buildings... have similar Achilles heels as it were and this is sort of a where to how to destroy a building perhaps without too many devices. OK... But these buildings also had rather unique structural designs/features which are not common to other buildings. Of course that they were made from steel and with composite floors IS a common feature to almost all high rise towers.
On the other hand any sort of analysis which reveals the weaknesses of a structure would be useful to bad guys with bad intentions. But it would also be useful to engineers to find ways to make their designs LESS vulnerable... and it would or could reveal that perhaps ALL designs are vulnerable... or maybe WHICH existing one are. The latter could open up quite a can of worms for property owners.
My take away in the most general sense is something we already know... steel structures need robust fire suppression systems and strategies. I can't tell if this makes some buildings vulnerable, many or most. This is discussion which was simply not undertaken.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Well my reply to Jeffrey Orling in post 77 still applies.

In addition I must then ask:

How does "jeopardize public safety" become "trust us", exactly?
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
@
Well my reply to Jeffrey Orling in post 77 still applies.

In addition I must then ask:

How does "jeopardize public safety" become "trust us", exactly?

I have no idea. I believe in transparency... and it should be a cornerstone of democracy. Same applies to withholding the JFK files... or the MLK files... and so on. Secrecy as anti democratic.
I have no idea.
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
What you are saying if I understand is that a detailed analysis of say... single point failures leading to complete collapse would be valuable to a terrorist who might want to mischief. This makes sense... It implies/ suggests that buildings... other buildings... have similar Achilles heels as it were and this is sort of a where to how to destroy a building perhaps without too many devices. OK... But these buildings also had rather unique structural designs/features which are not common to other buildings. Of course that they were made from steel and with composite floors IS a common feature to almost all high rise towers.
On the other hand any sort of analysis which reveals the weaknesses of a structure would be useful to bad guys with bad intentions. But it would also be useful to engineers to find ways to make their designs LESS vulnerable... and it would or could reveal that perhaps ALL designs are vulnerable... or maybe WHICH existing one are. The latter could open up quite a can of worms for property owners.
My take away in the most general sense is something we already know... steel structures need robust fire suppression systems and strategies. I can't tell if this makes some buildings vulnerable, many or most. This is discussion which was simply not undertaken.

I agree with you, Jeffrey, but it can't get grayer than that. Someone (or a small group of someones) needs to decide if they can disclose the information about how to destroy big building by attacking a small amount of strategical weak spots. This information can be used by both the bad and the good guys.

Who is going to be faster to put this information to use? The good or the bad guys? In an ideal world, the good ones, but we are not in an ideal world.

I don't think that one decision is righter than the other, but they made their decision based on the information they had. It's not cover up, it's only a decision, good or bad.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't think that one decision is righter than the other, but they made their decision based on the information they had. It's not cover up, it's only a decision, good or bad.

And it may well be a bad decision, with no actual merit to it. But since it's a judgement call, then it's perfectly legal under the FOIA act.

But the lawsuit goes beyond just the WTC7 simulation:

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=8483ecc061&e=[UNIQID]
But since they have not actually filed anything, as far as I know, then discussions of the point of law are a bit moot.
 

Tom Terrific

New Member
Sorry, but what does your opinion mean here? It's what the judicial system decides that matters.

I totally agree with you that my opinion about whether or not the work products of the NIST investigations are not intra-agency memoranda carry far much less weight than what the judicial systems decides either here on this forum or in court of the public opinion.

I said it was my opinion to point out the fact that I am no expert on the matter and that my argument is meager at best, a fact that you rightly picked up on.

On this forum, to me, opinions are useful if they can lead to reasoned arguments pro and con on whatever issue is being discussed.

My point about memoranda is mute, however, because NIST Director Gallagher did not use exception 3, but rather exemption 5 to deny the FOIA request for the mathematical model they used on Building 7, stating as fact but not explaining why such knowledge might endanger the public.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I totally agree with you that my opinion about whether or not the work products of the NIST investigations are not intra-agency memoranda carry far much less weight than what the judicial systems decides either here on this forum or in court of the public opinion.

Sorry my response earlier was a little abrupt. What I was getting at is that this is a practical matter, in that presumably some ruling will be made if they ever file (most likely a dismissal). So the important thing here is not so much our individual interpretations of if a particular judgement call, or usage of a particular statute, is right or wrong. The important thing is how the judge is likely to rule.

I'm not sure that good comments could be made here, as not really clear exactly what points of law AE911 are planning on arguing. I'm still not even clear what they want. They are asking for thousands of documents to be released, but are also complaining about 25 things they think NIST got wrong?
 

Attachments

  • Twenty-five-points-10-19-14.pdf
    1 MB · Views: 586

Tom Terrific

New Member
And more importantly, how does it relate to the lawsuit, the topic of this thread?

By declaring that the mathematical model that NIST used to determine how Building 7 fell will never be released to the public the Director of NIST has made the decision that their result (it fell because of office fires) can never be falsified, or for that matter, confirmed. Avoiding the issue of bad guys/good guys for a moment, this is not good science. As this was part of the worst crime committed on American soil ever, this is not good, period. That is why it matters (In reference to your previous post)

If someone truly believes that NIST got it right about Building 7 then I contend it is they who should be the ones who are filing a lawsuit. Why? Because all the 9/11 truth folks have to do to show the official explanation is wrong is to show that the released results are false, that is to say, that the results do not conform to reality. A believer, if you will, not only has to prove the results conform to reality but that the method they used to get those results is correct. I contend therefore that both sides of the issue, if they truly wish to discover the truth, should be able to join together and agree on this and everyone join the lawsuit.

Otherwise, it is the believers of the government's assertions who are guaranteed to be the ones who can only express a very weakly asserted opinion.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
By declaring that the mathematical model that NIST used to determine how Building 7 fell will never be released to the public the Director of NIST has made the decision that their result (it fell because of office fires) can never be falsified, or for that matter, confirmed. Avoiding the issue of bad guys/good guys for a moment, this is not good science. As this was part of the worst crime committed on American soil ever, this is not good, period. That is why it matters (In reference to your previous post)

If someone truly believes that NIST got it right about Building 7 then I contend it is they who should be the ones who are filing a lawsuit. Why? Because all the 9/11 truth folks have to do to show the official explanation is wrong is to show that the released results are false, that is to say, that the results do not conform to reality. A believer, if you will, not only has to prove the results conform to reality but that the method they used to get those results is correct. I contend therefore that both sides of the issue, if they truly wish to discover the truth, should be able to join together and agree on this and everyone join the lawsuit.

Otherwise, it is the believers of the government's assertions who are guaranteed to be the ones who can only express a very weakly asserted opinion.

But how does it relate to the lawsuit?

What actual point of law are we talking about here? Or is the lawsuit just a medium for promoting claims?
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
If someone truly believes that NIST got it right about Building 7 then I contend it is they who should be the ones who are filing a lawsuit. Why? Because all the 9/11 truth folks have to do to show the official explanation is wrong is to show that the released results are false, that is to say, that the results do not conform to reality. A believer, if you will, not only has to prove the results conform to reality but that the method they used to get those results is correct. I contend therefore that both sides of the issue, if they truly wish to discover the truth, should be able to join together and agree on this and everyone join the lawsuit.

Otherwise, it is the believers of the government's assertions who are guaranteed to be the ones who can only express a very weakly asserted opinion.

Tom, I read and re-read this passage maybe 4 times, and I swear, I have
no idea what you're actually trying to argue. (Hell, I can't even tell how you're using "believer").

If--and I do mean if, since I'm sincerely baffled by your line of reasoning--you're saying
that those who take no issue with the NIST explanation, for some reason (??)
demand additional "results"...on the theory that...uh...conspiracy theorists will
(for some other, undisclosed, mystical, mind-blowing reason) NOT automatically claim that it
"doesn't conform to reality"...then...uh...
jeez...I got no idea.
 

Tom Terrific

New Member
Tom, I read and re-read this passage maybe 4 times, and I swear, I have
no idea what you're actually trying to argue. (Hell, I can't even tell how you're using "believer").


Sorry NoParty, I can be a bit terse and abstruse at times. I think it comes from my math background.

First, I was using "believer" to mean someone who believes the government's assertions about 9/11, in this case that building 7 was brought down essentially by office fires. I chose that over anti-truther or non believer of 911 truth group or whatever else for brevity's sake and to make a distinction between someone who doesn't believe the 911 truth people's assertion that the buildings were caused by controlled demolition and someone that does believe the government's position that it was caused by fire. I am only talking about the second group here. Clear as mud?

Now, as to the part about the lawsuit and why it makes sense to me that all sides join a lawsuit to demand, in this specific case, the disclosure of the mathematical model: (I left unsaid exactly what the lawsuit would be about - my bad).

Okay, now if I do not believe what the government's conclusions are (building brought down by fire) (such as would a 911 truth person) then I really don't need that math data to prove my point that I think they got it wrong. All I have to do is show that the results they came up with do not conform to reality. An example could be this: It is a fact that it took less than 7 seconds for the over 700 foot tall 47 story building to fall pretty much straight down. The videos exist. NIST knows this. It is a fact that for at least 10 stories the building was in complete freefall, and hence showed no structural integrity. NIST was forced to agree with this and there is no disagreement by the two sides here. Now if the government's result does not show this with any degree of accuracy (say their result is it took 40 percent longer and did not exhibit any freefall) then game over, I win. The goverment would not have proven their case. I don't need a lawsuit to prove anything.

So far so good?

However, if I believe the government's assertions and I want to argue that they are right, then I, at least, not only have to prove that their results jive with what are known facts, but I have to show that the method they used to calculate their results is a reasonable model of the real world. I now have an extra burden of proof to make my argument that the 911 truth person does not have. ok? So I really NEED that mathematical model or I am just flapping my gums and all I can ever do is express an opinion not based on facts. Since they will not give me that model I have to sue them in the hopes that they release it. Only then can I get close to making my argument that they got it right.

Now, don't get me wrong, I have no expectation for that to happen. It is just what should happen if "the believers" (sorry) really want to prove their point.

Now I have left unsaid as to why I think the AE911Truth people would want to file a lawsuit such as I suggest here. (I believe Mick is asking for such an explanation) And for now let's just leave it that way until we can get through this part.

Better? I hope so. Sorry for the asynchronousfluberdeebluberdees of my last post.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Sorry NoParty, I can be a bit terse and abstruse at times. I think it comes from my math background.

First, I was using "believer" to mean someone who believes the government's assertions about 9/11, in this case that building 7 was brought down essentially by office fires. I chose that over anti-truther or non believer of 911 truth group or whatever else for brevity's sake and to make a distinction between someone who doesn't believe the 911 truth people's assertion that the buildings were caused by controlled demolition and someone that does believe the government's position that it was caused by fire. I am only talking about the second group here. Clear as mud?

Now, as to the part about the lawsuit and why it makes sense to me that all sides join a lawsuit to demand, in this specific case, the disclosure of the mathematical model: (I left unsaid exactly what the lawsuit would be about - my bad).

Okay, now if I do not believe what the government's conclusions are (building brought down by fire) (such as would a 911 truth person) then I really don't need that math data to prove my point that I think they got it wrong. All I have to do is show that the results they came up with do not conform to reality. An example could be this: It is a fact that it took less than 7 seconds for the over 700 foot tall 47 story building to fall pretty much straight down. The videos exist. NIST knows this. It is a fact that for at least 10 stories the building was in complete freefall, and hence showed no structural integrity. NIST was forced to agree with this and there is no disagreement by the two sides here. Now if the government's result does not show this with any degree of accuracy (say their result is it took 40 percent longer and did not exhibit any freefall) then game over, I win. The goverment would not have proven their case. I don't need a lawsuit to prove anything.

So far so good?

However, if I believe the government's assertions and I want to argue that they are right, then I, at least, not only have to prove that their results jive with what are known facts, but I have to show that the method they used to calculate their results is a reasonable model of the real world. I now have an extra burden of proof to make my argument that the 911 truth person does not have. ok? So I really NEED that mathematical model or I am just flapping my gums and all I can ever do is express an opinion not based on facts. Since they will not give me that model I have to sue them in the hopes that they release it. Only then can I get close to making my argument that they got it right.

Now, don't get me wrong, I have no expectation for that to happen. It is just what should happen if "the believers" (sorry) really want to prove their point.

Now I have left unsaid as to why I think the AE911Truth people would want to file a lawsuit such as I suggest here. (I believe Mick is asking for such an explanation) And for now let's just leave it that way until we can get through this part.

Better? I hope so. Sorry for the asynchronousfluberdeebluberdees of my last post.
Thank you Tom.
It's hard to tell a complete stranger that their post makes no sense to you,
without it coming off as intentionally rude...which wasn't at all what I was going for.

Now, I was about to say "I'm pretty sure 10 guys here will take exception to your 'fact'..."
but before I even could, WeedWhacker already popped up! (He's like that) :)

If you put "Building 7" into the search box, above, you'll see that all that stuff's
been kicked around here, multiple times.
Many of the regulars know the details better than I do (they mostly just keep me around as eye candy)...
so--in a different thread--enjoy discussing the demise of Building 7. :)

And thanks again for your polite tone in post #94...
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
AE911T has not stated exactly what they wish to do with the data, nor, as is the topic of this thread, have they stated the point of law they will argue when/if they get around to using the money raised for the purpose of bringing a lawsuit against NIST.
It would appear, from all available evidence, that the threat of a lawsuit is primarily designed to provide a cause to drive donations.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Many of the regulars know the details better than I do (they mostly just keep me around as eye candy)...
Well I do like the Polar Bear.( or is it a Grizzly?)
As to the details, WW said as much as required here. Tom got several "facts" incorrect.
 

Tom Terrific

New Member
Thank you Tom.
It's hard to tell a complete stranger that their post makes no sense to you,

No, you did not come off as rude at all. Not to worry. I really appreciate your feedback. I usually think that if I cannot explain something well enough so that someone else understands it then I probably don't understand it so well myself.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Now I have left unsaid as to why I think the AE911Truth people would want to file a lawsuit such as I suggest here. (I believe Mick is asking for such an explanation) And for now let's just leave it that way until we can get through this part.

Perhaps we could just jump to: what is the lawsuit they are filing? What exactly are they claiming under the law?
 
Perhaps we could just jump to: what is the lawsuit they are filing? What exactly are they claiming under the law?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

MikeC

Closed Account
In these parts we have Judicial review - which is a court officer (usually a High Court Judge) assessing whether an official has made a correct decision - tis a decision legal, or is an action or a decision to not take action legal

Strictly speaking (AFAIK) a Judicial Review is not court case - although it is carried out by a court.

Is that the sort of thing that AE911 is after here - a review of the decision to not release the info??
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

Or in full, again:
But are there any actual legal details here? What did FEMA and NIST say? What laws apply? What is AE911's actual argument for the illegality of "that arrangement"?
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Moreover, what standing does AE911T have to demand that these documents be turned over to them? If AE911T received 490,000 documents would they in turn make all 490,000 available for public viewing or to other organizations?

Somewhat off topic, what does AE911T propose to do with the information? Take for example the FEA input data for the WTC 7 collapse. Do they plan on plugging this data into the same program that NIST used to see if a computer will arrive at the conclusion that 2+ 2=4 more than once?
I suspect that they would instead nitpick at details, without actually re-running an FEA with whatever changes they feel should be made. They will demand that NIST re-run the FEA with AE911T's input point modifications.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
even though they have architects and engineers who could do it themselves.
A point I have made many times myself.

It would, imho, help their drive to get the data released if they had a completed study of their own that came to a vastly different conclusion.

But that appears to be too much work.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
The purpose is to show that NIST made up the explanation out of whole cloth... and the reason they did it because they were concealing the only means the tower could have fallen as it did... in a controlled demolition. Of course... NIST may come up with the wrong explanation and it STILL wasn't a CD. I suppose AE thinks the data is being withheld because it reveals there was a CD.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
Yes, but that is again false Holmesian logic. But it is typical of CT's. They are trying to discredit the official story so they can claim that means their own fanciful tales MUST be the truth. If these people had the authority they like to speak from, and with the income they make, they could easily have done their own study. The fact that they haven't is very telling.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
The purpose is to show that NIST made up the explanation out of whole cloth... and the reason they did it because they were concealing the only means the tower could have fallen as it did... in a controlled demolition. Of course... NIST may come up with the wrong explanation and it STILL wasn't a CD. I suppose AE thinks the data is being withheld because it reveals there was a CD.
In other words, a witch hunt
 

econ41

Senior Member
In other words, a witch hunt
My discussions with T Szamboti and D Cole ("kawika") on other forums show a strong orientation to "discredit NIST at any cost". Mostly focussed towards technical detail nit picking - technical points which fail the "so what?" test - lacking any demonstrable significance.

However that goes to the technical material subject of the legal initiative. Not whatever basis it may have in law.

Proving NIST wrong will not help the AE911 claims for CD. The evidence against CD is not dependent on NIST. Or whether NIST's explanations of collapse are right or wrong.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I still cannot understand why ANYONE continues with the "CD" scenario, RE TWC 1 & 2, and WTC 7???

I mean.....we have MULTIPLE audio/video examples (MANY from amateurs, i.e. just citizens) that show NO traditional "CD" of 'ANY' sort!!!

It is puzzling, at this "stage" as to 'why' this particular "CT" still percolates!
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Is it not just a reasonable assumption that A&E are just getting attention for themselves?

I mean, once you get your head in the conspiracy mindset, then no amount of information releases are going to satisfy.

If it does not comply with their conclusion, then the evidence will be 'fake'...

Is someone actually expecting to find the explosive invoices, or the list of snipers in Dealy Plaza in an archive?
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
Yeah it's like Ian Simpson's lawsuits. They are just attention getters which all the followers will just forget about when there is something else to distract them.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Is it not just a reasonable assumption that A&E are just getting attention for themselves?
Quite definately. It is the considered opinion of many that AE911T is all bluster in the lawsuit threat. They will either never bring a suit, or will do so knowing full well that they will fail. Both allow a new tact by which to campaign fordonations, and the later allows them to cry "foul" and that the gov't is thwarting them because they are afraid of the truth.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Kind of reminds me of the bluster fighter who circles his opponent and continuously berates him while never actually getting around to throwing a punch.

There was a scene in "Big Bang Theory" in which Howard and Guthrapali are to wrestle to settle a bet, they circle each other throwing insults with out ever laying hands on each other. A good analog for AE911T vs. NIST except NIST is just sitting at a table sipping coffee.
 

Related Articles

Top