In a letter dated July 11, 2014 to Senator Barbara Boxer of California, Jim Schufreider, representing NIST, admitted (albeit indirectly) for the first time that NIST omitted the lateral support beams in its final report on WTC 7, published after a 7 year investigation + delay in November, 2008.
Unfortunately Mr. Schufreider's letter to Senator Boxer made false statements and misrepresentations, probably in an effort to deceive the Senator so as to avoid meaningful oversight. To this day the question remains open whether NIST fulfilled its Congressional mandate in the National Construction Safety Team Act.
On October 1, 2002 the National Construction Safety Team Act (Public Law 107-231) was signed into law by President George W. Bush. The first "specific objective" of this Act was, "1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed." (NIST NCSTAR 1A, page xxvii).
Here is an update on the UK court case regarding the BBC's coverage of 9/11 that I wrote about in a recent post here, "Historic Case to Challenge BBC’s 9/11 Coverage". The court date was Monday, February 25, 2013.
In short, it was a huge victory for the 9/11 Truth community because a court finally had to face the facts and couldn't do it. Rather than having a 3 hour hearing full of evidence including testimony by Prof. Niels Harrit the judge took the easy way out as described in the letter.
Historic Case to Challenge BBC’s 9/11 Coverage
By Peter Drew
Originally at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33984.htm
February 17, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - On February 25, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, there will be a rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement. Three hours of detailed 9/11 evidence is to be presented and considered in a court of law where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) will be challenged over the inaccurate and biased manner in which it has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11.
Over the last 16 months, BBC has been challenged strongly by individuals in the UK over two documentaries that they showed in September 2011 as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, namely ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’ and ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On’. Formal complaints were lodged with BBC over the inaccuracy and bias of these documentaries, which, according to 9/11 activists, was in breach of the operating requirements of BBC through their ‘Royal Charter and Agreement’ with the British public. This document requires BBC to show information that is both accurate and impartial. These complaints were supported by the US-based educational charity Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), which submitted detailed scientific evidence to BBC to buttress the complaints. The evidence focuses in particular on the confirmed free-fall of WTC 7 and NIST's 2008 admission of this fact. In addition, over 300 AE911Truth petition signers supported these complaints by sending letters to BBC, requesting that BBC show this evidence to the public.
November 28, 2012
(Sacramento, CA) 9/11 Truth activist Mark Graham sent a letter to the 12 insurance companies for the airline defendants sued by Larry Silverstein informing them about evidence of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 and offering to put them in touch with building experts who could provide expert testimony.
In 2004 Larry Silverstein, who owned Building 7 and had signed a 99 year lease on the Twin Towers just six weeks before 9/11, sued United and American Airlines 1 and companies providing security at the airports (the "airline defendants"). Silverstein claimed that the airline defendants 2 had been negligent in allowing the hijackers to board and hijack the planes and fly them into the Twin Towers. He claimed that the plane crashes and fires "proximately caused the total destruction" of the Twin Towers, Building 7 and the other buildings in the World Trade Center. (Complaint in Case 1:08-cv-03722-AKH Document 1 Filed 04/17/08, page 2) 3
No mention has been made of the fact that it would have been impossible for those plane crashes and fires to have destroyed the buildings or the abundant evidence of controlled demolition. The defense attorneys could make an affirmative defense of this argument and exculpatory evidence.
Graham sent his letter via certified mail to the heads of 12 insurance companies who insured the airline defendants including Lloyd’s of America, Travelers Cos, Swiss Re, Zurich American, Global Aerospace and U.S. Aircraft Insurance Group and to their attorneys.
November 1, 2012
BUILDING EXPERTS WANT WORLD TRADE CENTER LAWSUIT TO CONSIDER CONTROLLED DEMOLITION EVIDENCE
New York, NY - “Evidence of the explosive controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 should be considered in court”, according to Richard Gage, AIA, founder of the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth). Gage’s comment was in response to a Reuters news story on October 18 “Judge questions WTC blame of United Airlines in September 11 case”. World Trade Center Properties (WTCP) blames the airlines for negligent behavior resulting in fires that caused the complete destruction of three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11, 2001. At issue is the extent of liability held by the airlines for lapses in security at Boston’s Logan Airport and the Portland, Maine, Jetport that day. The trial will determine the amount of compensation owed World Trade Center Properties for the destruction of the buildings themselves and the subsequent loss of income to WTCP.
“The building did not come down as a result of the fires.. Fire cannot pulverize concrete into dust and small pieces in mid-air.
In the post 9/11 era it has become harder and harder to exercise our constitutional rights. For example police often crack down on peaceful demonstrations that are protected by the First Amendment - freedom of speech. This video shows how freeway bloggers in Davis, California were able to turn a bad situation with the CHP into a good one. It is a model that political activists can use in any city or state.
Briefly here is the history:
In October 2009, our 2nd ever freeway blogging event in Davis, we ran into the harassment and intimidation of the CHP. Although we were not breaking the law
Join the AE911Truth campaign to "Hold the BBC Accountable" for its inaccurate and biased reporting on the 9/11 attacks
Dear Friends of 9/11 Truth,
You have the opportunity to write to the Committee in the British Parliament that provides oversight to the British Broadcasting Corporation and ask it to conduct its own inquiry into biased reporting on the 9/11 attacks by the BBC and meet with 3 9/11 Truth activists to allow them to present 9/11 Truth evidence.
As you may remember, three Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition signers in the UK have filed separate and formal complaints with the British Broadcasting Corporation over two documentaries it aired last year around the 10th anniversary of 9/11, namely ‘Conspiracy Files: 9/11 ten years on', and '9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip'. The BBC has breached its Royal Charter and its Agreement and Editorial Guidelines, which include Editorial Values that promise truth, accuracy, impartiality, editorial integrity and independence, fairness, transparency and accountability in all the BBC’s programs.
June 10, 2012
Dear Friends of 9/11 Truth,
We don’t want you to miss this rare opportunity to support a 9/11 Truth campaign in England with the British Broadcasting Corporation. The BBC Trust will make a decision any day now on whether to have a meeting with three AE911Truth petition signers who have filed a complaint over the BBC’s biased coverage of 9/11.
Dozens of you already sent in the pre-written letters to support this campaign. However, we’d like to reach at least 200 supporter letters. Will you help?
In the June 5 edition of The Blueprint (AE911Truth's newsletter) there was an article called "Hold the BBC Accountable".
We are asking you to send two emails (already written) to support a campaign to persuade the BBC to report accurately about 9/11 as their Charter and Editorial Values require. If you write your own letter, that's even better.
In a surprising reversal the managers of the petition website Avaaz.org have restored a petition asking NIST, Congress and President Obama to acknowledge what the free fall descent of WTC Building 7 means. This was due to a poll of randomly selected Avaaz members, the majority saying they wanted the petition to be restored.
On May 7 I rewrote the petition and gave it a new title: "Revise the U.S. government final report on the collapse of Building 7".
844 people signed the petition by the evening of May 22. (One friend told me he had seen 883.) Avaaz did not help AT ALL with this petition. They never featured it or made it available on their website. Every one of those 844 individuals who signed it found out about it through a friend. Hundreds of people shared it via facebook, twitter or email.
A Call to Action for the Global Truth Movement
Holding the BBC to Account over 9/11 Coverage
Friends of 9/11 Truth,
If you will take 3 minutes today to send a short email to the BBC Trust and MP Tom Watson you will help to persuade the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) to provide impartial and accurate reporting on the World Trade Center attacks in keeping with its Charter and Editorial Values. This is support for a campaign by 3 9/11 Truth activists in the UK. An example letter for you to send and the recipients' email addresses are later on in this article.
Hello fans of 911Blogger,
You may remember that a couple of weeks ago I created a peitition on Avaaz.org asking NIST to "Come clean about the free fall of the World Trade Center Building 7".
Without telling me why Avaaz removed the petition after it had gotten 89 signatures in 2 days.
If you sign and then share with your friends and contacts, we'll soon reach our goal of 100 signatures and build pressure to get the decision we want.
Click here to read more about it and sign:
To all Readers of 911blogger,
Avaaz has still not responded to my message to them about removing my petition about Building 7. I wrote to them last Thursday, as soon as I realized they had taken it down. I also mailed them a letter in the U.S. mail that went out Saturday or today.
They have falsely told other Avaaz members that I did so.
They have removed the petition from my account too so that it says that I have not created any petitions.
Will you help me?
Please write to Avaaz and ask them to reinstate my petition.
You could write a 2 line message; copy and paste the following:
"Please reinstate the petition about World Trade Center Building 7 that was at
Here's the web page to use to write to them.
Janette Mackinlay, 1948 - 2010 was an artist, 9/11 survivor and activist for 9/11 Truth and justice. This video (in 2 parts) shows Janette's presentation at the University of California Davis on May 1, 2009.
The occasion was Prof. Steven E. Jones' first public presentation of his research on dust from the World Trade Center. Janette was the first person to give Prof. Jones a sample of dust from the World Trade Center. Prof. Jones, Prof. Niels Harrit and other scientists found red gray chips in the dust, some visible to the naked eye. Scientific examination revealed that these were unexploded pieces of nanothermite, a military grade explosive researched and developed at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories in Livermore, California.
If you know our history you know that we had to work in cooperation with CHP (California Highway Patrol) to be able to do our peaceful demonstrations for 9/11 Truth in peace. In October 2009 CHP shut down our demonstration with bullying tactics and no regard for us or the law. We met with the CHP captain in February 2010 to work out a deal whereby we could do what we wanted and they could be reassured that we were not breaking the law or doing anything dangerous. We first put that plan into place in April 2010. This is the 6th time we've gone freeway blogging with the CHP's cooperation. It has worked every time. We want to let you know that if you want to do a peaceful demonstration it is possible to have the cooperation of the police. It is very desirable too.
For more information see our website
# # #
To the 9/11 Truth community,
Here's a short interview of Janette MacKinlay outside of Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office on November 4, 2009.
We met with Jim Molinari, State Director for Sen. Dianne Feinstein's and a so called explosives expert brought in by Molinari named Don Hansen at her One Post Street office in downtown San Francisco. We were Janette MacKinlay, Richard Gage AIA, Gregg Roberts, and Mark Graham.
Molinari is a former S.F. police captain and we thought he would be interested in following the evidence about 9/11 truth. He didn't. He did talk with us for an hour and a half. Hansen had a strong aversion to the truth in any form. He would rather dig a ditch than admit even the most obvious fact about 9/11. It is really bad that he has been working for the government (he says State Department) for so many years and is considered an expert of any kind by Molinari.
Feinstein is married to Richard Blum, who used to be one of the Regents of the University of California at a time when Livermore National Laboratory, which the UC had some control over, was researching and developing nanothermite.