All of the NIST Error Correction Reports Recently Filed

I brought up this topic at Kevin Barrett's lecture at Bradley Univ., on Feb 6th, 2007.

I asked him why the Scholars for 9/11 Truth groups haven't filed an error correction report with the NIST engineering reports.

Apparently, within a month, three separate people have requested an error correction.

Edward F. Haas submitted one (partially related to WTC 7 report), on February 28, 2007:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6552

Morgan Reynolds submitted one on March 8th, 2007:
http://nomoregames.net/911/070308_MR_RFC.pdf

Judy Wood submitted one on March 16th, 2007:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/070322_PR.html

A single attorney represents all three error requests: Attorney Jerry Leaphart.

It is curious as to why these error corrections seek to stop the release of the NIST WTC 7 report due this year.

I believe it is a good thing to get to the bottom of these poor engineering reports through an honest justice system.

But isn't it smarter to have the support of ALL of the best academic and professional 9/11 Truth advocates for these error corrections??

I filmed the following lectures at Bradley University:
Part 1
9/11 Truth Lecture - Dr. Kevin Barrett @ Bradley Univ. (Part 1)

Add to My Profile | More Videos

Part 2
9/11 Truth Lecture - Dr. Kevin Barrett @ Bradley University

Add to My Profile | More Videos

Hey Adam

I didn't know you were filming this..... did you film the George McGovern speech?
___________________
Together in Truth!

i thought about it, but

i thought about it, but decided not too. . i wish i had some of the audio clips of him building the official conspiracy story. . .

Kevin Barrett at his best....

Great Speech.....succinctly and devastatingly layed out....thanks adam...nicely recorded also....

I hope this gets wide exposure....I know if Halifaxion were still around and allowed to put this up it would be.....

Reynolds and Wood can take

Reynolds and Wood can take their bunkum back to disinfo central.

"But isn't it smarter to have the support of ALL of the best academic and professional 9/11 Truth advocates for these error corrections??"

Exactly, it needs to be made plain that when disinfo artists submit something to NIST, or whatever official body, that they do not in anyway represent the broader 9/11 Truth Movement, or in fact the Truth Movement period. We need real submissions to NIST, real submissions that actually are endorsed by the rest of us.

"It is curious as to why

"It is curious as to why these error corrections seek to stop the release of the NIST WTC 7 report due this year."

Well, yes.  

Leaphart was Fetzer's attorney in the lawsuit over the Scholars' website/domain, an action that seemed counter-productive, overly aggressive, and expensive for people allegedly engaged in a public education campaign for 9/11 truth.  I am very suspicious of his representation in the NIST filing.  If the feds wanted a reason to prolong release of the new report, this is the perfect cover.  It is now held up in legal wrangling; therefore whatever cock-and-bull explanation was planned (which would be immediately and mercilessly dissected by an analytical truth community) can now remain under wraps.  "Hey, we wanted to release the definitive report, which would have laid all loonspiracy speculation to rest, but the so-called Truthers are the ones responsible for the delay.  They must not want another official document to come out which will trouble their "theories."

It seems to me that we should want the new NIST report to come out with all of its anticipated inconsistencies, obfuscations, gaps, absurdities, etc.  We all know they can't make a rational argument for WTC7; a new paper trail hamstrings them even further, doesn't it?

Call me paranoid, but this is fishy.  

You're not paranoid,

And this is REALLY fishy. Leaphart, Reynolds, Wood...

"Hey, we wanted to release the definitive report, which would have laid all loonspiracy speculation to rest, but the so-called Truthers are the ones responsible for the delay. They must not want another official document to come out which will trouble their "theories." This is the goal of the so-called error correction reports.

fishy?

Shill....Shill....Shill

throw a hook into that group and you are bound to catch at least one.

and it appears that KB was the one to pass this application on to these assbags
___________________
Together in Truth!

Show "LEH, it's called accountability." by Jim Jones

accountability

fine...sounds great..... but halting the release of the report that will finally sink their ship?

we want to see their findings on WTC 7.... then we can question them to no end.

NIST does not want to release this report... so we give them the means to sit on it for God knows how long????
___________________
Together in Truth!

Show "If you REALLY want accountability..." by Jim Jones

This make no sense

"Remember, once it is a final verdict, the criminals are off the hook."

 This make no sense.

And if your argument is true, then why the report isn't out yet after five and half years?!?

I wasn't getting the logic either

Just chalked it up to morning fog.

went for another cup of coffee
___________________
Together in Truth!

Think of it as a peer review

Think of it as a peer review and you are now the reviewer.

Surely you aren't suggesting that Fetzer, Wood, et al are welcomed as de facto peer reviewers for the NIST report?  That the feds will look at the filing and say, "Jeez, we never thought of that!  Thanks folks, we'll be right back to you with those considerations!"

 

Show "YOU are the PEER REVIEWER" by Jim Jones
Show "It is the job of the OPs to run out the clock" by Jim Jones

What the hell are you

What the hell are you talking about “Jim Jones”? These individuals push the idea that “spatial laser beams” knocked down the Towers. And that there were no planes that even hit the Towers, it was all just “hologram-cartoon-CGI”. That’s disinformation right there, so these people are highly suspect to my judgment. It looks very much like some kind of Cointelpro type activity to damage 9/11 truth. So you're either a shill like them, or a total moron to claim this is for honest “accountability” - it’s about damaging and slowing the genuine 9/11 Truth Movement.

BINGO!!!!

___________________
Together in Truth!

VOILÀ!!!!

Just look at how obvious this is

Like on wasn't enough.... all three pile on.... each filing approx the same time apart.

All using the same lawyer.

Perhaps we should investigate this attourney and see where he's had his dirty little mits.

What do you call 1,000,000 lawyers burried up to their necks?

.........Not enough dirt!
___________________
Together in Truth!

Error correction reports appear to be a double-edged sword

I have not read the procedures regarding error correction reports so this is just an educated guess on my part.

One way of challenging the NIST report is through this internal method of filing an error correction report and pointing out its deficiencies and legally demanding clarifications and/or corrections, thus forcing an internal review of the report in question and possibly leading to the report being invalidated.

Clearly, this will prolong the process and assist the government in any ongoing cover-up as it can keep claiming that the report is not yet "final".

I'm not sure how challenging the report on the Towers would automatically affect the completion of a report on WTC 7 and I have no idea how one could legally challenge a report that has yet to be publicly released.

Another approach is to accept the reports as presented as "final" and challenge them outside of the formal review process, in the court of public opinion, so to speak. This also has its disadvantages, however, as it will be seen as attempting to circumvent the normal, professional process (even if that process is perceived to be corrupt). And seeing how little msm attention any of this gets, this approach depends completely on our ability to disseminate the information outside of mainstream channels (which we have been doing, anyway).

A dual track approach is probably best. Thus, the report should be challenged by filing error correction reports and by publicly detailing the obvious problems with the report and publishing these challenges on the web.

I think what Mr. Stevens is asking is why more of the scholars are not filing error correction reports, particularly Dr. Jones, Kevin Ryan and Jim Hoffman. Is this a tactical oversight, a huge waste of time for them or a lack of legal or financial resources?

Once again, I have not read the procedures regarding error correction reports and this may just be another red herring thrown across our path.

In any case, our main focus remains educating the public in the street. This is how we will reach critical mass and force the new investigations that we need.

I hope that you are all well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

I addressed your comment in

I addressed your comment in my newest blog entry to be approved. . .I hope the error correction process is understood by you after you read it, if you read it.

Another great presentation by Dr. Barrett !

Every time I see or hear him my admiration only grows as he continues to expand his repertoire and develop new ways of exposing the myth of 9/11.

Bravo!

Good job recording his presentation, as well, it sounded like the audio was recorded in stereo.

Thank you for recording and posting this.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.