Little-Known 9/11 Truth Organization Strikes Gold in Court Action Against NIST, Unearths Striking Video/Photo WTC Evidence

Little-Known 9/11 Truth Organization Strikes Gold in Court Action Against NIST, Unearths Striking Video/Photo WTC Evidence
Written by Eli Rika
Saturday, 06 November 2010

Over the last century, the most astounding historical discoveries of man-made artifacts have often been accomplished by well-funded, highly experienced researchers. From the excavation of King Tut’s tomb to the sighting of the sunken Titanic, stunning finds have required immense financial and human resources, as well as the leadership by distinguished. So, how did a mountain of never-before-seen footage used in NIST’s World Trade Center investigations get exposed to the light of day last month? Was it the work of a billionaire adventurer? Not quite. You can thank an upstart non-profit, the International Center for 9/11 Studies, whose efforts have at last borne fruit.

The International Center for 9/11 Studies was founded in 2008 by Director James Gourley, a Texas lawyer who began questioning the events of 9/11 after watching a presentation given by David Ray Griffin on C-SPAN.

“I was just floored by what I was hearing,” Gourley explained, “and I’ve been looking into 9/11 ever since then.

In order to encourage a better understanding of the 9/11 attacks and promote scientific study of these tragic events, Gourley assembled a small team of trusted colleagues, which includes physics instructor David Chandler, activist Dr. Graeme MacQueen, and Justin Keogh, the Center’s Chief Technical Officer. The Center has partnered with other key researchers in the past, including physicist Steven Jones and chemist Niels Harrit.

Since its inception, the Center has contributed to groundbreaking work on the technical analysis of the WTC building destructions. Gourley, who has a chemical engineering background, co-authored several papers that exposed evidence that the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 were destroyed by means of controlled demolition. His critique of official-story defender Zdenek Bazant’s crush down/crush up collapse theory was published as part of a formal discussion in the mainstream Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Gourley’s contributions also extended to the peer-reviewed paper detailing the active thermitic material discovered in the WTC dust, which was published in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal. In addition, the Center collaborated with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, and other scientists and engineers to submit 26 pages of comments on the NIST WTC 7 Draft Report within the three-week deadline.

Uncovering the data NIST used in its WTC investigations proved to be a little more difficult. The Center filed a FOIA Request with NIST on January 26, 2009, seeking disclosure of “all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses.” NIST initially ignored this request, and for months dismissed attempts by the Center to gain acknowledgment of its receipt. Undeterred, Gourley filed a lawsuit on May 28, 2009 to get the data released. Since then, NIST has been periodically turning over images and video from its archives. So far, the Center has received over 300 DVDs and several external hard disk drives related to the NIST Reports – more than three terabytes of data – and NIST has indicated that additional records will be released in the future.

The first section of data to be partially analyzed by the Center is the Cumulus Database, a collection of more than 6,500 video clips that NIST had gathered from residents, first responders and news organizations that were filming in New York City on September 11, 2001. Even though the Center has only been able to look through a small fraction of this enormous archive, several remarkable video sequences have already been located and posted online.

In one unsettling video clip, two firefighters who had just escaped from one of the Twin Towers discussed how secondary explosions inside the building caused the lobby to collapse. 9/11 World Trade Center NIST FOIA FDNY firefighters secondary explosionsOne of the firefighters is so concerned about explosives that he says, “There may be more. Any one of these buildings could blow up.” The official accounts of the events have excluded the more than 100 witnesses citing the sights and/or sounds of explosions.

The release of this video generated so much interest that searches for it skyrocketed to #1 on Google Trends on October 6, 2010.

In another clip, a low frequency explosion can be heard just before the East penthouse of WTC Building 7 falls.

One of the most mysterious pieces of footage to be exposed shows a massive amount of dust and a large object being ejected from a window a few stories below the jet impact zone of one of the Towers. 9/11 World Trade Center NIST FOIA explosion“The size and speed of the expelled material indicate that an explosion must have caused this event,” Gourley said after examining the video.

Several clips show clear evidence of editing that Gourley described as “suspicious.” 9/11 World Trade Center NIST FOIA FDNY WTC 7This includes a video of WTC Building 7 from which the penthouse collapse sequence is missing. In another clip that begins just after WTC 7 starts to fall, the soundtrack is strangely silent, and does not turn on until after the building has been completely destroyed.

In addition to these, a video recorded after the collapse of the Twin Towers was released, in which Michael Hess, the Corporation Counsel for New York City, can be seen calling for help from the 8th floor of WTC Building 7. This footage further corroborates the testimony of Barry Jennings, the former Deputy Emergency Manager of the New York City Housing Authority, who reported that he and Hess were trapped on the 8th floor after an explosion inside the building destroyed the stairwell beneath them.9/11 World Trade Center NIST FOIA Michael Hess

The Center is preparing other data collections for public download, and working with NIST to attain additional volumes of information that are still being withheld. Center volunteers are also analyzing a computer model of Building 7 that NIST reluctantly released to determine whether the parameters used in their investigation were scientifically legitimate. David Chandler will continue to provide his technical expertise by publishing a video that contains a detailed analysis of the recordings. Justin Keogh has been adding material to his website to assist those who wish to explore the extensive amount of written material pertaining to the WTC catastrophe.

In the meantime, the Cumulus video clips, which total about 86 GB in size, have been made available online, and instructions for download can be viewed here. This collection alone is so massive that the Center cannot analyze all of the footage in a timely manner with its limited assets. Many hours of video have yet to be thoroughly reviewed. At first glance, the current lack of resources may seem to be disappointing, but this dilemma actually presents one of the greatest opportunities for independent researchers, technical professionals and others to help bring new evidence to light.

“The more people there are that look at it, the better,” Gourley said when asked about the need for assistance. “There might be a bombshell hidden in there, and you never know until you go through it all.” The international attention that some of the footage has garnered also suggests that other as-yet-unseen evidence could make headlines around the world.

The treasure trove of data that the International Center for 9/11 Studies has worked so hard to obtain is waiting earnestly for a few good men and women to sift through it, and unearth all the information that has been buried for years. Anyone with Internet access now has the potential to make discoveries that will bring us closer to justice for the victims of that fateful day more than nine years ago.

My sincere congratulations and thanks to James Gourley

for all his work and particularly for his FOIA actions against NIST and USGS, to induce them to finally release data which challenges the official 9/11 story.

Well done, James.

I should note that James also has a paper published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics which challenges the "official theory" (as expressed in a paper by Bazant et al.) regarding the Towers' destruction.

Mine too. Only question

Mine too. Only question Joe....why wasn't the International Center for 9/11 Studies web banner featured at the top of this post?

Applause!!! Thank you, sir.

Applause!!! Thank you, sir. As Dan Rather would say, "There are not words."

Sorry I didn't think of it.

Sorry I didn't think of it.

I just checked and I cannot copy the image locating to embed the image.

I met with James almost five years ago at a local Starbucks when I started a "911 Questions/ Concerned Citizens" Meetup group ( ) . He was one of six. Within half an hour we were brainstorming how to get what we knew to be true into the public eye. The rest is history.


Excellent work James et al!

I have had the privilege of meeting and talking with James on several occasions. He is a remarkable man.

Thanks for your hard work which is so important to the movement.


He and his wife are wonderful people! You got to hand it to her, because James puts in a lot of hours (and funds) towards 9/11 Truth.

Thanks for the post Joe.

You are an amazing force for truth in your own tireless dedication and contributions.


Joe has sponsored or been a part of many, many scores of Truth Actions, burned thousands and thousands of DVDs, and has spent a lot of money (he is not rich) towards 9/11 Truth.


“There might be a bombshell hidden in there, and you never know until you go through it all.”
Again, I will question who this Secret Service Agent Bennette is in this video? He states his title is O.S.T. when asked, he acts incredibly aloof and is fervent that the camera person, and or crew "should leave".

If he is from O.S.T., this can be one question that merits discussion, and possibly further FOIA. The O.S.T. (Office of Secure Transporation) is a wing of the Dept. of Energy tasked with the transportation of "nuclear weapons, weapons components, and special nuclear materials (SNM)", i.e. thermitics?...


I don't understand why any more "evidence" is needed or helpful

NIST's admission of freefall of WTC7 for 2.25 seconds is absolute, concrete proof that their "explanation" is false.

Will someone please tell me why more "evidence" will do anything other than provide more fodder for more endless argumentation?

NOTHING can trump the impossible incompatibility of there being structure but no structural resistance.

This is not to diminish in any way the great work of the International Center for 9/11 Studies. I am just asking a practical question: "Does there come a point when the sheer volume of "new information" becomes an impediment to the effort to get a new investigation launched?" One of the tricks that lawyers use to delay the opposition is to drown the opposition in an endless tidal wave of documents. This drains the opposition's resources and wears them down. Is there any truth to the adage that sometimes less is more?

Without the help of the controlled media,...

the paid for "public servants", the crooked courts, or real investigations etc., WE must saturate the somnambulists with all the irrefutable evidence we can find in order to influence public opinion. We must use every legal tool available to get the message out and to build an airtight case.

We are living in Oceania.

There already is an airtight case

The incompatibility of structure with no structural resistance IS airtight (in an uncorrupted court). In a corrupted court, more "airtight evidence" is not going to change the verdict.

Every "airtight argument" is just one more thing to be "debunked." The advantage the debunkers have is that their "debunking" does not have to conform to either the evidence or the laws of physics - in order to prolong the "debate" forever. This is because they attack the psyche which is not governed by logic.

There are many benefits to the NIST data...

One important aspect from this NIST release is that NIST "owned" the data, i.e. they were aware of this information. This makes them culpable if blatant obfuscation of their own data is discovered.
Shyam Sunder and John Gross probably have brown spots on their underwear, because they potentially could end up being criminally prosecuted.
NIST executives offically denied that there was any need to look for explosives (and also denied the molten metal). Already, from NIST's own data, we have seen implications of explosives.

There are other advantages (scientifically and legally) from gaining more information and more evidence.

There will come a time in a court of law.
Let's prepare the case.

(An example of people who "knew", but can weasel out of 9/11 Justice are some of the 9/11 Commission members. There are also other people who "knew", but hard evidence to prove it is another story.)


Please avoid discussing the undergarments of NIST investigators (or anyone else, for that matter) in future.



But zmzmzm makes a valid point. The collapse time of WTC 7 puts the lie to the official theory. My father had a quote: "Once you've sold it, don't buy it back!" I think this is his point: take care that we don't muddy the waters.
That said, the proof of culpability will greatly enhance a future prosecution to expose the high perps.



I see some evidence that there are fall-back positions, ready to trot out if dawning reality demands such. Maybe if need be at some point, WTC 7 can be admitted as a controlled demolition -- absolutely required for safety reasons or whatever. Piling on more and more evidence, in varied spheres, would limit the fall-back options.


Have we established whether they could actually set up a classic controlled demolition in only a few hours?

What is the estimated minimum time they could do it logistically?

Danny Jowenko

Said WTC 7 could have been done in a day, since one would not care about the surrounding buildings. Just FYI. Normally, it would take longer, prepping and cutting the columns, securing the perimeter, etc. etc.

The video I posted above is speculating this...

Why would an agent from the OST be in Tower 7? Were there other OST agents in the building hypothetically delivering incendiaries? Finishing touches? What? The building was ablaze later in the day, wasn't it?

Did the Dept. of Energy have offices in Tower 7 and why is Agent Bennette, O.S.T. telling the camera person to leave because the building is "clear"? The video places an "agent" of a highly charged Dept. in Tower 7, after Tower 2 was down.

On Youtube this video has received some criticism that it appears staged, I cannot see this interpretation.

Again, please look into the Office of Secure Transportation. Would they be an entity that may handle military grade thermite, or other substances? They do "secure perimeters", that is for sure.

The video clip seems to deserve critical examination via the evidence of the timely presence of one of their agents at the scene and can it be confirmed OST was there?

are you sure?

I though Danny had changed his mind about this after hearing that the building was on fire. Can anyone remember this point?

I recorded

it when it was broadcast, but I'd have to look it up Frank...because I can't claim I'm certain he didn't say any specific thing. The interviewer may have said: "But the building was on fire" after which Danny said: "Hmm, yes... very strange indeed".

I'll have a look one of these days. We need transcripts of these kinds of media for us all to consult if in doubt.


And for a speculative -- but believable? -- proposal, there is the idea that FEMA mandates that tall buildings have a pre-existing demolition plan in place. No one has brought forth evidence of this. The linked article makes interesting claims.

But let's not hijack the blog thread with this topic.


You need a source for that claim. Try following the chain of links. Plus, the post at 911blogger says this claim is founded on an "excerpt" .. "from an anonymous comment posted at the CommonDreams website".

These factors combined make this claim extremely questionable, and impossible to defend until an actual source is found. If it is found, I'd like to know more.


I only meant that the logic seems believable, to me. I am not making a claim about it, i.e., that this probably happened or that it is right vis-a-vis WTC 7 -- and/or 1 and 2 for that matter.

A while ago I read the full blog post that the excerpt comes from. And I did get there from a comment to a piece at Common Dreams.

All it was was a blog entry at someone's website. He claimed to have somehow inadvertently come across this FEMA project, code-named the Godzilla Project. The name comes from the fact, according to his story, that an earthquake in Tokyo caused insurers to start mandating demolition plans for all high-rise buildings, due to the chaos inflicted on re-insurers after that quake. Whole areas in Tokyo had buildings toppled on one another, or leaning, and so on, so that multiple insurance companies had to condemn (and pay for, via re-insurers) whole districts' worth of buildings. It was evidently a big and really expensive mess.

I noticed, at the fellow's website, the announcement that he was planning to take down the website soon. His paper is probably gone. But all it amounted to was his statements about finding this stuff out, with no documentation at all. I have basically stated here all he said there. And I too have no documentation at all for it and also, no idea if it is correct.

But I have to admit, the logic looks believable to me. It also looks believable, to me, as a possible fall-back position, as I stated earlier. And that too is nothing but conjecture.

I know

It's possible, I agree, I was more or less encouraging you to dig in to it, and bring your findings back to 911blogger :-)

We need more sleuths like Shoestring who know how to write footnoted investigative pieces. I have confidence that with the right amount of time investment, anybody here can do it.

We have heroes on the streets doing activism, and we've got researchers providing them with ammo. Some do both. All are valuable.


I will look for a source. I hope others do too.

Swamped with evidence

I agree. With one piece of evidence, it's easier to digest. I think people in general are tired of being swamped with all the evidence at once. The rate of fall of WTC-7 is all I need. Another issue I have is this bit about someone in the government is lieing. Though I think people are lieing about this, I don't think it does any good to make the claim. Unless you can actually come out with how they are lieing, what exactly implies they lied, and direct proof that they are guilty of lieing (proven facial expression, an e-mail to another, etc.), then you're wasting your breath.

we need all the evidence we can get

and "lying" is a serious accusation so best learn to spell it if you're going to use it.

Tone of comments

I have noticed a tendency for nit picking and a smart-ass tone on comments. I have been guilty of this myself. Passion + Frustration can bring them out in me as well. I personally will refrain from this type of tone from here on. It has made 911blogger feel like a hostile environment. If you want to correct someone for spelling or erroneous statements, try doing it in a diplomatic and friendly way.

I think it is fallout from the feud between individuals on the Pentagon issue.

I don't have a dog in that fight, but I see a change in tone of comments in general across the board.

Maybe I am not seeing this as others do. I invite you to share your viewpoint.

Thank you, Rob

I, too, bemoan the all too often hostile tone of some comments here.

One thing everyone can do before hitting the "save" button is to re-read their comment and imagine that you are someone totally new to the issue of 9/11 truth and unfamiliar with the movement. How do you want to come across? What impression do you want people to have of not only you, but the entire movement as a whole?

Is being civil to each other really that difficult?

I think it is possible to disagree in a civil, if not agreeable manner, yes?

We are in the process of creating the world we want to live in, brothers and sisters, let's make it as civil a world as possible, shall we?

The truth shall set us free (but many will discard the truth if it is presented with sarcasm or snark).

Love is the only way forward (and this means accepting that we are all different and no one is "perfect").

I am glad that "Tone of Comments" was mentioned

By bringing it up on occasion, I think we will see the snark subside.

LeftWright, keep repeating the message...
"Love is the only way forward (and this means accepting that we are all different and no one is "perfect").

You can be elected to the Presidency, Senate, House

and hold various cabinet positions in either party and not know that the word is NUCLEAR - not NUCULAR.
So take it easy on bdbeale for his spelling :)

He makes some good points.

Also Chriskin may well have been in a light, fun-loving frame of mind when he made his comment. So let's go easy on him too.

Thankyou James et al !!

These folks with the International Center for 9/11 Studies have put in many hundreds of hours and their own money in order to make things go right.
They are heroes in my book.

Please help support endeavors like this.
Go here to contribute...

"Copy this Widgit" ...paste it here!

The Canadian: New Video Helps the War Against Terrorism

The Canadian: New Video Helps the War Against Terrorism