Urge Geraldo Rivera to Report on Rethink911

Contact Geraldo Rivera, host of "Geraldo At Large," a nationally syndicated show on Fox News Channel and urge him to report on the Rethink911 campaign that is currently in 12 major cities and includes a billboard in Times Square. Tell him that 2,000 architects and engineers plus family members want a real WTC investigation and are sponsoring this campaign, and that Bob McIlvaine and Tony Szamboti will reappear as guests on his show! Let him know that the campaign has been reported on by Ben Swann, CBS-Philadelphia, and Time Magazine -- and is causing much controversy in Ottawa, Canada about freedom of speech issues. Inform him about the new public opinion poll which shows that half of Americans have doubts about the official 9/11 story. Be sure to include the website: http://www.Rethink911.org

After all Geraldo did report on the BuildingWhat? campaign in 2010 that was seen nationally and triggered a frenzy of other media coverage. Clearly it's worth taking a second to email him. He likes to report on controversial issues.

Geraldo At Large airs Weekends 10 PM ET on Fox News Channel nationally.
Contact: atlarge@foxnews.com

Am not sure what method was

Am not sure what method was used to get on the first time. Hopefully it would work again.

If AE911Truth informs Geraldo of the fraud committed by NIST: missing shear studs, missing flange stiffeners, fudged numbers, he would likely be interested. It's probably a question, at that point, of whether anyone has advised him to avoid certain issues.

The mention of the FOIA that led to discoveries is good, too. It showcases the professionalism and resourcefulness of you guys, while underscoring NIST's reluctance for disclosure.

If Tony and Bob can get on Geraldo's show again, the images that depict NIST's omissions around the key girder would really pack a punch. Imagine Tony describing those images and what is wrong with the NIST report regarding them. I can hear Geraldo saying, "So, what you're showing us here, is that NIST *lied*."

The stiffeners are still the

The stiffeners are still the issue that NIST have made no comment about, and would stamp any remaining pretense of credibility that their story has left. My concern is that they seem to make these admissions without acknowledging the significance of them.
ie the stiffeners would extend the walk off distance required for the girder to fail, beyond even the 6.25" that they now say it would need to walk (previously 5.5). Even 6.25" is impossible because it would take a temp of beyond 600c which is what they say existed. It's a total minefield of deceptions and lies. Opps, did I say that NIST lied, I meant to say that they are just very economical with the truth....... I totally agree that if Tony and Bob get back on, the fact that NIST can be proven to be wrong with the actual drawings are what really hits home. I really hope this happens, and plan on phoning his office to request that it does.

It runs deeper than "stiffeners"......

The lie is about a "critical column" which is pure B.S. These are "moment frames" a term I picked up from Gage but I knew about moments from marine architecture vis a vis moments of buoyancy. Moment-resisting frames are rectilinear assemblages of beams and columns, with the beams rigidly connected to the columns. Resistance to lateral forces is provided primarily by rigid frame action-that is, by the development of bending moment and shear force in the frame members and joints. By virtue of the rigid beam-column connections, a moment frame cannot displace laterally without bending the beams and columns. The bending rigidity and strength of the frame members is therefore the primary source of lateral stiffness and strength for the entire frame. (source: Wiki)

There is such a thing as a critical column, however, as seen in the example below showing the king pole in a circus tent being erected.

I agree.....

All connections are to some extent moment resisting. The connection at the girder between column 79 and 44 is bolted and the top clips are welded to column 79 and the girder is BOLTED to the clip, NOT welded, but in some sense, yes, I would say it would resist axial/lateral movement to a degree beyond NISTs supposed initiating event(s). But I disagree with your analysis that it is moment resisting connection in the strictest sense. It is a 'seated top clip(STC) connection. ie the seat was welded to the column and so was the top clip (angle) Girder was bolted to seat and top clip All the outer girder connections on the building however,are moment resisting as per the drawings, and as per the manual though, and that is what makes a moment frame. NIST have been cornered over a long period of time as regards this particular connection and have been forced, kicking and screaming to publicly admit numerous 'errors' in their analysis of it, in terms of dimensions. It has been a long hard fight for people to first scrutinize the drawings, then scrutinize NISTs estimations and pick out the differences. And the stage that fight is at is that NIST are on the ropes, and this issue of the stiffeners will knock them clean out of the ring, and they know it. I remember the night we noticed them.
You're correct, it DOES go much deeper than stiffeners. But it has NOTHING to do with big top tents, it has to do with 'can the girder fail beyond a shadow of a doubt'. And these elements are what knocks that issue out of the park, and potentially into a court. So I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to say that the drawing that matters is this one :- http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/7438/9114.png
a close up of the stiffeners, from the same drawing is here-
Right now, from my perspective at least, the argument goes no deeper than these elements. With all due respect, do not underestimate their importance. These tow pieces of steel change the game completely and could bring the big top down on NISTs head.
Here is a set of 4 videos that we made early last year, with much help, which address the issue of this connection
We would welcome you onto a skype call to discuss this further, to fully understand the relationships, aside from the stiffeners. They are important, not by themselves, but once seen in perspective if this whole connection and explanation, they are crucial.

Would Geraldo be the best vehicle for this information?

He seems to me more a popularizer and sensationalizer. I'm not convinced he would understand or be that interested in what appear, on the outside, to be small technical details, or be able to successfully convey their significance. What about someone like Dan Rather, or someone who can understand what you're presenting?

And if you had a simplified graphic or animation that demonstrates the action (or non-action) in question, that might help their understanding as to the significance of these details.


for the Rethink campaign is why we're contacting Geraldo. Despite shenanigans on his old TV daytime show, he has covered serious issues with this current program, including the BuildingWhat campaign in 2010, which triggered a chain reaction of other coverage. (Judge Napolitano, New York 1 News, Alternet, Keith Olbermann, etc.). He was also the one who originally broadcast the Zapruder film.

Dan Rather is retired. MSNBC won't touch it. Amy Goodman won't touch it. (She is intent on covering up).

As for the technical information proving NIST fraud, it's time for a lawsuit. This movement needs to take legal action on several fronts. Fraud and Wrongful Death.

There is no such thing as bad ink!

There is no such thing as bad ink, I agree; that is why we have crotch shots of "celebrities" that are good enough to, at least, do an initial gynecological pre-diagnosis. The germ of your statement is not that Dan Rather is retired but that "Amy Goodman is intent on covering it up:" Dan Rather is retired. MSNBC won't touch it. Amy Goodman won't touch it. (She is intent on covering up). I just think that I, we, would be remiss in not pointing out at every opportunity that this tack of contacting the media is, in effect, nothing more than importuning the CIA for redress through back channels.

On finishing the departmental requirements for my bachelors degree, I found myself in a veritable leisure world of available elective courses of study. I took many courses from The College of Communications at my university; I was a member of the College of Liberal Arts. Alarmed that I was trying to gain admission to their college by a fait accompli I was called into the Deans office and grilled as to my intentions. It seems that, at least according to them, The College of Communications had stringent admission requirements that were higher than those of the college to which I belonged and they were very protective of them. The reason for this was the association with and the promulgation of many professional organizations and accrediting bodies that were supposed to advance standards in journalism and public relations. Lacking any desire to pursue a career in communications, I never investigated their claims at the time but have come to realize over the years that there are no standards in journalism: this is another thing I would be remiss in not pointing out because as we say in the South; I done studied it.

The idea of moving forward with litigation is a brilliant one. Actually, this is the job of the state but failing cooperation this could be done on an ad hoc basis for cheaper than one might think. A battery of lawyers of Nuremberg proportions and enough investigators to persue the case could be done for around $10,000,000 (ten million dollars) which is only forty times the expense of the effective and highly visible ReThink 9/11 campaign.

Negative vote, sorry my bad...

Yes, I was wrong I forgot all about this:

It is time for lawyers to get involved

as the NIST WTC 7 report is at the very least non-explanatory, and can be proven to be so in a courtroom with the discovery that the analyses omitted pertinent structural features, which was only possible to learn from the drawings, which were not released until 2012.

There are no saviors......

So, we need the blessed reassurance of the "media" to legitimatize our dialog? There are no saviors, especially in the MSM which is on life support. Google: Q-Scores, Nielsen, and other media metrics, they show that the MSM is dead. And now we need to turn to a literal butt head for support? In 1992, in front of a studio audience, he (Geraldo) submitted to a facelift in which fat from his rear end filled in wrinkles on his face. (Source: People)


This guy is also on the Rethink911 team --

and is willing to go on the air. The above contact email for Geraldo is all I've got. Tony Szamboti informed me that he doesn't have Geraldo's personal email or phone number. (Off-air Geraldo sympathized with Bob McIlvaine and asked Bob and Tony to let him know when they get any hot stories. He seemed willing to follow up).

The structural feature omissions in the NIST WTC 7 report are

court room level evidence that the report is at the very least in error and non-explanatory.

These omissions were not possible to find until the drawings were released in 2012, due to an FOIA by structural engineer Ron Brookman. This is the same guy that was told "it might jeopardize public safety" as an excuse to refuse his request for analysis and calculations supporting the girder walk-off claimed in the NIST WTC 7 report.

If the omitted features are included in the analysis there is no possible girder walk-off, no possible column buckling, and no possible natural collapse in accordance with the NIST theory. This means a new investigation is legitimately warranted and is not due to just conjecture and speculation.

What I mean by omitted features are the flange to web stiffeners on the girder at the column 79 side and the three beam stubs framing into the northmost beam from the north exterior frame. The NIST WTC 7 report actually claims two potential failure modes to move the girder off its seats.

1. The girder is pushed off its seat at column 79 laterally from east to west by beam expansion.

2. The northmost beam buckles, after pushing against the girder end that cannot translate due to it being between the flanges of column 44, causing the other beams to buckle and rocking the girder off its seats by pulling it back to the east.

The stiffeners prevent the girder from ever walking off the seat at column 79, as the beams can't expand more than 50% of the nearly 10 inches needed with the stiffeners allowing the girder to still carry its load and preventing the flange from folding if the web is not over the seat. In the second case, the lateral support of the beam stubs keeps the northmost beam from being slender and buckling, while also allowing it to deflect the girder to the west, while the girder is restrained by the other beams and putting them in tension, precluding any possibility of them buckling. I have done FEA on both of these situations proving the omitted features prevent failure.

The above is also so strong it makes the shear stud issue irrelevant, as these omitted features will prevent the girder from moving off its seats by a significant margin even if there were no shear studs on any of the structural members.

Another FOIA denial for Input Data

NIST denied a request (#12-177) for a single connection's input data. I asked for the measurements used for the modeling of the 13th floor C79 to A2001 girder connection--- the place where NIST claims the progressive global collapse started.

I appealed this denial and the Dept. of Commerce denied my appeal based upon the argument that NIST could not segregate or separate the input data from the model. They also invoked the public safety excuse. The DOC attorneys took eight months to reach their conclusion.

This request is now ripe for litigation. I cannot imagine any judge denying this request. The arguments about public safety can't possibly hold up to scrutiny . There is no way a few measurements out of thousands could be used for any nefarious purpose.

The reason NIST doesn't want to release the input data is because they purposely omitted the stiffeners and misrepresented the seat width contrary to the drawings they had in their possession. Releasing this data would prove they knowingly falsified the data to create a fraudulent model.

Is there any accountability on this planet or what?

Show "As per ALWAYS,the ONLY aspect" by waitew


ae911truth with its demolition evidence is leading the whole movement and has successfully brought to us the little main-steam attention that we now have, and that includes the Geraldo interview this thread refers to.

Every angle of the 9/11 inside job debate will lead to expert vs expert, and the only way to settle that kind of debate is to look at the evidence and see which ones are blowing smoke. Getting caught with weak evidence is one thing, but any expert caught relying on fraudulent data will end up going down the toilet, bringing his whole case with him. And that is exactly what we have here: NIST has been caught fabricating evidence and so one side of the expert debate is on its way down the toilet.

And may I kindly remind you that one of the main cd researchers who has exposed NIST has also written a great book dedicated to listing the main suspects for having organized or helped to let 9/11 unfold, and frankly I do not see any indication that this is not being discussed. In fact I suspect that one of the best ways to further advertise Ryan´s new book would be another ae911 Geraldo interview exposing NIST fraud and then introducing viewers to the bigger picture through Ryan´s book. .Tony S and Ryan would make a really strong team. Let that be my wish for the next interview.

No Debate

What NIST presented in their report and used in their analysis , when compared to the structural drawings for WTC7 are 2 different things. A child could look at the 2 side by side and spot the difference. The aspects that they misrepresented and omitted from their analysis invalidate their conclusion, and this represents one of 2 things. Deliberate scientific fraud, or gross incompetence. The mistake here would be to wait for a response from them re these specific issues. A bigger mistake IMO would be to go for Gross and/or Sunder. Therese McAllister should be pressured to answer for these "errors", and she should be made to answer for them in a court of law as it was her who signed off on them. The evidence is in, it is clear, and it is irrefutable. There is NO debating left to be done and it is time to start this legal process which would, inevitably open the door to a new investigation into the collapse of WTC7.

they would say that

Of course the gov officials would have to come up with some sort of an excuse, such as the old accidental incompetence jive, and that might work if it were only for some one technical note forgotten in some drawing, but we got so much more. The whole NISTical presentation of the assumed collapse sequences is riddled with errors and myths, but beyond that it is based on untested and unverifiable computer models and that basically defines and embodies pseudo-science, and ultimately, fraud.

People could still try to argue that this was accidental fraud due to incompetence, but then they are faced with certain facts about certain politicians that ran the investigation, the weird obsession of destroying and hiding evidence, including evidence that mandated NIST to investigate the possibility of cd.

So by all means lets have that "expert vs expert" debate, in public and in court.

The only thing that worries me is the fact that in the end it all comes to a fair hearing in court, but I fully agree that now is the time to start thinking about the best strategies to bring these matters to court.

Aint what they say it's the place that you say it..........

"one technical note forgotten in some drawing" is enough. What I am trying to get across is the relevance of what NIST did here, and just how easily it could be proven in a court, or on a TV show. They have already been forced to release an erratum document about this "one technical note", and others also. They have totally misrepresented the initiating event and the elements around the column that they claimed initiated the collapse of WTC7. This is not some irrelevant detail, this is a massive fraud on their part that can be easily proven. This is the connection in the building that they claimed to have studied closer than any other, and they got it wrong. That is not just incompetent, but if they wanted to claim that then great. That totally validates the call for a new investigation into the collapse of wtc7. If people were shown that this is the case on a show like Geraldo's I get the feeling that they would realise that what we are asking is reasonable, and relevant, rather than 'conspiracy theory'.


I wonder if ae911 has any kind of plan to go to court? Are there any big shark lawyers aboard ae911 that would take the case? Do we have the funds?

Does NIST have any avenues for escaping these kinds of lawsuits, or suppressing the evidence under discussion? I have a sneaking suspicion that NIST´s main defense would be to basically continue the same game. Any effective trial would have to be open and all evidence would have to be available.

Does anyone know if any specific rules apply to NIST regarding their work and the standards it has to follow? Is it allowed for example to falsify data and to present unverifiable models as factual? Is it possible that proving invalid models or falsified data could be enough to require NIST itself to officially invalidate the investigations of all the towers?

I would like to hear from Tony or some other ae911 representative about the next steps.

The next steps should be with

The next steps should be with lawyers and lawsuits as the evidence is there showing NIST omitted extremely pertinent features from their analysis.

When those features are included the failure mechanisms claimed by the NIST WTC 7 report are impossible. This invalidates their WTC 7 report and warrants a new investigation, as Gerry has also stated.


But is ae911 working on a plan? Even if we can settle on the first case to go after, a serious team of lawyers would be needed to follow through all the way. I expect that the government would try every dirty trick in the book to avert and stall this case, and I am not too optimistic about getting impartial and honest judges. So we would need one helluva team of lawyers and the budget to keep up. I am sure that ae911 could raise funds and that some brainstorming within those odd 2000 signatories could come up with the team.

Thanks for the response by the way, am a fan of your work.

I suggested this to Richard Gage last week

by e-mail and haven't gotten a response yet.

Although I am a petition signatory, and contribute a small amount each month to AE911 and with any work I have done on the WTC collapses when asked, I am not involved in the day to day planning.

You will need to ask Richard Gage if he intends to take up this suggestion. I think it would be wise and money well spent.

(15 USC281a; as amended by P.L. 107-231)

" No part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a structural failure or from an investigation under the National Construction Safety Team Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report (15 USC281a; as amended by P.L. 107-231). " This is the standard disclaimer put on the NIST report into building 7, and every other report that they publish. My understanding (which is not based in US law) is that this is a 3rd party clause, and does not mean that NIST cannot be brought before a court to answer for the content of the report. The only way out I could see open to them if such a case were to arise would be to claim that they dropped the ball, and totally blew it, which would legitimise the call for a new investigation 100%.
As far as suppressing the evidence goes, it is there in the structural drawings which they themselves released and had possession of when compiling their report. Their report and the drawings differ in some critical ways. The stiffener plates do not exist in their analysis yet they are there in the drawings, and invalidate their walk off theory in every way possible. NIST would have to claim that the structural drawings that they had, and released were wrong and this would result in them being caught up in the same kind of circular logic that they themselves have employed so often in the past. This evidence is prima facie - Irrefutable, and impossible for NIST to try and claim to be inadmissible.
NIST probably did the best job that they could of proving the impossible happened in WTC7. It is a testament to the quality of their lies, and their reluctance to release evidence such as these drawings for so long, that they have got away with the web of lies that they spun thus far. I would think that if this case was taken by any honest judge that the release of more data such as FEA model inputs could be facilitated as such data could be cited as pertinent to the case. NIST are now provably wrong in black and white, not just in theory, and the road for them is at an end. Their only option now is silence, and that would not be a course that they could take in a courtroom.
The evidence has been served up on a plate and is there clearly for all to see. As for the rest of your question, I cannot speak to that, but I will say that the ball is very clearly at the feet of those who have the means within this movement to take the steps required. It is time to see who, in this campaign, can kick.

well put

"It is time to see who, in this campaign, can kick."

Indeed, and I think ae911 has proven that it can gather support, funding and attention, and that it can get this ball rolling.

18 USC sec. 1001 (a)(3)

18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3):

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully –

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the
same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years
or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as
defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or

Regarding 15 USC 281a; as amended by P.L. 107-23----We're not talking about a civil "suit or action for damages".

18 USC sec 1001(a)(3) is criminal.

Could not agree more

Exactly true, criminal offenses should be taken to court and NISTs 3rd party disclaimer means nothing in that sense, or any other. They are ripe for the taking now.


Legal Action -

We don't need those guys to sign a petition -- we need them to take legal action.

Sue NIST and the Dept. of Commerce for fraud on behalf of AE911Truth. Empanel Grand Jury investigation.

Represent Bob McIlvaine and other family members in wrongful death lawsuits.

this must be their plan

Although their general plan seems to be to address the big picture, i.e. going after those that planned the inside job, I assume they are also interested in smaller and more focused cases, such as the fraud by NIST. I am also assuming that ae911 must know about this organization, but if these two groups are not already working together, we must bring them together. What´s the situation here?

Tony S seems to be the one with Cage´s email address, but would a formal request by 911blogger be possible? This sort of get-together would make a great announcement for the media, say the next Geraldo interview.

It's about ime

I think that this issue needs to go beyond ae911truth. The involvement of ae911truth should be to provide expert witnesses, and to also see that any future new investigation is competently done. To have over 2000 experts there is an incredible achievement for this movement. You are correct, we need people who are legally qualified to step forward. Time may be an issue as far as 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3) is concerned as mentioned above by kawika. Time is of the essence here and the clock is ticking. The deadline is fast approaching for us to close this POTENTIAL loophole that NIST may try to jump through. There is a team forming right now who are committed to seeing that this goes to court and this chance is not missed.

It's a crime

It is a crime to file a fraudulent report to congress. I've never taken part in the congressional actions done by ae911, but it's my understanding meetings with congressional leading focus on technical anomalies and other informational aspects about the destruction of the WTC. Maybe the next congressional action can focus on presenting evidence to our congressional reps pertaining to NIST's fraud and filing some type of formal complaint. Akin to filing a complaint at you local police dept. If there is such a formal mechanism, I'm not sure. I'm certain of one thing, current AG Holder won't lift a finger. There should be a mechanism to present the evidence to a grand jury who would decide whether or not formal charges can be brought. Any thoughts?

It is time to focus

As it stands, NIST can release erratum statements on some issues and just ignore others and make it look as if they are addressing their 'errors'. The reality of it is that although they release these statements etc, they do not address the consequences of them. A great example of this is where they say that they got the 'walk off' distance of the girder that they claim initiated the collapse of WTC7 wrong. They changed it from 5.5 to 6.25 inches. This in itself seems reasonable to the casual observer. However the consequences of this statement invalidate their whole collapse initiation hypothesis. Likewise with their refusal to address the stiffeners issue re the same girder.
In a court of law they would not have the option of making statements and not addressing the consequences of those statements with respect to their story re WTC7. To this end, the tactic that I would employ is to focus on very specific issues. If I had not studied the drawings for the building very closely and had the help and guidance of many good and honest researchers in doing so, I would not realise just how much purchase legally that two seemingly small details re two pieces of steel can give us. The fact is, that this detail which would look minor to most, and did to myself until the penny finally dropped, has the potential to invalidate the whole report by making the initiating event right at the start of their hypothesis impossible and meaningless. The beauty of this evidence is it's simplicity, it is irrefutable.
Even further, I would focus on this detail and this detail alone, the stiffener plates. The small research group that has was formed specifically to scrutinise the drawings for WTC7 is now focusing on this detail, and is now gathering momentum as far as putting the required people in place who have the backgrounds that will give this legs. There are many issues and hurdles to be overcome, but the work is done from the perspective of evidence, and we have what we need in that respect. I can't promise we will get a new investigation, but I can and do promise that we are going all in on this and that we are doing our utmost. I have been been researching 911 generally from a few days after it happened, and I have not seen an opportunity like this ever present itself before, and it won't pass me by for a want of trying.

Go get 'em tiger

If there is anything I can do to help. Just let me know.

Emailed Wayne Coste

That's a better approach in my opinion, too. dtg86. I sent your comment to Wayne Coste, leader of AE's Congressional Outreach team. Of course even in a court of law, NIST would deny charges of fraud by saying their mistakes weren't deliberate. They admit mistakes now but won't deal with the consequences of their errors.

Another issue is NIST's specific exemption provided by the NCSTA, I think that this law, apparently written for their benefit, shields NIST from releasing data even in a court of law!! I'm not sure if it would protect them from all prosecution. Congress can arguably investigate whatever it wants.

AE has a couple of internal attorneys, but we need to get feedback from James Gourley and William Pepper as to the best legal track to follow. It's past time to get our ducks in a row.

accidental fraud

This line of defense is the reason why I am suggesting that we need to have a broader perspective than just one or two technical errors - we have to be able to respond to their line of defense. Not deliberate they say. Well, then they accidentally decided not to follow NFPA921? They accidentally decided to ship off the steel before investigation? They accidentally denied reports of molten metal? They accidentally hid all the video evidence of first responders describing explosions? NIST decided by accident to rely on untested and unverifiable pseudo-scientific theories of pile-drivers and heat expansion? They cannot squirm away from any of the above questions by hiding more data because these strange behaviors are all on record already, and the response to each and every one spells out intentional bamboozlement.

No-one is his or her right mind would sign off a report based on this kind of bull$%&/, let alone anyone representing NIST for crying out loud, and it is impossible for an institution like NIST to sell the idea that it was all by accident. The unavoidable next game play is crying about political sensitivity and pressure, which leads no-where but falsifying the reports and opening up the venue for a new investigation.



"Thus, for example, the NIST Manual explains that all NIST technical communications are derived from the technical activities of its employees and supported by the technological records (e.g., research notebooks) they maintain. It is NIST policy that all NIST employees engaged in research and development activities are responsible for maintaining a thorough and accurate record of their work by keeping a research notebook following internal Operating Unit (OU) policies."

- How about seeing those notes regarding the computer models for example? Those notes should be pretty revealing. Sue them for the notes? This is especially important in relation to:

"According to the NIST Manual, Editorial Review Board decisions that do not approve publications are accompanied by recommendations to the author(s) that, if accepted, will result in approval; if such recommendations are not accepted, the authors may seek resolution of the issues through direct discussions with the Chairperson of the Editorial Review Board. After all other remedies have been exhausted, the Editorial Review Board decision may be appealed through the responsible OU Director to the NIST Director. If a decision by an Editorial Review Board is overruled by the NIST Director, the Editorial Review Board must be informed."

- Did those models and final reports pass std NIST review or did someone make sure they would by-pass the std MO?

And good for a laugh:


People: We value and support an inclusive, engaged, and diverse workforce capable of fulfilling the NIST mission.
Integrity: We are objective, ethical, and honest.
Customer focus: We anticipate the needs of our customers and are committed to meeting or exceeding their expectations.
Excellence: We expect world-class performance and continuous improvement in all we do.

You aren't reading closely enough

The omissions Gerry is talking about head off the NIST WTC 7 collapse hypothesis from the start so they invalidate the report. It does not matter if they claim it was an accident or not, the report would still be invalidated.

Of course, there would be consideration of what their potential defense could be. But when it comes to the initiation mechanism there is no wiggle room and that is the beauty of it. They hemmed themselves in by omitting pertinent features that can be proven to prevent what they are saying occurred. There is no need to head off into multiple additional directions and keeping it simple and straightforward will help get the point across.


And so well said. The aim here is not to widen the scope, but to narrow the focus. And I am sure you would help me to roll out a red carpet right up to the judge for NIST to walk up and say that they just dropped the ball. Scientific fraud Vs Mistake? I would take either, because they both get us what we want, a new investigation into 7,and there is no third option for NIST here. The road has run out for NIST, and I think they know it. As do we.

I do not disagree

These omissions are iron-clad but what stops NIST from responding with the same stone-walling techniques it uses to get away with unverifiable models?

So when you go to court with your iron-clad evidence, what is stopping NIST from PREVENTING you to discuss or elaborate on this evidence any further with the same kind of tricks? NIST´s wiggle room is in calculated sophistry to make this seem like an unfortunate little mistake that does not change the big picture, and of course it unfortunately cannot go into details for reasons of safety for the public. Case closed?

My line of thinking is that this sort of defense does not work when you have a solid line-up of examples of other unfortunate mistakes at all levels of the report that demonstrate together that there was a deliberate effort to get a predetermined conclusion, ranging from the initial exclusion of physical evidence to relying on iffy models, and right down to the details of the omissions mentioned here.

I am not suggesting additional directions, instead I am suggesting that you have a solid line of evidence to back up your star witness, so to speak. You get a nice pattern that is hard to ignore, and then you demonstrate that it extends all the way to the way the collapse sequence for 7 is set up. I fully agree that these omissions are the key and should be the main evidence. The additional evidence helps to show the judge that your key evidence is not some little detail that can be ignored, and at the same time it lays out a pattern that is exemplified by this main evidence.

And for record, this is an effort to play the devil´s advocate because I am worried that NIST will go all-out and discover new frontiers of dishonesty.


With all due respect, you are a million miles out here. If you have skype, we are having a call just now, and I would be happy to let you see how we are proceeding with this, and explain how we see this issue moving forward. Feel free to mail me through this site and i will give you my details to make contact.

that may be true, but

I am still an amateur space-traveler compared to the team of lawyers that is going to represent the officialdom, and the capacity that team will have to send any judge a zillion miles from the matter at hand.

You have iron-clad evidence, but it still just represents yet another fact in a long line of facts that should have invalidated the official report a long time ago, including the total lack of evidence NIST has, the many unverified assumptions, the unverifiable nature of the models, etc.

There remains the problem of getting through a certain barrier to the kind of attention you seek in a court of law, despite all the good evidence. One name for this barrier is politics, which is a phenomenon that scientists tend to forget. And this sometimes includes good story-telling just as much as relying on solid evidence, to put it mildly.

Just ask the government officials you are about to go against, they know all about that.

There is certainly a certain

There is certainly a certain level of political barrier. But speculation as to what it can do in the face of clear evidence is a subjective thing and since it is the right thing to get it corrected it should be done. The NIST did issue an erratum for the seat width when that was brought up and said it was a mistake (a typo) and kept the report intact with that. They can say they made a mistake with the stiffeners but they won't be able to keep the report intact.

not intact but still there

Well, Chandler already tore apart the 7 report by pointing out 2 plus seconds of free-fall, but NIST just added a note confirming free-fall and somehow avoided the consequent nullification of the report. So with that in mind it could just as well wave its magic wand again and add another little note to confirm some errors with stiffener plates without voiding the report. I see NIST replacing the heat-expansion with a super-vague explanation like "column softening" or something like that and calling it a day. Case closed.

I think we need the charge of fraud to ensure the report is nullified and further that NIST won´t get the job to handle the new investigation.

Otherwise the court could perhaps order NIST to note those errors and amend the report, and then NIST could spend the next 10 years pretending to be working on it, stalling and changing its new story every 2 years, until everyone runs out of interest or money, or both. That´s how I see that team of shark-lawyers handling the situation for NIST.

So going to court can hardly be about only getting those errors noted, what is needed at minimum is making official the consequence of these errors, that is the nullification of the report so that we get a new investigation. The angle to get that in MY OPINION is the deliberate nature of these omissions and errors, and my previous bantering here was about my impression that it is going to be necessary to present your data in that context.

Stiffener Plates

I quickly put this together to give you an idea of the issue. It's general, but should let you see how undeniable the issue is. No freefall, no column softening, no progressive collapse. Just an all out attack on their initiating event.

Thanks, great video

But I have already fully agreed with you and I would have no concerns at all if your court audience were to be nothing but honest and objective scientists.

My concern is keeping in mind the kind of games NIST is capable of in response. What happens if NIST agrees that there is a problem and argues that it simply needs more time to amend the report? What if the judge gives NIST one year to address this problem and one year later you get the latest story? And then you go to court again to strike down the new story, and then you are stuck in a gov sponsored play called the-never-ending-story. How do you make sure that NIST gets no chance to make further amendments and that a new impartial investigation is ordered?

Going to court against government agencies can be a very special experience, especially when sensitive things are on the line. Have you ever tried it?

Don´t argue with me, just make sure YOUR LAWYERS are keeping in mind these sort of things.

By the way, any luck contacting Geraldo?

The NIST "investigators" cannot be trusted

I hear your concerns, but in every complaint you have a section called REMEDY. Our remedy would be for a truly independent investigation.

This means NIST's frauds would be investigated and documented first to determine where a new investigation begins.

NIST should not have been involved because their Charter does not allow them to consider anything but fire as a cause. They are therefore disqualified. See this:


WHAT IS OUTSIDE OUR CHARTER-- Progressive collapse not initiated by fire.

Do you see what NIST pointed to as the cause? FIRE, FIRE, FIRE, FIRE. Intense fire, long-lasting fire, fire that caused a new phenomenon-- thermal expansion. It is no wonder the other hypotheses were dismissed.

Anything that pointed to other than fire was denied access to their consideration. The stiffeners thing points to dry-labbing so the intended result was reached.

They said they had no WTC7 steel to analyze. Really? What about the WPI sample #1? What, Boston is too far to ship from? There were others, but this one is in your face.

Today we discovered that the WTC7 drawings were offered to the Dept. of Commerce general counsel in Nov 2004, again in Dec 2006, but NIST didn't accept them until May 2007, barely 15 months before the draft report. Do you think maybe they were avoiding looking for real answers?

All of this points to FRAUD. Incompetence is not so well organized.


And I hope you get the remedy we all want, but of course NIST will have other ideas about how to remedy the situation. I am talking about foreseeing its arguments and putting together a good strategy to defeat them.

What does this charter pertain to? Setting standards only or all work by NIST?

NIST could not investigate and follow NFPA 921 if investigations are based on this charter, and therefore the whole investigation would indeed be invalid from yet another angle. Sounds too good to be true.

Why don't you spend your time

writing down the arguments you think someone in the NIST WTC 7 report author's shoes could try if they really just wanted to get out of the problem and did not want to admit they were wrong, and any counters to them you can think of?

You can then pass them along to us. Just bitching about what they might do and being pessimistic about it is not really productive.

The report is not valid and needs to be redone.

Mr Szamboti

This is not about being pessimistic and bitching, but about being prepared for the mother-load of nistical bs in court.

I agree the report is invalid and that your work has proven that, and that the report must be redone - but not by NIST.

Have outlined strategies NIST may try to make sure it is the one that gets to redo the investigation, and have voiced my opinion that the way to prevent that from happening is to include some additional evidence for background information to show that this plate omission is a part of a larger story of NIST being fraudulent, not mistaken.

judge sees a mistake = NIST gets to mend the report

judge sees fraud = NIST is out of the picture

I am on your side and really want to see success.

We have them on the plates

judge sees a mistake = NIST are proven incompetent and therefor unfit to re-investigate
judge sees fraud = NIST are proven incompetent and therefor unfit to re-investigate

I understand where you are coming from about being on the same side and stuff, and you're right, and I welcome this debate, it will sharpen the case perhaps. This really is as simple as a kids spot the difference puzzle in terms of presentation in court. NIST have contradicted themselves on a very specific issue, related to the very specific area of the building that they should have looked at closer than any other. If you could offer me an 'incompetence' ruling right now, I would take it in a heartbeat. THAT is when you start shouting loud about the other issues and background evidence that you mention. To do it before is to potentially let them off the hook and change the subject.


I just wanted to see evidence of your thinking about strategy. I hope ae911 is behind you in case you need financial support. Good luck and I hope this will be the case that starts the domino...


Its obvious that NIST will never voluntarily nullify their own report. It really doesn't matter what NIST says or does. That isn't the point. They have already made numerous falsehoods and omissions in their report. This documentary evidence is rock solid. Notifying NIST and filing a formal request for correction is merely a formality. What we need to do is identify the appropriate legal avenue that can force ALL of NIST lies in front of a grand jury or other independent body; stiffener plates, shearing studs, fire simulation fraud and lack of empirical evidence to support steel temperatures, no heating of the floor slabs, free-fall, and the list goes on. The key is finding an independent body with the authority to act. Finding an independent body anywhere in the US may be impossible. It may take a formal complaint filed at the Hague or to the UN if a citizen avenue exists for filing such complaints to these bodies. The Union of Concerned Scientist might a be good place. http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/ or maybe even the ACLU. I say take the shotgun approach and try all of them. Media outreach is still very important too. Try your local paper, letter to the editor. Keep informing the public and our public officials. Any federal judge should have the authority to act, but whether they are willing is another thing, but worth a shot. Don't worry so much about what NIST may or may not do or say, let's concentrate on what we can do,

together in truth

How about this

How about going to the link and help us figure out what it means? I'm just one guy and there maybe other interpretations that are important to bring forward.


What I see is this is happening on Feb 19, 2002 long before NIST is funded to do the WTC investigation. FEMA is still doing theirs.

Do you think their Charter changed a month after this publication when they got the funding?

Sunder set the tone

This document is monster so I have just glimpsed, but my impression is that this charter only pertains to the goals set for this workshop which means the work NIST was doing at the time to improve understanding of fire damage through new means, including designing models that would help predict structure performance. NIST has another subsection that deals with building failure due to "disasters" so there must be another charter for that and I assume the WTC investigation must have belonged to that: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/about.cfm

However, even though this workshop had been planned before the attacks, NIST used to opportunity to bring in the Towers stating that the engineering community should "recognize its responsibility to understand the technical issues associated with the buildings that collapsed that day(page 1)." But then it goes on to say that "The TwinTowers, as designed, withstood the physical impact of the aircraft but succumbed to the thermal impact of the ensuing fire. WTC 7, with unknown but significantly less structural damage collapsed hours later, apparently due to the fire that burned unchecked, making it the first instance of a building of such a design to ever fail by this method."

The final conclusions were already there, even before the investigation, and on page 2 we get this "The tone of the workshop was set by Sunder (see
Appendix III. A) who provided an overview of the NIST strategy for advancing standards, technology and practices leading to cost-effective safety and security of buildings and critical facilities, with explicit reference to the proposed investigation of the World Trade Center disaster."

...."the proposed investigation.." Going to around page 60 and beyond it is apparent that NIST knew about the Cardington tests and it had identified that connection points were not included in fire ratings, so it had already identified the problem it had(the frames survive extreme fire) and a potential weak spot to prey on(connections).

an honest judge,

an honest judge, let's hope we get. with such high stakes, 'politics' (very dirty) cannot be ignored, thus, reason for heeding simon. to what lengths will they go to keep important truth from emerging. or, it having been proven (huge, certain doubts, even, at least, warranting new/real investigation, for the record), keep it out of the public domain/media, as in mlk assassination conspiracy decision never really reported).

aclu and union of concerned scientists should both, ideally be interested, but i've not seen them ever take a stance on any aspect of 911 truth in past, except aclu in a roundabout way with civil liberties, very much at heart of things, of course. afraid to offend their wanna be leftish but probably very npr liberalish base, perhaps. (maybe i judge too harshly). i also have thought much about these two as potential/natural allies in truth seeking. helen caldicott is a real hero, but i can't seem to find her views on this. worth trying to contact.

why do the comments get thinner and thinner visually, into a hard to read narrow column? happens each time i open this box.

good health and courage to all good researchers. those involved , worldwide, in this 'movement' (horrible word) noble search, are among the most intelligent, moral, and courageous on the planet. thank you from a citizen.