In recent years, various members of the AE911Truth team have been working on a white paper titled “Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports.” Last month they finally completed the document. Its 25 concise points offer the most convincing proof that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the September 11, 2001, destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings were unscientific and fraudulent. The authors of "The 25 Points" designed the document to provide material that would compel the convening of a grand jury. Whether or not a grand jury is ever impaneled in any jurisdiction, though, readers of this white paper have the duty and privilege of acting as a virtual grand jury in all jurisdictions. After weighing the evidence meticulously laid out in "The 25 Points," readers can, by their resulting actions, help determine whether there will one day be a new, fully funded, truly independent, wholly transparent, and unimpeachably honest investigation of 9/11.

Jump to the 25 POINTS: http://www.ae911truth.org/images/articles/2014/11/twenty-five-points-10-19-14-3.pdf

White paper ....

at last. This proves NIST fraud and is court-ready. Great job, Tony and others.

What's the latest on William Pepper's letter to the Dept. of Commerce? Still stonewalling? That letter was far more limited than this one. Has this white paper been sent to the Inspector General of the DOC as well? Of course, if the DOC is as corrupt as NIST then it might not make any difference. Grand Juries, grand juries, grand juries.


I hope Tony has plans to publish this in a mainstream venue. I know the JEM has been playing games with other articles that have been submitted, but if you keep bombarding them, they may eventually have to succumb. At the very least, if they continue to play games, their resistance to discussing the matter could then be more vocally publicized and ASCE members might then begin to question the credibility of the journal.


Alongside the 14 points paper? just a thought

Nail NIST !!!

In my opinion, I hold NIST culpable for the entire charade following 9/11, including the wars with millions of lives destroyed and the ensuing destruction of our Constitution. Murder is a polite term.

If NIST had done their job, if they had performed their duty, history would be completely different.
The 9/11 Cover-up would have been exposed for the world to see, if NIST had only done their duty.
Instead, it has taken an army of independent researchers, scientists, engineers, architects and professionals to do NIST's entrusted duty, all the while, hampered by NIST's stonewalling and cover-up.

International "War Time" Criminals. Scum lower than the Nazi concentration camp executioners. Worms are of a higher order species.
Their children and their children's children will be haunted by the ugly darkness that these odious slimeballs have created.
Shyam Sunder and John Gross can go to hell and roast.


Table of Contents
WTC 7 – THE THIRD SKYSCRAPER ........................................................................................... 2
3. WTC 7 COLLAPSE AT FREE-FALL ACCELERATION IS NOT EXPLAINED.................................... 3
7. REFUSING OF FOIA REQUESTS ........................................................................................... 6
ALL THREE BUILDINGS ........................................................................................................... 6
8. NEGLIGENCE IN SALVAGING STEEL .................................................................................... 6
9. IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C ......................................................... 6
10. INVOLVEMENT IN NOT SAVING STEEL FOR INVESTIGATION ............................................. 7
11. FIRE SIMULATIONS AND DURATIONS ARE EXAGGERATED ................................................ 8
13. REFUSAL TO TEST FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE ........................................................................ 9
14. FAILURE TO FOLLOW STANDARD FIRE INVESTIGATION PROTOCOL ................................... 10
THE TWIN TOWERS .............................................................................................................. 10
15. STRIPPING OF THE FIRE PROOFING IS EXAGGERATED.................................................... 10
16. PRE-COLLAPSE STEEL TEMPERATURES ARE EXAGGERATED ........................................... 11
17. TESTED FLOOR ASSEMBLIES DID NOT FAIL ...................................................................... 11
23. NO PILE DRIVER IS OBSERVED IN VIDEOS .............................................................................. 16

NIST Execs recruited by CIA - conjecture

This is complete conjecture (and probably will always be).

I have the opinion that Shyam Sunder and John Gross were recruited by the CIA, by a "separate" and discreet operational unit of the CIA. If not the CIA, another similar dark operations agency.
And that they were recruited in advance of 9/11.

I am guessing that their rise to position within NIST was a result of this covert agreement.

To me, it explains a lot. It explains the intense motivation to stonewall and to deceive and to hide the facts. Normal people don't do this. Even people who obsessively wish to rise up the career ladder would balk at the ugly, dark consequences of suppressing the truth surrounding an event like 9/11. To suppress the truth about 9/11 is treason of the highest order...at least, most ordinary people would have this consideration.

We do know that 9/11/01 was well orchestrated, very well planned, with all kinds of aspects in place. The storyboard was well thought out, including the cover-up following the event. In fact, the cover-up would be of key importance. Explanations would be needed. Explanations would be of the upmost importance. NIST was probably written into the 9/11 planning storyboard in order to provide "professional" "unimpeachable" explanations. The 9/11/01 storyboard was probably being scripted years in advance of the 9/11 Event.

It is not a stretch to say that much of the media is controlled by the CIA and government entities. We know about the Church Committee.
Also, we know that many companies and people are covertly "hired" or contracted by the CIA and government agencies. Informants are just one example.
If you saw the movie Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, you get a visualized example of a businessman recruited by the CIA and then "activated" about a decade later. See plot here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan:_Shadow_Recruit

Again, this is my conjecture that some of these NIST employees are "shadow recruits" by the covert government entities (or even corporate entities) involved with the 9/11 Event.

The Cover Up

The cover up is most probably larger in scope than the act itself.

I would add Bazant's paper on the 13th to your conjecture. To publish a paper on what is ostensibly an unprecedented and highly complex 'collapse' two days after the event without taking any meaningful measurements nor examining any physical evidence was an outrage against good science (I have no credentials in physics, but I would have thrown his paper back at his feet based on that FACT alone). That such a paper could pass an honest peer review is beyond me. I enjoy watching old Feynman lectures on physics and one point he makes repeatedly is that good modern science is dependent on good data. Bazant may be very bright, but that does not preclude dishonesty.


Officialdom and the most inconvenient of truths

'It explains the intense motivation to stonewall and to deceive and to hide the facts. Normal people don't do this. Even people who obsessively wish to rise up the career ladder would balk at the ugly, dark consequences of suppressing the truth surrounding an event like 9/11.'

Except that what we consider 'not normal' might well be more normal than we think in the world of officialdom. Not to damn all civil servants (there are sometimes whistle blowers, after all), but I think that lots of people who are drawn to these positions would tend to have a pre-existing bias in favor of maintaining the illusion of functioning representative government, and so would want nothing to do with bringing out truths that would shatter that illusion and bring on all kinds of repercussions. And (just as with the JFK cover-up) they would rationalize it to themselves that this was not treason--that, to the contrary, preventing just such repercussions was the best service they could perform under the circumstances.

So, while I suppose it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that Sunder and Gross were undercover intelligence recruits, I personally would not consider that necessary to account for their behavior. And while, obviously, much preparation for the eventual cover-up is done in advance of such events, I doubt that it is necessary (nor even possible) for every last detail to have been worked out. As in warfare, plans may need to be revised once the actual battle is commenced. So, in this and similar cases, once the actual event had occurred and the public and official responses were underway, the deep-state actors would know that--besides those parts of the cover-up that had been prepared in advance--they could also rely on: 'friendly assets' in the major media (and probably also in the foundation-funded 'alternative media'); an array of established techniques for bringing pressure to bear on anyone who was threatening to prove inconvenient to them; and, finally, among much of the remainder of government and media, on the aforementioned pre-existing biases to keep 'inconvenient truths' suppressed.

Very good points!

"Except that what we consider 'not normal' might well be more normal than we think in the world of officialdom. "

Suppression of inconvient truth.


Nail NIST !!!

Actually, NIST DID do their job and performed their duty very well, just as the 9/11 Commission did and other government organizations. Their first and foremost duty is to the GOVERNMENT, and not to the truth.

Very similar to a Public Defender, whose first duty is to the COURT (read the oath they take to become lawyers) and their 2nd duty to his CLIENT. A Public Defender will NEVER EVER win a case for his client if the prosecutor is the Government NEVER. Why? Because he IS part of that government. All he CAN do is work out a DEAL for his client, and capitulate, AND to make sure that his client has no GROUNDS for an appeal. THAT is his job. I know several Public Defenders personally and they tell me the MAIN REASON a judge appoints them to a defendant is to make sure their client has NO GROUNDS for an appeal. (only in cases then the Gov't is the prosecutor). If the Public Defender actually WON a case and made the prosecution (government) lose the case, he would no longer be working as a lawyer. He would have broken his oath and first loyalty.

So, my point is, you cannot expect a GOVERNMENT agency (NIST, 9/11 Commission, etc) to reveal the TRUTH, If that truth will hurt the Government. That is why whistle-blowers, like William Binney are so important. Once they get OUT of government they can reveal the truth. But as long as they are working IN government, they have no choice but to PROTECT the government at all costs.

The only time they will reveal the truth and HURT the government is when is serves a GREATER purpose for the government, to give them greater power.


Looking Forward to Your Film

Good work!

.. now if we could only get some papers published in recognized peer reviewed engineering and science journals..

Journal Publications

From all perspectives.


Additions appreciated! Please post a link and I'll add it.

Excellent summary of NIST's fraudulent conduct.

This is superb work. Now I am thinking about possible boulders in the road here....

As the proven, deliberate fraud/appallingly incompetent "science" on the part of NIST can now be put to the test in a court of law, is it possible to resolve a case like this where a US Government agency (NIST) is being run through the court system - which is also part of the US Government - and subsequently obtain a fair hearing without invoking some type of conflict of interest issues?

There is also the possibility that in the event of hearings where subpoena power has been granted, is it not possible (or likely) that other agencies (in the intelligence/security/law enforcement/ military arena) will step in and order certain evidence to be withheld from disclosure "in the interest of national security"? The phrase "national security" has a very powerful and persuasive ring to it...and if such happens, a court is unlikely to challenge the motive or integrity of those who invoke that phrase. After all, if (any of) the perpetrators of 9/11 happened to have been, or still are, employed by some agency or agencies within the US Government, and are well placed and wield enough influence within the system, one can be pretty sure that some variety of stonewalling and covering up will be on the cards.

Then what?

A 'deep event'

If I recall (or interpret?) Peter Dale Scott correctly, one of the basic characteristics of a 'deep event' such as 9/11 is that the prevailing institutions are simply incapable of dealing with them in any honest way.

On the other hand, with such an understanding in mind, might it still be worth trying anyway, the better to deepen cracks in the status quo?

That is pretty much what he says....

He posits that state apparatus have become embrittled to the point of irresponiveness: "For half a century the constitution and laws of the open or public state have been first evaded, then eroded, then increasingly challenged and subverted, by the forces of the deep state. " "Run to the rock/rescue there'll be no rock!" (Johnny Too Bad! Jimmy Cliff)

FEA - SIM - Another added point regarding the 25?

I am not an expert on this kind of stuff (FEA and SIM). I am hoping that someone with more knowledge could probably shed light on this. Even the terms, like FEA, are beyond me.

Here is a bunch of "hot air" by NIST about the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on WTC 7. There is mention of thermite, computer simulations, FEA, etc.
It even includes their bullshit regarding the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests from the International Center for 9/11 Studies at #18, which makes my ears red. (I will explain more later.)

We know that the NIST WTC 7 computer simulation is a cartoon.
Someone pointed out: "We know that their big SIM doesn't look anything like the videos, but their portrayal of interior details are really shocking. This couldn't be derived from an FEA."

FEA - Finite Element Analysis - (Not for a layman like me to explain this.)

VIDEO - 20 seconds



We know that the NIST WTC 7 computer simulation is a cartoon.

A cartoon of mass destruction.

Along the same line see Andy's interview with Canadian engineer Gery Warner. In his interview and personal investigation he speaks of obtaining a finite element model from NIST that was not fully redacted - certain elements (beam to column attachment) were "marked to zero". This is fraud and I don't know if this has ever been followed up on.

Go to 31:50 http://www.911freefall.com/2013/10/911-free-fall-101013-gery-warner.html

Wrong graphic and simulation

That is the simulation "Without debris damage". Here is the correct video "With debris damage"

From the AE911Truth FAQ #11

Note that the simulation is folding up even before the beginning of "global collapse".

Wonderful! Thanks for the correction & link.

Corrected VIDEO - 38 seconds

Chris wrote: "Note that the simulation is folding up even before the beginning of "global collapse"."

Do you know much about FEA? If so, please give me a layman definition and the significance. Years ago, engineer Derek Johnson was pushing for an FEA.

WTC7 Burning--- WTC7 Researchers Burning

What really burns me up is the nonsense about the East Penthouse falling through the entire structure.


If that were to happen, the floors would be acting like a hinge on the north and east exterior structure. Glass and granite panels would be popping off from bottom to top. We'd see ejections from the open windows. Do we? Nope.

The only thing we see in the video is one floor (#47) lighten up after the penthouse falls, right before the exterior begins its race to the rubble pile.

Do we see any smoke come out of the hole created by the penthouse failure? Nope. Don't you think the hole would be a giant chimney for all the heat and smoke to rise out of? Yup. But we don't see that. The east penthouse equipment went down into the 47th floor and stopped dead. No vent was created by floor failures below that point.

The SIMs are cartoons.

Derek Johnson - (pushed for an FEA)

Back on 7/11/2009, "North Texans for 9/11 Truth" sponsored a big event at Collin County College (in the Dallas area): "What You Are Not Supposed to Know About 9/11. Building 7 - Gone in 7" . We had three theatres with films going all day, along with speakers, tables and displays and free DVDs / Literature. Bob Bowman spoke. Six Architects and Engineers came and helped to support the event. Architect Ron Avery brought his true to scale model of the World Trade Center Twin Towers & Building 7. --About the Event: http://911blogger.com/news/2009-07-15/architect-engineers-rally-dallas-911-truth-event-july-11th

Derek Johnson gave a wonderful presentation. Joe MC's.

Derek was always talking about how important an FEA would be.



The NIST computer simulation of the collapse of WTC 7 is a Finite Element Analysis.

A FEA is a virtual model built in a computer along with the strength of the components and their yield/failure points. By varying the stresses due to fire and debris damage or the strength of the components, the result can be tailored to produce the desired result. But even their best tailoring could not produce the "collapse" we see in the video.

FEA - Thanks. I needed that.

This clarifies things.

Tony Szamboti shatters the NIST reports — on 9/11 Free Fall

This show was broadcast October 30, 2014.

Tony Szamboti is back to discuss the latest paper that he helped write, titled, “Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports” which consolidates the 9/11 controlled demolition evidence into 25 points for academics and a potential future grand jury to read.

9/11 Free Fall 1/16/14: Tony Szamboti and Gerry B.-- Omissions i

9/11 Free Fall 1/16/14: Tony Szamboti and Gerry B.-- Omissions in NIST's WTC 7 Report
Free Fall

Published on Jan 25, 2014

Tony Szamboti and Gerry B. return to discuss the letter that was recently sent to the Department of Commerce Inspector General on their behalf from attorney Dr. William Pepper regarding the incorrect data in NIST's report on WTC 7, legal steps that will have to be taken if the D.O.C. stonewalls, and how the audience can help spread the word about the game-changing information in that letter which renders NIST's WTC 7 collapse hypothesis impossible.

9/11 Free Fall 10/30/14: Tony Szamboti shatters the NIST reports

9/11 Free Fall 10/30/14: Tony Szamboti shatters the NIST reports
Free Fall

Published on Nov 4, 2014

Tony Szamboti is back to discuss the latest paper that he helped write, titled, "Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports" which consolidates the 9/11 controlled demolition evidence into 25 points for academics and a potential future grand jury to read.

Tony points out: "Whatever little thing you can do, you...."

Great interview with Tony. A very likable guy. His acumen on the subject of the World Trade Centers is very impressive.

Near the end, Szamboti brings up that we are not going to solve this thing overnight. Small things count. "Whatever little thing you can do, you should do."
So true.
Every action counts. Big or small.

I liked his analogies with JFK and with David and Goliath.

His knowledge of the impact of the planes down to the details was very interesting. NIST got caught lying about the fireproofing with their own well done report about the plane impacts.

These 25 points are great fuel for a Grand Jury indictment.
Thanks Tony.

Does anyone know who "Mark" is in this video with John Gross?

On 911FreeFall, Andy Steele and Tony discuss the person (Mark) in the video with John Gross.
Does anyone know who Mark is? Or who filmed this? This might be significant in that Mark is an eyewitness and has testimony.
Evidently, this video clip was filmed in Austin at UT.

VIDEO with Mark and John Gross discussing the molten metal.

Richard Gage knocks out the John Gross lie in this clip...

And, of course, the photo with John Gross...

The famous photo of John Gross (see comment towards the top) shows Gross handling the WTC 7 melted steel with sulfidation. Tony discusses this in his interview. Gross is caught red handed holding evidence of molten metal.

Exterior buckling?

Point 4 -- Figure 4-62 depicts exterior buckling after global collapse initiation. This is obviously not a match for observation. Any blind dullard can see that. NIST defenders try to say this is interior buckling, as if the interior could magically twist and buckle without visibly affecting the exterior. That has to be one of the most desperate lies of all.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm From Question 29: "The collapse observations, from video analysis of the CBS News Archive video, are covered in detail in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A Section 3.5 and NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 8.3. Only in the later stages of the animation, after the initiation of global collapse, do the upper exterior wall deformations from the NIST analysis differ from the video images."

They admit that their animation doesn't match video! Handcuff these people.

MCGee wrote : "They admit...."

!!! *** !!!
For emphasis...

NIST: " Only in the later stages of the animation, after the initiation of global collapse, do the upper exterior wall deformations from the NIST analysis differ from the video images."
(from http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm )

McGee: "They admit that their animation doesn't match video! Handcuff these people."

Just made this

 photo NIST_zps755f1f6f.jpg

Sweet! Great graphic Robert!

"Handcuff these people."

Also from NIST's FAQ:

Throughout their "investigation" (cover up) NIST denied molten steel -- and even reports of molten steel. It was claimed there was only melted aluminum, which has a lower melting point. John Gross emphasized the impossibility of molten steel, saying it would require 2,800 degrees F. and the fires were nowhere near this hot. (NIST alleges a max temp of fires at 1,800 F.) This was their position until 9/19/11 when they updated their FAQ for the towers. FAQ #23:

"Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."

So now they justify the existence of molten steel.

BUST NIST! Handcuff these people.

The footage of molten metal pouring out

About the well-known shot showing molten metal pouring out the side of the building as it burns, some 'debunkers' have claimed that this metal was really from the airplane materials--metal other than steel, with a lower melting point. It does look like it is near the point of the plane's impact. Is there a good counterargument to this? Are they just blowing more 'smoke'?


Aluminum is silvery when molten; doesn't glow orange in daylight. Therefore what we see pouring out of WTC2 isn't aluminum.

We see fire issuing from 18" wide window openings that were surrounded by aluminum skin on the towers. Do we see the aluminum skin melting? Nope. That tells me that the fires weren't hot enough to melt aluminum.

I'm going to guess that the skin of the towers was probably a lower grade alloy than the type used for aircraft. Lower melting temperature. Just a guess.

The cartooNISTs of Pinocchio Sunder.

Your work stands against a silent and stupefied engineering world that has failed miserably the test of Pinocchio Sunders 911 science atrocity.

In a reality where 'the skeptics' claim argument for the commission, and where the artists may well have known very early on the buildings exploded,.
- no amount 'of knowing' makes any difference to the machine
 of WAR and science 
without its LANGUAGE.

It took you and the engineers at AE to present the science LANGUAGE of this immense and terrible deception.
which allows me, and the others like me without it, to pass your findings on to whoever is found fit for the challenge.

profound thanks .

There is this- https://tips.fbi.gov/

There is this https://tips.fbi.gov/


Please use this website to report suspected terrorism or criminal activity. Your information will be reviewed promptly by an FBI special agent or a professional staff member. Due to the high volume of information that we receive, we are unable to reply to every submission; however, we appreciate the information that you have provided. pub.gif
FBI Tips and Public Leads

The information I've provided on this form is correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that providing false information could subject me to fine, imprisonment, or both. (Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1001).

Your First Name
Your Last Name
Your Middle Name
Your Phone
Your Email
Your Street 1
Your Street 2
Your Suite/Apt/Mail Stop
Your City
Your State
Information Please enter your information. There is a 3000 character limit.
characters remaining
Your Country
Your Zip Code / Route


Richard Gage, and many others............. Portions of our government and all our main stream media are corrupt. Sad to say 9/11 as horrific as it was pales compared to those that made it happen and to this day are covering it up.
Wishing JFK , and the American people the truth and justice we deserve.

FOIA from NIST – Stonewalling & Deception

…Another aspect which makes my ears red, with steam rolling off...

Regarding: “7. REFUSING OF FOIA REQUESTS” of the series of 25 provable points.

BACKGROUND – Here is some of the background as I know it: How NIST stalled, stonewalled, deceived, lied, altered, and generally did everything that they could to hide records despite the FOIA. Correct me if I am wrong on any aspects.

NIST mentions in their Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from the International Center for 9/11 Studies at #18. http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

James Gourley is a well-respected 9/11 Researcher. If you ever meet him in person, he is one of the nicest guys you will ever meet (unless you are with the dark side, like NIST). Very professional, down to earth, responsible, ethical, extremely competent, and incredibly resolute. He authored or coauthored some famous published peer reviewed scientific journal papers, has been very active on a variety of 9/11 fronts including being the director for the International Center for 9/11 Studies ( http://www.ic911studies.org/ ) and also pushing through the famous Toronto Hearings. He is a very busy guy.

Over the years, James and others have been after NIST to release ALL the records, intact. 9/11 Researchers are still chasing NIST on this, on obtaining ALL the records and in an unaltered form.

In the summer of 2009, after much stalling and stonewalling and general hell, NIST finally did release more than 3 terabytes of data, and NIST has indicated that additional records will be released in the future. See 911blogger - http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist and NIST’s FAQ Point #18 http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

***** However, NIST has released only what they deemed relevant, only what they say that they used for their reports – not ALL the records that they took in. Also, some 9/11 Researchers discovered that NIST had ALTERED and COMPROMISED some of the data and videos which had been released. One example is that some of the videos had been significantly reduced from their original format which made the sound quality inaudible. NIST also stalls and does not release records supposedly because of “copyright protection”. (See some of the paragraphs towards the bottom in the excerpts below.)

Here are some excerpts (with some editing) of the requests regarding the release of the NIST records in 2009 through the FOIA. It gives a person an idea of how NIST stalls, stonewalls, lies and deceives. I am posting this to help demonstrate what hell this FOIA stuff from NIST can be.

7. On January 26, 2009, Plaintiffs transmitted the Freedom of Information Act Request attached hereto as Exhibit A (the FOIA Request) to Defendant NIST via email and U.S. Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. The content of Exhibit A is incorporated herein by reference.
8. On March 10, 2009, Plaintiff received a telephone call from Ms. Catherine Fletcher, Chief FOIA Officer for Defendant NIST.
9. Although Ms. Fletcher was calling about an unrelated matter, Plaintiff asked Ms. Fletcher if and when Defendant NIST planned on responding to the FOIA Request.
10. Ms. Fletcher said she did not remember seeing it, and asked Plaintiff to send it again to her via email.
11. That same day, March 10, 2009, Plaintiff followed up with an email to Ms. Fletcher, again attaching the FOIA Request on behalf of both Plaintiffs.
12. To date (5/28/09), Plaintiffs have not received any correspondence from NIST indicating that it has received or started processing the FOIA Request. In fact, to Plaintiffs' knowledge, Plaintiffs' FOIA Request has not been assigned a reference number.
13. The allegations of paragraphs 1 - 12 above are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
15. Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i), Defendant NIST was required to make a determination on whether to comply with the FOIA Request within 20 business days of receipt, and notify Plaintiffs of such determination and the reasons therefor.
16. Because the FOIA Request was submitted via email on January 26, 2009, the 20-day time period for response expired on February 23, 2009.
17. When Plaintiff retransmitted the FOIA Request to Defendant NIST via email on March 10, 2009, Plaintiff stated Plaintiffs' position that the 20-day time limit for response had already expired at that time.
18. Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i), Plaintiffs are deemed to have exhausted their administrative remedies with respect to the FOIA Request because Defendants have failed to comply with the 20-day time limit cited above.
19. Plaintiffs seek an injunction against Defendants from withholding the records described in the FOIA Request, and an order compelling production of the agency records described in the FOIA Request under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706.

EXHIBIT A Dated January 26, 2009 (excerpts)

RE: Freedom of Information Act Requests
Dear Sir or Madam,
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOLA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, (referred to herein as the -Request") for certain records believed to be in the possession of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)…

NIST also represents in its draft report that emphasis was placed on obtaining the visual material "in a form as close as possible to the original in order to maintain as much spatial and timing information as possible." (Id.) In particular, NIST says it obtained "direct digital copies of digital photographs and videos, high resolution digitized copies of film or slide photographs, and direct copies from the original source of analog video.”(Id.)

The Requesters hereby request 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. A subset of the records requested herein comprises all 6,977 segments of video footage (whether 150 hours, 300 hours, or more), all 6,899 photographs, all of the more than 7,000 photographs, and all of the visual materials contained in the searchable database referred to in the various NIST reports and referenced and described above…

The Requesters request that all responsive records be produced in the highest quality electronic format possible. Digital pictures and videos should be produced in their native format whenever possible, with all metadata included. Digital versions of physical visual materials should be produced in the absolute highest quality digital format in which they are available. If analog video was converted to a digital format, it should be produced in the highest quality digital format in which it is available.

If it will facilitate responsiveness to this Request, the Requesters agree to provide one or more new, in the box, external hard disk drives to NIST…

…Specifically, the records will reveal whether NIST has adequately investigated and explained the worst attack on the United States since Pearl Harbor…

…because the records are not sought for commercial use, and because this Request is being made by an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, whose purpose is scholarly or scientific research…

The Center also led an effort in collaboration with the groups Architects and Engineers for 9!1 I Truth (www.ae911truth.org ), Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice ( www.stj911.org ), and other scientists and engineers to submit 26 pages of public comments on the draft report NIST released regarding the collapse of WTC Building 7. … This was an enormous undertaking given the unreasonable three week deadline for submission of comments on the 1000+ page report. The Center's comments were successful in that they prompted NIST to make a number of revisions to the draft report before releasing it in final form…

It has also come to the attention of the Requesters that NIST might attempt to withhold the requested records based on copyright considerations. Specifically, NIST might try to withhold the records based on the assertion that the rights holders for the records do not consent to them being released. This position is utterly and completely without merit. First, there is no exemption under 5 USC § 552(b) for copyrighted documents. This alone should settle the issue. The only exemption that could even arguably be asserted is exemption 4. “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential." 5 USC § 552(b)(4). However, the Copyright Act protects only the form of expression, but not the information or ideas contained in the expression. See Feist Pubs., Inc. v Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 348-49 (1991) (compilation of facts, if sufficiently original, is entitled to copyright protection although the facts contained therein are not); Atha v. Soc’y, of New York Hosp., 201 F.3d 50. 54 (2d Cir. 1999) ("A copyright thus protects not the author's ideas, but only her expression of them.") Exemption 4 only applies to "information" obtained from a person, namely information that constitutes a trade secret or commercial or financial information. Because copyright does not protect the information contained in works of authorship, agency records can never be withheld under Exemption 4 based on copyright. Furthermore, pictures and videos of the events of September 11, 2001 obviously do not contain commercial information, financial information, or trade secrets of the individuals that provided them to NIST.

Second, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has specifically held that third party photographs are agency records and subject to FOIA. See Weisberg United Slates Dep't of Justice, 631 F.2d 824, 828 (D.C. Cir. 1930); see also General Elec. Co. v. NRC, 750 F.2d 1394, 1400-01 (7th Cir. 1984) (internal company report submitted in connection with licensing proceedings held to be “agency record" and subject to FOIA). The Freedom of Information Act and the Weisberg case pre-date the NIST investigation, and the photographers and Videographers who provided their material to NIST did so subject to the then-existing legal framework. Therefore, the rights holders cannot complain about NIST complying with existing laws and releasing the records under a legitimate FOIA request. It is not the job of NIST to help copyright holders enforce their rights. It is instead the job of NIST to comply with existing FOIA laws and release all records that are not legitimately subject to one of the exemptions enumerated in the FOIA statute.

If the rights holders want to try and enforce any copyrights against the Requesters herein, they can attempt to do so, but they will lose. Any use by the Requesters of the records sought will certainly and obviously fall within the "fair use" exception to the Copyright Act, because the Requesters have absolutely no commercial interest in them at all. They will be used solely for scientific research purposes. Again, it is incumbent on the rights holders, not NIST, to police their rights if they think their rights have been violated. By providing documents to NIST for use in a federal investigation, the rights holders impliedly consented to their documents being copied and released under FOIA.

Finally, the Requesters refer N1ST to a recent memo President Obama sent to the heads of all executive departments and agencies. … It states as follows:
The Freedom of information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.

All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government.

The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA. The presumption of disclosure also means that agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.

This is certainly one policy change that the Requesters can wholeheartedly endorse. NIST should heed President Obamas’ new openness policy and release these records so they can become a welcome and much needed addition to the publicly available body of evidence regarding the attacks of September 11, 2001….

Point 26: What REALLY happened on 9/11? (CD to plane impacts)

Evidence for CD of the twin towers runs into a problem when the apparent cause (plane impacts) is considered fully ie: buildings ready and prepped for controlled demolition (initiated around the impact areas) can hardly have relied upon the indeterminate and unknown outcome of a successful hijacking and piloting to target, particularly for a novice pilot flying at 148 knots over the Vmo limit and 88 knots over the Vd design dive limit..

Until now.

Evil Genius: The 9/11 WTC MIHOP (made it happen on purpose) Global Psy-op decoded/revealed. : r/conspiracy (reddit)


Edit to add:

Special fireproofing upgrades (coincidence?)



Image - Illustration, (with Plane impacts).


Remote Control papers


Plausibility Of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated By GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems

Review of Analysis of Observed and Measured In-Flight Turns Suggest Superior Control of 9/11 WTC Aircraft

NIST's WTC 7 Reports: Filled with Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud

NIST's WTC 7 Reports: Filled with Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud from the Ae911Truth.org website. Saturday Nov 8th, 2014 Written by Simon Falkner and Chris Sarns

...We will review NIST's progression from its 2004 preliminary report to its 2008 final report — a progression that will reveal a pattern of omissions and distortions that appear designed to arrive at a preconceived conclusion... Points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

...In the next article in this series, titled Part 1: NIST and Popular Mechanics Fabricate Myth About WTC 7’s "Scooped-Out" 10 Stories, the authors explore the unsubstantiated claim of massive damage (from WTC 1) to the south side of WTC 7....

The next page at AE911Truth.org has 25 Points of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports Saturday November 1st, 2014 Written by Tony Szamboti


I live in Northern Ireland a place where we have had our own problems over the last 40 years, now there is a lot of evidence coming to light about cover ups involving the very people in charge of the security of the country. There are now a number of investigations in progress but the problems are basically the same as your own' trying to bring the guilty ones to account after 40 years will be almost impossible. The point im trying to make is don't give up your fight for justice because the more time passes the likelihood of the people responsible for that horrific day being held to account will zero. I know this sounds very disheartening but you have time on your side.I have seen and heard enough evidence about sept 11th to warrant a new investigation (a lot more evidence than we have) but the chances of a new investigation without government involvement' and the F.B.I. handing over all materials relevant to the investigation will be difficult to say the least. But I want you to know that I and a lot of my fellow countrymen will be behind you in your fight for justice. Thankyou you friend from Belfast' Eddie.

Larry Silverstein saying WTC 7 "controlled demolition"

This interview and comments on 911blogger need to be included on this thread.