Editorial Introduction by Dick Zehnle
NIST likes to point out how many scientists and engineers worked on its WTC investigation, and how much time was spent. But the number of participants and the time and money spent does not guarantee a thorough investigation.
NIST’s investigation is not in line with the most basic requirements of the scientific method. This is demonstrated by a closer look at NIST’s examination of the steel, which was based on the premise that nothing other than airplane impact damage and the subsequent fires brought down the Twin Towers. The most relevant question – why did the strong steel frames below the impact area give way? – is ignored. NIST cannot justify its failure to adequately examine the steel with its published results; examining the evidence adequately is a step that needs to be done at the beginning of an investigation.
Newsletter not displaying correctly? View it on our website
|AE911Truth Blueprint Newsletter | Vol. XXIX | August 2011|
AE911Truth continues to ride the wave of media attention to the approaching 10th Anniversary of 9/11. Read about the Toronto Hearings and the inspiring Liberty Fest gathering where we will be speaking. Join us on the Pacifica radio network, the stage for the big debate with two physicists. Read about our featured high-rise architect, Les Young. Learn about NIST’s deception with the WTC steel testing. And who was Danny Jowenko? All right here – in The Blueprint.
Here's a new video in which The NIST World Trade Center report for the Twin Towers is examined and shown to be false and unscientific.
Uploaded by DK1Ryan on Aug 14, 2011
The crime of the century has gone overlooked for 10 years. It should be an insult to one’s intelligence that a national emergency occurred on 9/11, the date the same as the national number for emergency, 911. The branding of the September 11, 2001 attacks as “Nine-Eleven” alone should be suspicious enough, nevermind the fact that they were used for political gain by both Republican and Democrat administrations. 9/11 has been the catalyst for kicking the American Police State into high gear as well as the justification for offensive foreign policies, but perhaps even those aren’t enough reasons to convince some people that the subject needs further examination.
How can we honestly discuss science if we do not pay careful attention to logic?
Paradoxically, the logical fallacies get little attention, but they are among the most useful of tools for thinking clearly about 9/11.
For instance, the basic "appeal to unqualified authority" helps short-circuit NIST's injection of possibly false information into the debate.
A couple of videos that point out fallacies in NIST's reasoning:
Sunder on What Controlled Demolition Looks Like
We Have the Results and Only We Have the Results
HELP THIS STORY BREAK INTO THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA!
Thanks to James Gourley at the International Center for 9/11 Studies, the only individual to successfully sue NIST over a FOIA request for the entirety of the footage that’s been covered up for the past 10 years, we now have overwhelming evidence that disproves the official story of nine-eleven. Of the 5 terrabytes of data released, maybe 35% has been analyzed and posted on YouTube for the world to see. Even Gourley’s organization itself has not had the time to examine and post all of the new evidence and so other 9/11 researchers have taken up the task of downloading the raw data from the “NIST Cumulus Database” and posting the converted videos to YouTube and elsewhere all over the internet. We here at WeAreChangeNewJersey.COM will continue to post this new evidence until it is fully released.
Here are some of the best channels to get started investigating the new evidence:
HELP THIS STORY BREAK INTO THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA!
New Evidence Uncovers 9/11 Truth
2010 NIST 9/11 Footage Leaks Ignored
Media Admits To Having 9/11 Foreknowledge
9 Years Of Hidden Evidence Exposes Massive 9/11 Coverup
911Gate – Video Releases Disprove Official Story
WeAreChange New Jersey Releases 5th Cache Of New 9/11 Video Evidence
911Leaks: Meet James Gourley, The Real Julian Assange
On June 10, 2010, Dr. Fahim Sadek of NIST (email@example.com), an investigator who produced the Bush Administration's report on the WTC, gave a lecture at the Engineering College of Aarhus on the entire WTC Investigation. This is apparently the only time that NIST has given a detailed talk on their entire investigation.
It was expected that Sadek would take questions at the end of the lecture. However, nobody was allowed to ask any. Nevertheless, before Sadek left, Dr. Niels Harrit managed to catch him for a brief talk.
Three months before on February 28th, 2010, Dr. Niels Harrit gave a presentation on the collapse of World Trade Center 7 in Aarhus, Denmark, as well. Hundreds of invitations were sent to both journalists, city council members and various members of the scientific community. More than 300 people attended, among them several professors from the Engineering College of Aarhus.
Despite prohibiting filming or any other documentation of Sadek's presentation, over an hour of video the presentation was pieced together from several hidden video- and sound recorders. This is that presentation and the Sadek-Harrit exchange.
Does this give anyone any ideas? http://www.dump.com/2010/12/11/bullet-physics-engine-simulates-the-creation-and-destruction-of-keva-planks-video/
The area under the impact seems incredibly resistant to collapse, unlike WTC 1 & 2 ; (would've liked to see the ball hit higher up)
Someone contact these guys and get them to do a simulation of the WTC'ers!
Knowing that there is potential evidence of tampering with some of this FOIA video evidence NIST has released thus far, I find it suspicious that in the following video you only see the first two seconds or so of the first tower collapse before it cuts off and then after it comes back the smoke has already covered the area... (:39 seconds to :42 seconds in)
At first, I thought it may have been just a problem with the camera or maybe the operator needed to change batteries or something. Then, I noticed that the second time the video cuts out at 2:33 and comes back 2:37 you miss the entire collapse of the second tower.
That's not all I noticed though...
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Twin towers collapse eyewitness Paul Lemos clearly describes how he witnessed bombs take down the World Trade Center in yet another revealing piece of evidence that NIST was forced to release as part of a recent FOIA request. As we reported in our previous articles, is it really a coincidence that almost every video NIST sat on for years contained bombshell eyewitness testimony of explosives bringing down the towers and Building 7?
ORIGINAL SOURCE FOOTAGE:
9/11: WTC witness - NIST Release #25 - 42A0106 - G25D16
While everyone is focusing on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, another important information dump is getting largely ignored since September 1, 2010 when James Gourley of the International Center For 9/11 Studies obtained nearly 5 terrabytes of videos and reports concerning the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon buildings.
Although some of the tapes have had some audio/video manipulation, it is clear why NIST did not want to release any of this material for the past 9 years. The 9/11 coverup demands that no evidence of explosions or bombs be included in the official story, and some of these videos have even been kept hidden simply for including the WORDS "bomb" or "explosion" in their contents.
On NIST’s current WTC 7 FAQ page, the headline reads: (emphasis mine)
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (Updated 09/17/2010) 
In order to preempt further alterations, I cached this version. When I noticed the date of the update, I first tried to look for previous versions of the FAQ in the Wayback Machine.
I was in for a disappointment: previous versions of the page had curiously vanished from the archive. Normally this means game over: there are no cached versions. To my knowledge, there is no alternative for the Wayback Machine. I tried to look for alternatives nonetheless.