Saturday, 01 November 2014 12:57
The End of the Road for NIST
By Tony Szamboti
Editor’s Note: 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.
Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports
Below is a series of twenty-five provable points which clearly demonstrate that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) were unscientific and fraudulent. Therefore NIST itself – including its lead authors, Shyam Sunder and John Gross – should be investigated.
Read article here
After two long weeks of waiting, New York Supreme Court Justice Paul Wooten finally issued a decision in our case late yesterday afternoon, affirming the court-appointed referee’s report in its entirety, and ruling that the High-Rise Safety Initiative will not appear on the November 4, 2014 ballot.
We are tremendously disappointed that Justice Wooten did not reverse the referee’s recommendations, in particular, the referee’s poorly reasoned conclusion that the petition amounts to a “merely advisory” referendum.
Wooten did call the City’s attempt to have the case dismissed on a procedural technicality “irrational and misplaced, particularly, when the result would be the voter disenfranchisement of more than 30,000 registered voters, without due process.” But we also expected him to weigh in on the legal issues, which he did not, instead simply deferring to the referee.
We Have Decided Not to Appeal
Based on the advice of our legal team, we believe our chances of winning on appeal are slim. Our priority at this point is to preserve our ability to attempt another ballot initiative in the future – if, after evaluating the lessons learned from this effort, we determine that a revised petition has a good chance of overcoming the seemingly insurmountable legal hurdles. For reasons discussed below, appealing would only endanger our chances of success in the future, while offering virtually no chance of success now.
Therefore, after long and careful consideration, we have decided not to appeal, which therefore brings an end to the High-Rise Safety Initiative campaign.
We are so deeply grateful to the thousands of people who contributed financially, and to the thousands more who promoted and cheered on our efforts. Together we came very close to giving New York City voters the opportunity to vote for a new WTC 7 investigation, and to mandate that any future high-rise collapses be properly investigated. In so doing, we elevated our message in the eyes of many who previously did not take it seriously, or knew nothing about WTC 7, and we forced the issue into the public dialogue in a big way, even if that dialogue continues to be dominated by politicans and reporters still too clueless or afraid to question what they’ve been told about WTC 7.
Today we bring the High-Rise Safety Initiative to a close knowing that it represents yet another major step forward in the journey toward truth and accountability.
New York’s Ballot Initiative Process Is Not Voter Friendly
As many of you know by now, the ballot initiative process in New York State is limited and extraordinarily difficult to navigate successfully. The only form of citizen-initiated referenda allowed at the local level are those that amend a city’s charter. As such, a law that would be more appropriate for a city’s administrative code cannot be proposed through a ballot initiative.
Furthermore, proposed charter amendments must be substantially related to an existing provision of the city charter; they must also include their own revenue source if they cost money to implement; and they must not be “merely advisory.” Beyond that they must be consistent with all other state and federal laws. Over the years, the courts have made it increasingly difficult to meet each of these requirements.
Most importantly, the process requires voters to go through the work of collecting tens of thousands of signatures prior to submitting the petition language and having it certified as legally valid. In almost every other state with an initiative process, the government certifies the language before the petition can be circulated. In some places, such as California, the government even assists in drafting the language. In New York State, it’s the opposite. The law discourages rather than encourages citizen-initiated referenda.
The result is that only two ballot initiatives out of the dozen or so that have been attempted in the past 50 years have successfully made it onto the ballot in New York City, and no initiative that has cost money to implement (and therefore required a financing plan) has ever made it onto the ballot. Because of the long odds of success, ballot initiatives are not attempted very often in New York City, and usually only by groups believing that they have no other avenue for accomplishing their goals.
With full awareness of this context, we determined that we had a better chance of achieving our goals with a local ballot initiative than through any other means. And so, using the lessons learned from the 2009 ballot initiative, and working with the most accomplished election attorneys in New York City, we set out to draft a petition that would give us the best possible chance of overcoming the customary legal hurdles.
Where We Fell Short; Where We Believe the Court Fell Short
As it turned out, our financing plan was not bulletproof. While drafting the petition, we and our attorneys did not anticipate the problems that would eventually become clear – namely, that the .9% surcharge on construction permit fees could be construed as a “tax” that the City is not authorized to impose, rather than a “fee” (which the City can impose without state approval), and that having a fund to set aside moneys to be used in future years could be found to violate the balanced budget requirement of the Financial Emergency Act, which prohibits the City from rolling over unused funds from year to year.
To be sure, we made credible arguments on both issues, and on the petition’s severability. However, the court did not find in our favor. Our decision not to appeal is based in part on the fact that we are very unlikely to win on the financing plan at the appellate level.
We do, however, believe that Referee Crespo and Justice Wooten seriously erred in finding the petition to be “merely advisory.” Through convoluted and erroneous reasoning, Referee Crespo somehow concluded that enactment of the High-Rise Safety Initiative would, in essence, have no material effect on the City of New York.
To arrive at this conclusion, he ignored the fact that the petition’s obvious effect was to require the Department of Buildings to investigate the collapse of WTC 7 and any future high-rise collapses. Under current law, the Department is not required to conduct these investigations, but has the discretion to do so. Referee Crespo also concluded, based on an erroneous reading of the petition’s subpoena power and without factual basis, that an investigation of WTC 7’s collapse “cannot be effectuated.” Sadly, Justice Wooten simply went along with the absence of logic and erroneous findings proffered by the referee.
In short, we believe the “merely advisory” issue is winnable on appeal. But, given the short timeframe for that appeal to take place (at most a few days) and the likelihood of losing on the issue of the financing plan, it is almost inevitable that the appellate division would simply affirm the lower court’s decision. This would have the consequence of cementing the court’s finding on the “merely advisory” issue, thus making it impossible to attempt another ballot initiative with a revised financing plan in the future. While we do not know at this time if we will pursue another ballot initiative, we do not want to make another attempt impossible by appealing now when we have virtually no chance of winning.
A Monumental Achievement
While we at NYC CAN are of course very saddened by the court’s decision, we view the campaign as a monumental achievement that has served to bring ever-greater legitimacy and attention to our cause. The mainstream press took significant notice of our campaign, and we grabbed the attention of the New York City Mayor and City Council leadership. Further, tens if not hundreds of thousands more citizens are now aware of the collapse of WTC 7. We believe that what we have achieved will be a steppingstone to greater accomplishments in the future – whether directly leading the way to a third, successful ballot initiative, or channeling the support that has been mobilized toward a new type of effort.
We would like to thank everyone who supported the High-Rise Safety Initiative along the way. Our achievements were made possible only because thousands of people came together to support us. Without you, there would have been nothing. Thank you very much for being a part of our effort.
Executive Director, NYC CAN
British PM David Cameron: “Non-Violent Extremists” Including “9/11 Truthers” and “Conspiracy Theorists” are Just as Dangerous as ISIL Terrorists
By Peter Drew
Global Research, September 29, 2014
Url of this article:
Dear Mr Cameron
I write this open letter to you in response to your recent speech at the United Nations calling for military intervention in Iraq and Syria over the threat of ISIL. In particular I would like to make mention of your reference to the so called threat to society of what you have termed ‘non-violent extremists’, including those who are attempting to bring forward information and evidence about 9/11 which contradicts the official version of events.
Putting aside the direct issue of ISIL for a moment, I find this position on 9/11 evidence to be quite incredible. It is a position that is either extremely ignorant, or it is a position that goes against freedom and democracy in British society to such an extent that it is scarcely believable. Huge numbers of extremely credible and professional people across the world are now bringing forward incontrovertible facts and evidence showing us that the events of 9/11 have been systematically covered up, and that the public has been deceived and manipulated on this issue at a quite incredible level. Just like the public was deceived and manipulated about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
While you are labelling these people who bring this evidence forward about 9/11 as ‘non-violent extremists’, are you aware of what is currently happening in New York City regarding 9/11?
Are you aware that more than 100,000 New York residents have just signed the petition calling for a new investigation into the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7 through the ‘High Rise Safety Initiative’?
Are you aware that through the fundraising efforts of public groups in the US, there is currently a massive digital screen in the centre of Times Square showing rolling video footage of the controlled demolition of World Trade Centre Building 7 to three million New Yorkers? This is footage of a collapse of a massive 47 story building (not hit by a plane) that most people have not even been aware of or seen before now. How can this level of information cover-up be possible in this day and age?
Are you aware that many members of US Congress are now demanding that President Obama release the 28 redacted pages of the 9/11 Commission Report because there is information in those pages that will shock the nation, according to the two members of Congress who have been authorised to view the pages?
But yet you have just stated to the world that you consider members of the public to be ‘non-violent extremists’ and a part of the ISIL challenge if they merely wish that these facts, evidence, and information about 9/11 be made available to the wider public and that appropriate investigations are held.
I repeat my previous point. To make that statement to the world as you did, you are either extremely ignorant about this issue, or you are attempting to take a position which is so at odds with a decent, free society that it beggars belief. I find it difficult to believe that the Prime Minister of Britain would be unaware of what I have stated here, and therefore I have to believe that it is the latter scenario that is most likely.
Just to reinforce my point here, according to what you have said, because of their views on 9/11, or because of the evidence they have brought forward, you consider the following people to be ‘non-violent extremists’ who are a part of the challenge that society faces with the ISIL threat:
· Members of US Congress who have called for the 28 redacted pages of the 9/11 Commission Report to be released
· 100,000 members of the New York public for formally supporting and requesting a new investigation into the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7 on 9/11
· Dozens of first responder fire fighters who risked their lives on 9/11 and who lost 343 of their colleagues that day, including those who formed the organisation ‘Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth’
· More than 2,200 professional architects, engineers, and demolition experts from the organisation ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’
· Norman Minneta – US Secretary of Transport during 9/11 who had his formal testimony to the 9/11 investigation panel stricken from the record
· Richard Clarke – US Head of Counter Terrorism during 9/11
· Numerous family members of the victims of 9/11
The above list is just a very quick start, but gives a feel for the type of people who you are now labelling as ‘non-violent extremists’ and a part of the battle against ISIL because of their views about 9/11 or the evidence they are bringing forward. According to your speech to the United Nations, we now need to bring in legislation that will be able to shut down internet sites that bring forward the information and the evidence that the people listed above have been trying to highlight for investigation. That to me sounds like extremist behaviour. In fact, that sounds to me like the words of someone who is supporting an attempted cover up of monumental proportions.
It seems that everyone now acknowledges that we were deceived and manipulated on the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to take us to war. It also looks like we have been deceived and manipulated on a grand scale regarding the true facts about 9/11. So, on this basis, why should you or anyone else believe one word about what the United States is saying about the threat of ISIL?
You have already attempted to take the UK to war in Syria on the basis of alleged evidence against the Assad government that has since proven to be inconclusive at best. Now just a few months later you are once again attempting to take the UK to war with Syria, this time because you now have conclusive evidence of a new and different threat. Meanwhile, you consider anyone who holds views about 9/11 that are contrary to the official story to be ‘non-violent extremists’.
Putting aside the direct issue of ISIL, which seems to be clouded in uncertainties in terms of exactly who they are, who and how they have been created and supported, and what their wider threat is to the world, I find your comments at the United Nations about the other aspects of this issue to be quite incredible.
9/11 is the event that launched the so called global war on terror and military action in the Middle East. It is now incontrovertible that we have been deceived and manipulated on a large scale about the true facts of 9/11. Getting the true facts about 9/11 runs right to the heart of all the issues we currently see in the Middle East and the so called war on terror. For you to label ordinary, caring, and patriotic members of the public as ‘non-violent extremists’ simply for asking these questions about 9/11 and bringing forward this evidence, and to state that these types of internet sites should be censored, then I have to say that it is you who are the extremist, in the extreme.
The truth facts and evidence about 9/11 are now coming forward and there is a tidal wave of growing awareness as people are now getting to see this information, as shown by what is happening in New York City as we speak. It cannot be covered up by any crude efforts by the UK government to censor the internet or to give these people an extremist label. It is far too late for that. For anyone in office to continue to support the attempted suppression of this information will simply result in them being positioned on the wrong side of history.
Peter Drew – MSc
UK Facilitator – Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Second 9/11 See the Evidence Exhibition Rotorua – A Worthwhile Event
Report by Peter and Mike
The 9/11 See the Evidence exhibition was held for the second time at the Rotorua Convention Centre on Saturday 20, Sunday 21 and Monday 22 September 2014.
We were delighted this year to display the images of the digital billboard of WTC7 in Times Square in a prominent poster with Mike’s new impressive model of the WTC complex underneath.
The exhibition also featured the looping clip of the compilation film of the ae911truth Experts Speak Out (the first four minutes summarising the new laws such as the NDAA) plus Solving the Mystery of Building 7 which captivated many of our visitors.
It was disappointing that our saturation leaflet mail drop and the media coverage we received in the Rotorua Review, along with Phillip’s interview on More FM, did not bring as many people as we expected, as the numbers attending were down on last year’s exhibition. There could have been several reasons for this: Saturday was voting day and the weather was bad with heavy rain. However, we still had over 60 people attend on Saturday, 80 people attend on the Sunday and over 50 on the Monday which was good for a working day.
Despite the lower numbers, the people attending were fascinated with the exhibition. As we experienced last year, many people had never even heard of WTC7. This year we had a diverse group of people through, including visitors from the US. A young American student and his mother read every word and took all our information cards and the Experts Speak Out DVD. Even though they walked around a bit stunned and were very quiet, they thanked us afterwards and said “Incredible, I never knew about any of this”.
We observed some people who were obviously in a state of cognitive dissonance as they soon realised that the information on the panels was conflicting with the official story. Some people made some disparaging comments such as “Why are you doing this exhibition?”, “Why are you telling us these things?”, “Why did we not see this information at the New York Memorial Exhibition?”. However, the majority of visitors supported what we were doing. For many people it was extremely informative and they thanked us as they left or made generous Koha donations.
One woman initially made a $2 donation, then a few minutes later after going back to read some of the panels, returned a second to give another $5. Then amazingly after she had left, returned half an hour later just to drop another $10 in the Koha box! Clearly the exhibition had a strong effect on her.
We received the typical questions people have when learning about this information for the first time such as “What happened to the four planes? and what about the passengers?” We encouraged people not to get bogged down with those details and to just focus on WTC7 and the unnatural ‘collapses’ of WTC1 & 2 and encouraged them to do their own further research. Free copies of Experts Speak Out and the ae911truth info flyer were available for visitors to take away.
Overall we felt the exhibition was a worthwhile event, and we are sure it will remain in the hearts and minds of those who visited. If anyone in other areas would like to exhibit the work, please contact email@example.com
This “docu-thriller” from father-turned-filmmaker, David Hooper takes us on a journey of awakening that begins with an innocent question. Soon, his life is turned upside down as he grapples with the life-changing conclusions of his findings. The film was made to wake up his friends and family. Now, it’s poised to wake everyone else.
http://www.AGDmovie.com On Sale Now!! Shipping Wednesday, Sept. 17, 2014
Viewers scrutinise the exhibition on display at the Boat Cafe.
THIRTEEN years have passed but most people still remember where they were and what they were doing when news broke of the 9/11 terror attacks.
NZ for 9/11 Truth rejects the official explanation for the disaster which saw four American airliners hijacked and flown into landmarks in Washington DC and New York.
The tragedy resulted in 2996 deaths.
The ‘9/11 See the Evidence’ exhibition was staged in Wellington at the weekend and attracted hundreds of people.