Little-Known 9/11 Truth Organization Strikes Gold

[immune]

in Court Action Against NIST, Unearths Striking Video/Photo WTC Evidence
Written by Eli Rika
Saturday, 06 November 2010 20:02

How did a mountain of never-before-seen footage used in NIST’s World Trade Center investigations get exposed to the light of day last month? Was it the work of a billionaire adventurer? Not quite. You can thank an upstart non-profit, the International Center for 9/11 Studies, whose efforts have at last borne fruit.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/401-little-known-911-truth-organization-strikes-gold.html

[Bolo Boffin]

1. You thought cherrypicking the WTC oral testimonies produced a lot of confusion and false arguments?

Wait until AE911Truth and its cohorts gets hold of all this material. Cherry pie for everybody!

[immune]

2. Need to know

has widened to include investigators outside the loop, thanks to Gourley.

Too cool!!

[LARED]

3. I sure one of these days AE911Truth will actually provide

something other than cherry picked quotes and outright sophistry in their diligent search for the truth. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

But yeah cherry picking , distortions, and whatever else it takes seems to keep the funds and fools well stocked.

[immune]

4. "I sure"

they'll provide more than some people would like to see provided.

Diligent searches are seldom free, or even cheap. That's part of the reason some prefer to accept falsehoods and fairy tales than to DYODD. Too much like work.

[LARED]

6. Quite ironic

Diligent searches are seldom free, or even cheap. That's part of the reason some prefer to accept falsehoods and fairy tales than to DYODD. Too much like work.


Coming from a guy that consistently show himself clueless about 9/11.... well it doesn't get much better.

[immune]

9. I have never claimed

to have all the answers. Hell, I don't even have all the right questions, but that's not to say that I don't have the utmost respect for people who do and that's a mighty long list. You, unfortunately, aren't on it.

[SDuderstadt]

12. Then, why in the world do you keep parrotting the...

"9/11 was an inside job" bullshit? Why don't you question it to the same degree that you malign the supposed "OCT"?

These are among the reasons you're not taken seriously here.

[immune]

16. Because

the alternative is to accept the idea that 19 Arabs (some of whom are still alive) armed with box cutters, could hijack four planes simultaneously and completely bamboozle the US air defense system and then lead the appointed investigators on a wild goose chase resulting in two bloody fucking wars that some of our high level warmongers STATED IN WRITING that they desired.

I'll happily leave the technicalities of it to the experts. The only thing I want from them is to find out WHO did it so we can bust their chops all the way back to the stone age.

[SDuderstadt]

18. Sigh...

When I call you on your goofy "9/11 was an inside job" bullshit, why do you think replying by parrotting more "9/11 was an inside job" goofy bullshit is responsive?

Dude...the only people who believe your nonsense are those that share your delusion. If you are truly "asking questions", then why do you keep flinging debunked nonsense like "some of the hijackers are still alive"? Try this experiment. Do a nationwide directory search for the name Timothy McVeigh. Count the number of listings you find then ask yourself if it proves he wasn't executed for the OKC bombing. Duh.

[mattvermont]

22. and the same question for Lared

After all, I do not see what you have to gain to to abrasively dismiss everything anybody says here. Those that are questioning the official story have a great deal to gain from exposing inconsistencies.

[SDuderstadt]

26. Bullshit deserves to be...

"abrasive dismissed" when it cannot be backed up by concrete evidence, dude.

[LARED]

61. Well mostly it's that after more than nine years

of the same tired 9/11 BS getting posted over and over no matter how often it's debunked, abrasive dismissal is all that left.

[immune]

28. Sharing my delusions - BBC

1. Khalid Almihdhar: Possible Saudi national, possible resident of San Diego, Calif., and New York. Aliases: Sannan Al-Makki; Khalid Bin Muhammad; 'Addallah Al-Mihdhar; Khalid Mohammad Al-Saqaf. ALIVE?

"...another suspect, Khalid Al-Mihdhar, may also be alive." BBC, 23rd September 2001

If you question BBC, there are plenty of other resources for it.

Hell, Mueller publicly admitted the FBI has no "legal" proof of their involvement or deaths.

[SDuderstadt]

29. Dude...

why do you think citing things from the period right after the incident trumps later developments in the cases?

Your quote-mining is not impressive.

A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.

The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html


See that, dude? Even your own source doesn't buy your goofy bullshit. Why do you insist on embarrassing DU with it?

[immune]

32. Are you saying they might've

died later? Either they died that day, or they didn't.

I am not here to impress you. I am not looking for your approval and I apologize sincerely if I've ever given you reason to believe otherwise.

[SDuderstadt]

34. Read my edit to the post you replied to...

even your own source debunks your claim, dude. The question is why you stop your "research" after you've found the answer you want.

[immune]

36. All the recanting

is so over the top. 911 turned groveling and recanting into a fad.

Speaking of which, you never addressed Mueller's recantation and I don't think he's ever recanted his original recantation about having no legal proof of their involvement or deaths which, IIRC, came shortly after proof of living hijackers was brought to his attention.

[SDuderstadt]

38. I see...

you can rely upon the BBC for their initial statement, but you can't rely upon them for their clarification. Do you see the logical trap you're leading yourself into? Oh, wait...I just answered my own question.

The following debunks your stupid Mueller claim.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/02/attack/main316806.shtml

[zappaman]

42. wow

is he really that moronic?

[immune]

43. Initial statements ...

During the assessment patients are shown a series of inkblots and are asked to to say the first thing that comes to mind. Because the stimulus is ambiguous, it is claimed that the patient must impose his or her own structure and in doing so they reveal their thoughts, feelings, and themes, some of which are unconscious and have been projected into the inkblot image, hence the term projective testing.

http://www.all-about-psychology.com/psychology-tests.html

But give people some time to think through the ramifications and with a little encouragement in the right direction, they'll usually see everything "more clearly". Right? And then they'll set the record straight with all due haste.

[SDuderstadt]

45. Do you understand the difference between a...

psychological assessment and an ongoing criminal investigation in which new facts are coming to light?

Do you understand how the two are not really directly comparable? Again, this is one of the reasons you are regarded so lightly here.

[zappaman]

48. "Do you understand?"

When addressed to IMMUNE is a rhetorical question.

[SDuderstadt]

49. You DO...

have a point.

[immune]

50. I've already said,

I don't give two chits about how you regard me, dude, this isn't a popularity contest. Do you imagine that you speak for everybody on the forum? I think not.

But I do have personal experience with the consequences involved in telling the unvarnished truth and know the heavy costs involved in refusing to recant. I would imagine it would be beyond unbearable for some, but some things are that important. That's why I respect Kevin Bracken so highly.

[SDuderstadt]

52. WTF are you...

babbling about now, dude?

If an ongoing investigation reveals new facts and information, then the authorities and news media revise their pronouncements, that isn't a "recantation", especially when the initial observation is presented as provisional.

I was going to respond to your claim about telling the unvarnished truth, but I was convulsed with laughter.

[zappaman]

53. It has nothing to do with popularity

but everything to do with your woeful inability to understand the simplest things and your willful ignorance of actual facts that refute the nonsense you post regularly.
If you are in any way, shape, or form representative of the people who claim to be "asking questions", then it is easy to see why they have been spinning their wheels for nine years.

[mattvermont]

20. SDuderstadt

Just what are your credentials re: 911? Before you ask, I have none. That is why I do not refute all that is presented here. I read and form opinions regarding what evidence I believe to be valid.
Again, what makes you worthy of posting here? Are you a hired gun?

[immune]

23. Hello Matt,

I don't know about that hired gun analogy. Hired guns are usually straight shooters.

[SDuderstadt]

25. More of your attempts at character assassination...

dude. Did you notice you just did it?

[SDuderstadt]

24. Because bullshit never did anyone...

any good. I happen to value science, reason and Logic. Why is it the "9/11 was an inside job" crowd can't provide concrete evidence of their goofy bullshit?

And, no, I'm not a "hired gun". BTW, that's tantamount to accusing me of being a shill and along the lines of the character assassination I referenced before. I'll ask you politely one time not to do it again.

[immune]

57. Diligent searches aren't cheap ....

Freedom Of Information Isn't Free: NIST Requires $19,112.29 In Order To Provide WTC Investigation Photos & Footage
Submitted by Aidan Monaghan on Thu, 08/07/2008 - 3:21am The following is a July 18, 2008 Freedom of Information Act reply from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, within which it is explained why NIST requires a pre-payment of $19,112.29 for search and reproduction costs for materials obtained for its World Trade Center building collapse studies.

http://911blogger.com/node/17002

I haven't had a chance to check out any of the following links so I don't know how helpful they'll be.

<10> See the FOIA responses obtained by the 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington,

http://911workinggroup.org/foia.html

Also see the documents released by the 911 Commission,

http://archives.gov/legislative/research/9-11/commission-memoranda.html

Here’s an example:

UAL and AAL employees: Contradictions about transponders. ACARS data missing. UAL had radar continuity.

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01098.pdf

Many of the documents are just cover pages saying the information is still “Restricted”. These include interviews of the CIA agents, Prince Bandar, and the first responders.

<11> Miles Kara, Archive for the ‘Bloomington Group’ Category, 9/11 Revisited website, http://www.oredigger61.org/?cat=25

[LARED]

62. Do you expect that

requesting the reproduction of 6,899 photographs and over 300 hours of video was going to be free or cheap?

I find it quite amusing that someone is forking over 20 grand for nothing. PT Barnum was right.

[immune]

63. We shall see.

I, for one, am willing to wait for the outcome without making dire predictions or breaking out the champagne.

And you are the one who claimed the release of these documents would "keep the funds and fools well stocked." Looks like someone else is being funded at their expense. Who turns out to be the fool is still to be determined.

[Make7]

64. Do you really think NIST is going to release evidence revealing their part in the cover-up? ( n/t )

[immune]

65. From the article,

they have already found what looks to be possible alterations and blackouts in some of the material. No, I don't expect them to be forthcoming if they can avoid it. And that raises questions of another kind to anyone who's paying even cursory attention. If there's nothing to hide, why would they stonewall and alter evidence?

[mrarundale]

67. Very good Make 7

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[defendandprotect]

70. Oddly enough .... under category: "You never know!" .....

NASA evidently released a film clip of the astronauts working with camera

angles and placing black "masking" around the moon pictured out of their port hole window

-- of course surrounded by BLUE which indicates they were in near space NOT outer space.

Goal was to make it look as though they were in outer space with moon surrounded by blackness.

[LARED]

68. "Looks like someone else is being funded at their expense"

Meaning what?

[SDuderstadt]

10. "I'm sure they'll provide more than some people would like to see provided"

No, I'm certain they'll provide LESS than we need to see if they expect us to believe their goofy claims. That's the problem. I despised the Bush administration, so I am precisely in the target audience for the "9/11 was an inside job" crowd. But, I never see anything from them except absurd quote-mining, laughable allegations that can be easily debunked using nothing more than a 7th grade science textbook and amateurish attempts at character assassination of anyone who does not buy their goofy bullshit.

They've had NINE years to develop their case and, while I don't expect them to have developed an airtight case or a smoking gun, one would think they would have discovered at least one piece of solid, concrete evidence. Of course, they haven't. It's really comical.

[immune]

13. Character assassination?

Whoa, there should be a smiley for ironic posts, but I guess I'll just have to settle for this one: :crazy:

[SDuderstadt]

15. Talk about irony...

do you honestly deny that you don't smear people who disagree with you on the facts?

You might want to reflect carefully before you reply.

[immune]

21. The facts are the facts,

most of which up until just recently have been held hostage by you know who. The analysis of the available facts is a matter of differences in style and intent. The smearing, however, has been all one sided from top to bottom and if you don't see your "goofy", "BS", ad nauseum responses on this forum as smearing other posters, you might look up the meaning of the word.

I might want to think carefully? Why does that sound like a threat?

[SDuderstadt]

27. YOU might want to look up the definition of

"smear", dude and point a single instance where I have maligned anyone's motivation. You might also want to comprehend the substantive difference between referring to an idea or argument as goofy or bullshit as opposed to calling a person goofy, which I have never done.

Nuance is not easy for you, is it...

[immune]

30. The substantive difference

between someone's WORDS being called goofy and charging the person who verbalizes those thoughts as being goofy .... well there is no substantive difference. I simply can't imagine having to walk such a tightrope from dawn to dusk to stay within the forum rules, but I'll agree with you, nuance does happen on a regular basis around here.

[SDuderstadt]

31. Dude...

do smart people sometimes say stupid things? Hint: yes. So, if you claim that what I said is stupid, is that tantamount to calling ME stupid? Hint: no.

Duh.

[immune]

33. Sometimes? Occasionally?

Or consistently? Big difference.

[SDuderstadt]

35. Dude...

nuance is not your friend.

Please point to a single time I have called you goofy or any sort of name.

[immune]

39. Of course you know I can't.

You adhere to the rules so religiously that conversing with you sometimes give me an urge to rush out and find an honest to god outlaw to talk with, just to get my sense of balance back. :think:

[SDuderstadt]

41. More character assassination again...

dude? Do you see what you just did?

[immune]

44. Jesus, you're sounding so

sensitive and vulnerable today. Bad night?

[SDuderstadt]

46. Quit trying to deflect...

dude. And knock off the character assassination unless you agree turnabout is fair play.

[immune]

51. Turn about

bring it on. I'll try to notice a difference.

[SDuderstadt]

54. Dude...

a "smear" sounds like this: "I notice that 'immune' has never denied being a terrorist sympathizer".

Get the picture. Trust me, even with your limited cognitive ability, you should recognize a smear as opposed to a harsh, yet factual, criticism. Maybe you should check to see if DU has a less complicated forum for you to practice in.

[immune]

55. I do recognize

an obvious LIE when I see/hear one and that would be a doozy. And yeah, I do get the picture, that whole post is VERY carefully couched in an acceptable enough form so as to prevent anyone from mashing down on the alert button. You are quite gifted in that regard.

[SDuderstadt]

56. Really?

Could you point to where you have ever denied being a terrorist sympathizer? Do you understand that a smear could be technically true, yet a smear, nonetheless? As usual, you miss the point.

Despite the fact that you and other "truthers" have continually impugned my motivation, I have never once maligned your motivation, nor anyone else's. Beyond that, what is particularly "gifted" about understanding the rules and following them? You accused me earlier of engaging in smears. Again, could you please point to one?

[immune]

58. I am not

going to participate any further in this juvenile "who smears who the worst" game. Lets just say that you have never smeared anyone else and everyone else always smears you. Poor baby. So go have your little pity party somewhere else and let the rest of us get on with discussing the possible information that may or may not be shed by these newly released documents.

Go take a hike and work off your angst for people simply seeking the truth.

[SDuderstadt]

59. As long as you stay within the facts...

I don't care what you do. But you don't, which is why you get so much grief from everyone, not to mention your constant smearing of a number of people. If your "arguments" were sound, you wouldn't have to smear anyone, dude.

[zappaman]

47. With you?

You consistently say things that are easily disproven.
I particularly love the BBC quote you found that was later changed and explained by the BBC when you and your ilk started parading it around as some kind of smoking gun.
The fact that you accept the initial wrong reporting over a correction years later by the same organization clearly shows you are doing more than "asking questions".

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Over 1300 architects and engineers and no clue how thermite could be used in a demolition

Instead, they're running through videotape, highlighting every pop and bang as an explosion.

[immune]

11. You have an inside track

as to what they're highlighting?

What has to be especially worrisome for the OCTers is that its no longer just 1300 architects and engineers who've pooled their abilities and resources to examine the small amounts of evidence they had, now the secrets are ripping wide open and its going public. FEAR the public. You've just gotta wonder about people who cheer democracy but hate and fear the people in it.

[SDuderstadt]

14. "FEAR the public"

Simple question: if, nine years on, these guys are onto something, wouldn't there be a much larger number of architects and engineers signed on?

[immune]

17. I can almost assure you

there will be more. Especially now that they can investigate the newly released evidence without facing the risk of having their character's maligned and their careers ruined (speaking of which).

[SDuderstadt]

19. Whose careers have been "ruined"? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

37. No, no inside track. This is old news and they've already been cherrypicking the videos

I'm so afraid, you're right. Just yesterday I was so paralyzed with fear I couldn't leave the house. FEAR. And then I got a couple of hours in hating the American public. Then I had a light salad. Then FEAR again.

[immune]

40. I can't stop laughing!!!

[MrMickeysMom]

5. Interesting...

Evidence eventually is examined by third, forth parties, etc. It's a matter of time that the collection of this will place a more objective spotlight on the evidence.

Meanwhile, the usual people will sharpen up their dull claws tearing anyone's further examinations down... but that's what we can expect because you'll have that.

[immune]

8. I just hope

they manage to back it all up in a variety of ways and disseminate it to all the appropriate people as soon as possible. The three terabytes of data they've already received sounds like a mountain of tapes and documents to wade through and it would be awful if something were to happen to it all, like fire or flood.

Who knows how much of this information is actually gold, though and how much is minutiae, but its the first break in a nine year logjam of information that's been held under wraps and I say good on Gourley for shaking it loose.

[defendandprotect]

60. Wow ... Amazing work by this organizaiton ....and all that NIST video/photos-!!

Thank you -- I'll be trying to catch up with all they've been doing!!


:)

[mrarundale]

66. I doubt it took this long to release them

just to make more fakes...:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

69. KICK --