civil/criminal trial proceedings:
Here is the ram file (RealAudioPlayer) containing Nico's historic
confrontation and interrogation of Shyam Sunder at the NIST press
conference where they officially annointed the government/media claim
that the Towers collapsed from fire. They completely dodged the
question of WTC7 entirely, since Sunder claimed, fantastically, that
it was not part of their delegated assignment and responsibility.
Not under NIST's purview to explain how WTC7 (how many stories high ?)
went down.
The entire ram is 1:35:12 long.
Nicos' questioning of the now criminally liable Sunder, begins at
1:23:00 (an hour and twenty-three minutes into the event).
URL: rtsp://realod.talkpoint.com/thom001/13858/13858_300k.rm
I would like to determine the precise date of that event, so we can
fix the anniversay and commemmorate it on a yearly basis, with some
kind of historical or educational activities
The self-destruction of NIST (along with so many other of the hitherto
"respected" institutions of science and rational oversight) deserves
an historical marker of its own.
And Shyam Sunder is entitled to some detailed coverage and
memorializing, on account of his open self-incrimination.
===
I wasn't sure if the followng long post had appeared yet.
Got it from Cathy G.
It helps close the circle of NIST collusion (RICO criteria) and
collaboration.
From Cathy:
As many of you have already read, Philip Berg, Esq., Dr. James
Fetzer, Dr. David Ray Griffin, Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Morgan Reynolds,
Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.) and Dr. Judy Wood are planning to
participate in the National 9/11 Debate on September 16, 2006 in
Charleston, South Carolina.
Members of the 9/11 Commission, government scientists from the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, and other supporting
experts were invited to participate and represent the government‚s
debate team.
I received this document (below and attached) from Dr. Griffin last
night. It states that NIST (National Institute of Standards and
Technology) is not interested in a debate with these 9/11 experts.
One can hardly blame NIST. After all, how can NIST hope to go up
against expertly presented technical and scientific proof?
Also, here is an Open Letter to the 9/11 Commission that sure packs a
punch. http://www.teamliberty.net/id264.html
<http://www.teamliberty.net/id264.html>
The fact that NIST is unwilling to defend the claims it has made to
the American public - must be spread far and wide. They are gallinas -
and for good reason. NIST and the rest of the federal workers can say
whatever they want to the controlled media, but when it comes down to
being able to defend their case in front of learned experts with hard
science? Of course NIST fully realizes that their efforts can only
turn to ultra-fine particulate GZ dust.
Cathy Garger
http://mytown.ca/garger/ <http://mytown.ca/garger/>
Ed Haas, "Government spokesman says, ŒI don‚t understand the public‚s
fascination with World Trade Center Building Seven,‚" Muckraker
Report, March 21, 200 (http://www.teamliberty.net/id235.html).
∫
March 21, 2006 ˆ Michael E. Newman, Public and Business Affairs
spokesman for the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), in a phone interview with the Muckraker Report on Monday,
March 20th, said that he didn‚t "understand the public‚s fascination
with World Trade Center Building Seven."∫ Newman was contacted by the
Muckraker Report to discuss when the National Institute of Standards
and Technology anticipated releasing its report regarding how World
Trade Center Building Seven collapsed onto its footprint at 5:20p.m.
EST on September 11, 2001.
∫
What I found so interesting about my 30-minute conversation with
Newman was how easily he discounted as unfounded conspiracies, the
findings and opinions of scientists who are operating outside of the
government‚s payroll.∫ He frequently used analogies to conspiracy
theories and urban legends such as Bigfoot and UFO‚s.∫ At one point
Newman said that he has joked with members of his Public and Business
Affairs that they might as well conduct press conferences wearing
"Bigfoot" costumes because "no matter what we say, some people will
not believe the government".∫ Newman continued, "For some people, no
matter what the government says about 9/11, they will still believe
that the government is lying.∫ Some people still believe the world is
flat and there are UFO‚s.∫ There‚s nothing the federal government can
say to convince these people otherwise."∫
∫
When I mentioned to Newman that we‚re not talking about nutcases from
Kooksville, but rather credentialed scientists such as BYU Physics
Professor, Stephen E. Jones, Claremont Professor Emeritus, David Ray
Griffin, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Engineer,
Jeff King, he said, "Just because a person is from MIT doesn‚t mean
that they know what they‚re talking about."∫ Assuming that Newman is
right, then it must be noted that the Lead Technical Investigator for
the NIST National Construction Safety Team for WTC Investigation is a
gentleman named Shyam Sunder, who incidentally, received his doctoral
degree in structural engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) in 1981.[1]∫
∫
I asked Newman whether his agency had a compelling interest to produce
a report regarding the collapse of the Twin Towers that substantiated
the 9/11 Commission Report.∫ He indicated that NIST had no such
interest.∫ When asked if NIST would produce and release a report on
World Trade Center Building Seven, even if the Institute‚s conclusions
reveal that WTC-7 did in fact collapse as the direct result of a
controlled demolition, Newman said that NIST would release such a
report if that turns out to be its findings.∫
∫
Intrigued by Newman‚s ability to maintain a persona of impartiality
and claimed dedication to truthfulness while he simultaneously
scoffed, if not ridiculed any scientist who disagrees with the
government‚s scientists and their findings, I decided to test his
dedication to impartiality and whether NIST had any predisposition
towards finding a cause of collapse of WTC Building Seven that will
coincide with the government‚s account of 9/11. I asked him about the
now infamous public statements made by Larry Silverstein, the
controller of the World Trade Center Complex.∫ Recall that on a PBS
documentary that aired in September 2002, Silverstein said that he and
the New York Fire Department decided jointly to "pull" WTC-7.∫ Here is
the exact Silverstein quote from the 2002 PBS documentary.∫
∫
"I remember getting a call from the ER, Fire Department Commander,
telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain
the fire, and I said, ŒWe‚ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the
smartest thing to do is Œpull it.‚∫ And they made the decision to
Œpull‚ and we watched the building collapse."∫
∫
Almost immediately after I finished referencing Silverstein as saying
that the "smartest thing to do is pull it", Newman responded with a
condescending chuckle to remind me that the federal government is
always right, and the people, always wrong.∫ He then said,
"Silverstein already explained that what he meant was that they
decided to pull the firefighters and emergency rescue workers from
World Trade Center Building Seven."∫ One can only hope that NIST
doesn‚t consider its investigation into what Silverstein meant by his
usage of the words, "pull it" as complete, solely on an ambiguous
clarification offered years later by a man (Silverstein) that
certainly has a financial and personal interest in the government‚s
official account of 9/11 prevailing.∫∫∫
∫
After Newman finished minimizing the value of the Silverstein comment
as essentially worthless, I pointed out to him the fact that
organizations such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth and 9/11 Revisited
certainly seemed to be presenting thoughtful and scientific
information that refuted much of the work by the government‚s
scientists at NIST.∫ I expressed to him my concern that more than half
of all Americans now believe the U.S. government has some complicity
if not culpability regarding 9/11, with many people now believing that
9/11 is nothing more than a massive government cover-up; a public
perception Newman did not refute. However, when I suggested that a
possible method to reconcile the division in the United States between
the government and its people might be for a series of televised
national debates between his thirty scientists assigned to investigate
how World Trade Center Buildings ˆ 1, 2, & 7 collapsed onto their
footprints on September 11, 2001, I was abruptly interrupted and told
that none of the NIST scientists would participate in any public debate.&amp;#8747;
∫
Curious, I asked why the National Institute of Standards and
Technology would avoid public debate, particularly if it was confident
in its work.∫ Newman responded, "Because there is no winning in such
debates."∫ When I pointed out that such a debate between the thirty
scientists who worked on the NIST 9/11 Investigation and thirty
equally-qualified scientists who dispute, and claim to be able to
refute the NIST findings; that such a public, televised debate might
actually help answer many of the public‚s questions and possibly
restore some national unity, the NIST spokesman emphatically insisted
that such a debate will never occur.
∫
As precociously as Michael E. Newman presented himself as a government
man, and therefore trustworthy, the inconsistencies in his agency‚s
work pertaining to how the Twin Towers collapsed will persist if NIST
and its lot of government scientists don‚t publicly debate with
non-government scientists that are presently and publicly disputing
the government‚s findings.∫
∫
Glaring evidence of a fallible, if not predisposed government agency
is found on the National Institute of Standards and Technology web
site.∫ For example, NIST lists as one if its main 9/11 investigation
objectives as to determine:
∫
* Why and how World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 collapsed after
the initial impact of the aircraft [2]∫
∫
Note: In the event that NIST changes the aforementioned misleading
language on its web site, go here http://teamliberty.net/id236.html to
see how the web page read as of March 20, 2006.∫
∫
Why is the false statement on the NIST web site?∫ The National
Institute of Standards and Technology knows, along with the rest of
the world, that no aircraft impacted WTC-7.∫ Yet on its web site, it
uses language that suggests that WTC-7 was also collided into by an
aircraft.∫ Is it any wonder why Americans are struggling to accept the
government‚s 9/11 story when a federal agency intended to set the
standard is demonstrating to the world that its own standard of
accuracy regarding the dissemination of information is woefully
inadequate?∫
∫
This lack of standards is demonstrated again in the National Institute
of Standards and Technology - Executive Summary, which is a portion of
its report regarding how the Twin Towers collapsed.∫∫ Listed as
Finding 59, NIST reported:
∫
* NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses
suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled
demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.∫ NIST
also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the
towers.∫ Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly
showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and
that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward,
until the dust clouds obscured the view.∫
Amazingly, the government sees the dust clouds produced during the
collapse of the Twin Towers as an obstruction of view, while
scientists, outside the government‚s control, see the volume, density,
and speed of outward projection from the buildings during the collapse
that the dust clouds demonstrated, as evidence of secondary explosive
devices.∫∫ Whether secondary explosive devices caused or assisted the
collapse of the Twin Towers or not, the dust clouds were and remain
compelling evidence that the government, by their own admission,
missed or ignored.
∫
Seeing as NIST scientists couldn‚t see the fact that the dust clouds
were themselves, evidence, and not obstructions, is it possible for
the National Institute of Standard and Technology to be taken
seriously, let alone, trusted?∫ Why is the public so fascinated with
WTC-7 Mr. Newman?∫ We are so fascinated by it because the events of
September 11, 2001 were a national tragedy with many valid and
unanswered questions remaining in the public mind.∫
∫
If there is a weak link in a government cover-up, World Trade Center
Building Seven is it.∫ If WTC-7 is found to have collapsed as a result
of a controlled demolition, than the NIST report on the Twin Towers
will be aggressively scrutinized because the question of how and when
explosive devices were wired into WTC-7 would have to be answered. By
answering that question, a new truth regarding WTC-1 and WTC-2 might
be revealed.∫∫
∫
Does NIST have a compelling interest to report that WTC-7 defied the
laws of physics also on September 11, 2001 and miraculously collapsed
at freefall speed as the result of office fires?∫ You bet it does!∫
Can the National Institute of Standards and Technology be trusted as a
competent federal agency that will deliver an untainted, truthful
analysis of WTC-7 regardless of what that truth might be?∫ I‚ll leave
the answer to that question up to you.∫
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] National Institute of Standards and Technology, Project Leaders,
National Construction Safety Team for WTC Investigation, Shyam Sunder,
http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=sunder, [Accessed
March 20, 2006]
[2] NIST & The World Trade Center, Fact Sheets,
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs.htm, [Accessed March 20, 2006]
#############################################################################
If the crazies and the psy ops aren't after you, then you're barking
up the wrong tree.
~ S.P. ~
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman3/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39666/*http://messenger.yahoo.com>
PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0
Courier;}}
{\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue255;}
{\stylesheet{ Normal;}{\s1 heading 1;}{\s2 heading 2;}{\s3 heading 3;}}
{\*\generator Msftedit
5.41.15.1507;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\s3\sb100\sa270\sl360\slmult1\f0\fs28\par
\par
Ed Haas, \ldblquote Government spokesman says, \lquote I don\rquote t
understand the public\rquote s fascination with World Trade Center
Building Seven,\rquote\rdblquote Muckraker Report, March 21, 200
(\cf1\ul http://www.teamliberty.net/id235.html/cf0/ulnone ).
\line\'86\line\line March 21, 2006 \endash Michael E. Newman, Public
and Business Affairs spokesman for the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), in a phone interview with the Muckraker Report
on Monday, March 20th, said that he didn\rquote t \ldblquote
understand the public\rquote s fascination with World Trade Center
Building Seven.\rdblquote\'86 Newman was contacted by the Muckraker
Report to discuss when the National Institute of Standards and
Technology anticipated releasing its report regarding how World Trade
Center Building Seven collapsed onto its footprint at 5:20p.m. EST on
September 11, 2001.\line\'86\line What I found so interesting about my
30-minute conversation with Newman was how easily he discounted as
unfounded conspiracies, the findings and opinions of scientists who
are operating outside of the government\rquote s payroll.\'86 He
frequently used analogies to conspiracy theories and urban legends
such as \i Bigfoot\i0 and \i UFO\rquote s\i0 .\'86 At one point
Newman said that he has joked with members of his Public and Business
Affairs that they might as well conduct press conferences wearing
\ldblquote Bigfoot\rdblquote costumes because \ldblquote no matter
what we say, some people will not believe the government\rdblquote
.\'86 Newman continued, \ldblquote For some people, no matter what the
government says about 9/11, they will still believe that the
government is lying.\'86 Some people still believe the world is flat
and there are UFO\rquote s.\'86 There\rquote s nothing the federal
government can say to convince these people otherwise.\rdblquote\'86
\line\'86\line When I mentioned to Newman that we\rquote re not
talking about nutcases from \i Kooksville\i0 , but rather credentialed
scientists such as BYU Physics Professor, Stephen E. Jones, Claremont
Professor Emeritus, David Ray Griffin, and Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) Engineer, Jeff King, he said, \ldblquote Just because
a person is from MIT doesn\rquote t mean that they know what
they\rquote re talking about.\rdblquote\'86 Assuming that Newman is
right, then it must be noted that the Lead Technical Investigator for
the \i NIST National Construction Safety Team for WTC Investigation\i0
is a gentleman named Shyam Sunder, who incidentally, received his
doctoral degree in structural engineering from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1981.[1]\'86 \line\'86\line I asked
Newman whether his agency had a compelling interest to produce a
report regarding the collapse of the Twin Towers that substantiated
the 9/11 Commission Report.\'86 He indicated that NIST had no such
interest.\'86 When asked if NIST would produce and release a report on
World Trade Center Building Seven, even if the Institute\rquote s
conclusions reveal that WTC-7 did in fact collapse as the direct
result of a controlled demolition, Newman said that NIST would release
such a report if that turns out to be its findings.\'86 \line\'86\line
Intrigued by Newman\rquote s ability to maintain a persona of
impartiality and claimed dedication to truthfulness while he
simultaneously scoffed, if not ridiculed any scientist who disagrees
with the government\rquote s scientists and their findings, I decided
to test his dedication to impartiality and whether NIST had any
predisposition towards finding a cause of collapse of WTC Building
Seven that will coincide with the government\rquote s account of 9/11.
I asked him about the now infamous public statements made by Larry
Silverstein, the controller of the World Trade Center Complex.\'86
Recall that on a PBS documentary that aired in September 2002,
Silverstein said that he and the New York Fire Department decided
jointly to \ldblquote pull\rdblquote WTC-7.\'86 Here is the exact
Silverstein quote from the 2002 PBS documentary.\'86
\line\'86\line\ldblquote I remember getting a call from the ER, Fire
Department Commander, telling me that they were not sure they were \i
gonna\i0 be able to contain the fire, and I said, \lquote We\rquote
ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is
\lquote pull it.\rquote\'86 And they made the decision to \lquote
pull\rquote and we watched the building collapse.\rdblquote\'86
\line\'86\line Almost immediately after I finished referencing
Silverstein as saying that the \ldblquote smartest thing to do is pull
it\rdblquote , Newman responded with a condescending chuckle to remind
me that the federal government is always right, and the people, always
wrong.\'86 He then said, \ldblquote Silverstein already explained that
what he meant was that they decided to \i pull\i0 the firefighters
and emergency rescue workers from World Trade Center Building
Seven.\rdblquote\'86 One can only hope that NIST doesn\rquote t
consider its investigation into what Silverstein meant by his usage of
the words, \ldblquote pull it\rdblquote as complete, solely on an
ambiguous clarification offered years later by a man (Silverstein)
that certainly has a financial and personal interest in the
government\rquote s official account of 9/11 prevailing.\'86\'86\'86
\line\'86\line After Newman finished minimizing the value of the
Silverstein comment as essentially worthless, I pointed out to him the
fact that organizations such as \i Scholars for 9/11 Truth \i0 and \i
9/11 Revisited \i0 certainly seemed to be presenting thoughtful and
scientific information that refuted much of the work by the
government\rquote s scientists at NIST.\'86 I expressed to him my
concern that more than half of all Americans now believe the U.S.
government has some complicity if not culpability regarding 9/11, with
many people now believing that 9/11 is nothing more than a massive
government cover-up; \i a public perception Newman did not refute.\i0
However, when I suggested that a possible method to reconcile the
division in the United States between the government and its people
might be for a series of televised national debates between his thirty
scientists assigned to investigate how World Trade Center Buildings
\endash 1, 2, & 7 collapsed onto their footprints on September 11,
2001, \ul I was abruptly interrupted and told that none of the NIST
scientists would participate in any public debate.\'86
\ulnone\line\'86\line Curious, I asked why the National Institute of
Standards and Technology would avoid public debate, particularly if it
was confident in its work.\'86 Newman responded, \ldblquote Because
there is no winning in such debates.\rdblquote\'86 When I pointed out
that such a debate between the thirty scientists who worked on the
NIST 9/11 Investigation and thirty equally-qualified scientists who
dispute, and claim to be able to refute the NIST findings; that such a
public, televised debate might actually help answer many of the
public\rquote s questions and possibly restore some national unity,
the NIST spokesman emphatically insisted that such a debate will never
occur.\line\'86\line As precociously as Michael E. Newman presented
himself as a \i government man\i0 , and therefore trustworthy, the
inconsistencies in his agency\rquote s work pertaining to how the Twin
Towers collapsed will persist if NIST and its lot of government
scientists don\rquote t publicly debate with non-government scientists
that are presently and publicly disputing the government\rquote s
findings.\'86 \line\'86\line Glaring evidence of a fallible, if not
predisposed government agency is found on the National Institute of
Standards and Technology web site.\'86 For example, NIST lists as one
if its main 9/11 investigation objectives as to
determine:\line\'86\line * \ul Why and how World Trade Center
buildings 1, 2, and 7 collapsed after the initial impact of the
aircraft \ulnone [2]\'86\line\'86\line Note: In the event that NIST
changes the aforementioned misleading language on its web site, go
here \cf1\ul http://teamliberty.net/id236.html/cf0/ulnone to see how
the web page read as of March 20, 2006.\'86 \line\'86\line Why is the
false statement on the NIST web site?\'86 The National Institute of
Standards and Technology knows, along with the rest of the world, that
no aircraft impacted WTC-7.\'86 Yet on its web site, it uses language
that suggests that WTC-7 was also collided into by an aircraft.\'86 Is
it any wonder why Americans are struggling to accept the
government\rquote s 9/11 story when a federal agency intended to set
the standard is demonstrating to the world that its own standard of
accuracy regarding the dissemination of information is woefully
inadequate?\'86 \line\'86\line This lack of standards is demonstrated
again in the National Institute of Standards and Technology - \i
Executive Summary\i0 , which is a portion of its report regarding how
the Twin Towers collapsed.\'86\'86 Listed as \ul Finding 59, NIST
reported:\ulnone\line\'86\line * \ul NIST found no corroborating
evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers
were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted
prior to September 11, 2001.\ulnone\'86 NIST also did not find any
evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers.\'86 Instead,
\ul photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the
collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors\ulnone and that the
collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the
dust clouds obscured the view.\'86\par
\pard\sl360\slmult1 \line Amazingly, the government sees the dust
clouds produced during the collapse of the Twin Towers as an \i
obstruction of view\i0 , while scientists, \i outside the
government\rquote s control\i0 , see the volume, density, and speed of
outward projection from the buildings during the collapse that the
dust clouds demonstrated, as evidence of secondary explosive
devices.\'86\'86 Whether secondary explosive devices caused or
assisted the collapse of the Twin Towers or not, the dust clouds were
and remain compelling evidence that the government, by their own
admission, missed or ignored.\line\'86\line Seeing as NIST scientists
couldn\rquote t see the fact that the dust clouds were themselves, \i
evidence\i0 , and not obstructions, is it possible for the National
Institute of Standard and Technology to be taken seriously, let alone,
trusted?\'86 Why is the public so fascinated with WTC-7 Mr.
Newman?\'86 We are so fascinated by it because the events of September
11, 2001 were a national tragedy with many valid and unanswered
questions remaining in the public mind.\'86 \line\'86\line If there is
a weak link in a government cover-up, World Trade Center Building
Seven is it.\'86 If WTC-7 is found to have collapsed as a result of a
controlled demolition, than the NIST report on the Twin Towers will be
aggressively scrutinized because the question of how and when
explosive devices were wired into WTC-7 would have to be answered. By
answering that question, a \i new truth\i0 regarding WTC-1 and WTC-2
might be revealed.\'86\'86 \line\'86\line Does NIST have a compelling
interest to report that WTC-7 defied the laws of physics also on
September 11, 2001 and miraculously collapsed at freefall speed as the
result of office fires?\'86 You bet it does!\'86 Can the National
Institute of Standards and Technology be trusted as a competent
federal agency that will deliver an untainted, truthful analysis of
WTC-7 regardless of what that truth might be?\'86 I\rquote ll leave
the answer to that question up to you.\'86 \line\line
------------------------------------------------------------------------\line
[1] National Institute of Standards and Technology, Project Leaders,
National Construction Safety Team for WTC Investigation, Shyam Sunder,
\cf1\ul
http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=sunder\cf0\ulnone ,
[Accessed March 20, 2006] \line [2] NIST & The World Trade Center,
Fact Sheets, \cf1\ul
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs.htm/cf0/ulnone , [Accessed
March 20, 2006] \line\line
SPONSORED LINKS
| Jolly rogers | Politics | Investigative journalism |
| Media source |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "911InsideJobbers" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mailto:911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
No comments:
Post a Comment