AE911 Gets some WTC7 ANSYS data via FOIA

[BigAl]

Cryptome (www.cryptome.org) continues to get 9/11-related information via FOIA. Today he posts an NIST FOIA "Final Response" which produced some but not all ANSYS files for WTC7. The reason given for withholding some of them was that it would "jeopardize public safety".

The response is addressed to Ronald Brookman who is one of the people Telltail Tom lists as one of the engineers in AE911. I'll take him at his word.

Props to some Truther for actually trying to get some information. Lets see what they can do with it.

http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf Dated Jan 26, 2010.

 

[bill smith]

Cryptome (www.cryptome.org) continues to get 9/11-related information via FOIA. Today he posts an NIST FOIA "Final Response" which produced some but not all ANSYS files for WTC7. The reason given for withholding some of them was that it would "jeopardize public safety".

The response is addressed to Ronald Brookman who is one of the people Telltail Tom lists as one of the engineers in AE911. I'll take him at his word.

Props to some Truther for actually trying to get some information. Lets see what they can do with it.

http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf Dated Jan 26, 2010.

I predicted exactly this last week. What do you bet that the missing files mean that the rest will only provide inconclusive results. Utterly predictable dishonest NIST behaviour.

Now of course we want to know exactly in what way the information could possibly 'jeapardise the public safety.' and whether NIST can legally make a decision not to release it . As public servants paid from taxpayer money I doubt that they have the exective authority themselves to make such a decision. I think this is just a delaying tactic.

The department of Commerce would have that decision I think. Isn't that run from the Whitehouse ? I think it was during Bush's tenure ? Could be interesting.

 

[bill smith]

So NIST say that it would "jeopardize public safety" to release all of the data so that we could verify their unlikely results. I submit that it absolutely "jeopardises public safety" for them not to do so,

Who wants to hazard a guess in what way the release of the data could possibly jopardise anybody's safety- except NIST's own safety of course.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So NIST say that it would "jeopardize public safety" to release all of the data so that we could verify their unlikely results. I submit that it absolutely "jeopardises public safety" for them not to do so,

Who wants to hazard a guess in what way the release of the data could possibly jopardise anybody's safety- except NIST's own safety of course.

Why should I accept the word of someone who admits lying about WTC7 and has stated an intention to continue lying?

 

[bill smith]

Why should I accept the word of someone who admits lying about WTC7 and has stated an intention to continue lying?

NIST's clearly uncooperative approach to allowing their data to be independently verified is wholly transparent and will greatly strenghen the case for the proposed Grand Jury Investigation into NIST and Shyam Sunder.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

NIST's clearly uncooperative approach to allowing their data to be independently verified is wholly transparent and will greatly strenghen the case for the proposed Grand Jury Investigation into NIST and Shyam Sunder.

That's you saying that. You have admitted to lying about WTC7 and you said you were going to continue lying.

 

[BigAl]

NIST's clearly uncooperative approach to allowing their data to be independently verified is wholly transparent and will greatly strenghen the case for the proposed Grand Jury Investigation into NIST and Shyam Sunder.

Fire and lack of water for firefighting made WTC7 collapse.

The photographs show WTC7 on fire. The angle is one not visible from the YouTube videos since the YouTube videos were taken from a safe location to the North. The WTC7 fire was masked from these cameras by buildings that stood between WTC7 and the safe location.

 

[bill smith]

Fire and lack of water for firefighting made WTC7 collapse.

The photographs show WTC7 on fire. The angle is one not visible from the YouTube videos since the YouTube videos were taken from a safe location to the North. The WTC7 fire was masked from these cameras by buildings that stood between WTC7 and the safe location.

Well I'm not going to shoot the photos down yet, not having seen them. But I imagine I will be underwhelmed.

 

[RedIbis]

Fire and lack of water for firefighting made WTC7 collapse.

The photographs show WTC7 on fire. The angle is one not visible from the YouTube videos since the YouTube videos were taken from a safe location to the North. The WTC7 fire was masked from these cameras by buildings that stood between WTC7 and the safe location.

And yet you expect these same cameras to record sounds of internal explosions, assuming they had the capability of doing so.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

And yet you expect these same cameras to record sounds of internal explosions,

Speaking of liars, Red, none of us ever said that.

What would have picked up the vibrations from cutter charges placed against structural beams inside WTC7 is the seismographs operated by LDEO and Protec. But they didn't pick up any such signatures.

How do you explain this violation of the laws of physics, Red?

 

[Dog Town]

Well I'm not going to shoot the photos down yet, not having seen them. But I imagine I will be underwhelmed.

Biased much?

 

[Edx]

Speaking of liars, Red, none of us ever said that.

Really? There's cameras near it that should have picked up explosions, like one of the news cameras few blocks away giving some women an interview (the one that had the baby).

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Really? There's cameras near it that should have picked up explosions, like one of the news cameras few blocks away giving some women an interview (the one that had the baby).

That camera wasn't on a helicopter.

Oops. Got my WTC7 photo threads confused.

You're absolutely right about the Ashleigh Banfield eyewitness interview video. It definitely would have picked have picked up the sounds of the cutter charges detonating if there were any.

Which is unfortunate for Red and Bill.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I predicted exactly this last week. What do you bet that the missing files mean that the rest will only provide inconclusive results. Utterly predictable dishonest NIST behaviour.

Whats dishonest about it? They know whats in those files, you do not.
Its possibly dishonest but you do not have any evidence that it is.

Now of course we want to know exactly in what way the information could possibly 'jeapardise the public safety.' and whether NIST can legally make a decision not to release it . As public servants paid from taxpayer money I doubt that they have the exective authority themselves to make such a decision. I think this is just a delaying tactic.

I'd like to know that too. But lets face it even if they released it all and it makes perfect sense to 99.99% of people qualified to understand the data the Truthers movement would simply call it faked.
Is there a single truther equipped to be able understand the data? I mean really understand without thinking every reasonable assumption is a NWO plot?

They can't accept hi def video of planes and MIT and Purdue analysis of the WTC collapses so it does not seem likely that anything NIST does would make them understand.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Well I'm not going to shoot the photos down yet, not having seen them. But I imagine I will be underwhelmed.

LOL .....it doesn't really matter what real experts show or tell you, you are not going to change your mind on this. I doubt you can.

 

[RedIbis]

That camera wasn't on a helicopter.

Oops. Got my WTC7 photo threads confused.

You're absolutely right about the Ashleigh Banfield eyewitness interview video. It definitely would have picked have picked up the sounds of the cutter charges detonating if there were any.

Which is unfortunate for Red and Bill.

Really, it definitely would? How many blocks away is the interview? Why didn't it pick up the sirens of the cop cars?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Really, it definitely would? How many blocks away is the interview?

They were closer than this camera was.

Or this one.

Or this one.

And this one.

Oh... and there's still that annoying little detail of the lack of explosive signatures on the seismic sensors.

What's the matter Red... is your poor widdle theory starting to feel inadequate? Is this making you feel like you want to punch out a FDNY veteran?

Why didn't it pick up the sirens of the cop cars?

Because the cops were there already and didn't need their sirens anymore. It was 5:30 in the afternoon, for crying out loud. Are you really that thick?

 

[Profanz]

They were closer than this camera was.

Or this one.

Or this one.

And this one.

Oh... and there's still that annoying little detail of the lack of explosive signatures on the seismic sensors.

What's the matter Red... is your poor widdle theory starting to feel inadequate? Is this making you feel like you want to punch out a FDNY veteran?

Because the cops were there already and didn't need their sirens anymore. It was 5:30 in the afternoon, for crying out loud. Are you really that thick?

It's already been established that plenty of people heard explosions on 9/11. Debunkers have even admitted plenty of times that there were explosions on 9/11. What is in dispute is what those explosions were. Whatever they were you aren't gong to find a lot of recordings of them. So what?

 

[TJM]

Don't recall seeing any explosions on all the videos either, other than the plane impacts. You'd think someone might've caught one, what with all the cameras and all.

 

[dtugg]

It's already been established that plenty of people heard explosions on 9/11. Debunkers have even admitted plenty of times that there were explosions on 9/11. What is in dispute is what those explosions were. Whatever they were you aren't gong to find a lot of recordings of them. So what?

They clearly were not explosives.