@IanCrossland calls out NIST

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q2dgVuS2QY

I wrote this for the families, but mostly for Bob. - Jon Jon Gold 12/8/2019
Many people are aware of the lawsuit brought on by 9/11 Family Members against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A lesser known lawsuit exists brought on by the Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. 9/11 Family Member Bob McIlvaine, who lost his son Bobby on the day of 9/11, is also listed as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

A&E drops new video from former NIST employee. I find the production, the pacing, the length to be really spot on. Will be bookmarking this to send out to people now and when the next Anniversary (Patriots Day) comes around.

"In August of 2016, a former employee of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) began looking into the reports his agency had released years earlier on the collapse of the World Trade Center. What he found shook him to the core.

In this poignant half-hour interview, Peter Michael Ketcham tells his story of discovering that the organization where he had worked for 14 years had deliberately suppressed the truth about the most pivotal event of the 21st century".

Dr. Leroy Hulsey presents the findings of his WTC 7 Evaluation study at the Justice in Focus 9/11 Symposium in New York on Sep 10, 2016. I added a couple of videos into this presentation as Dr. Hulsey had a problem playing them.

The WTC 7 Evaluation is a study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks using finite element modeling to evaluate the possible causes of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse. For more information and to support the project, visit: http://www.wtc7evaluation.org

(Larger Image)- http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/e/7/7/9/highres_451199257.jpeg

(15 Minute Video Link)
Facebook Theatre - https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/videos/vb.59185411268/10153493868176269/?type=2&theater
Ae911Truth Campaigns Newsletter Archive (link which will activate the video) - http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=fd75bb3369&e=[UNIQID]
-
Ae911truth – Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/
AE911Truth (@AE911Truth) | Twitter https://twitter.com/AE911Truth
Ae911Truth.org – http://www.ae911truth.org/
Ae911Truth.org Older Version Website Evidence - http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html

Tony Szamboti returns to discuss his latest discovery involving an analysis done of WTC 7 during a lawsuit, and his presentation at a university in New Jersey in November and the pressure the university faced as a result of hosting him.

Listen here to 9/11 Freefall with guest Tony Szamboti M.E. on No Lies Radio (1hr): http://noliesradio.org/archives/114219

An account of some of the explosions that were heard on 9/11 following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 but before the collapse of WTC 7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qReJQCsIpKw

Here's a short video about the "collapse" of the North Tower. If you like it, share it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3keULhBlQc

PART 5: How Skyscrapers Are Really Imploded

"...all in all, the official version of the failure of WTC 7 does not stand up to even the most elementary scrutiny. Yet with breathtaking chutzpah, NIST and the defenders of its theory continue to ask us all, paraphrasing a Chico Marx line in the movie Duck Soup, "Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?"

How would you answer?"

Read more >> http://bit.ly/NISTfraud6

Tonight at 10PM EST/7PM PST: 9/11 researcher Chris Sarns discusses his latest series of articles examining the flaws in NIST's "thermal expansion" hypothesis for WTC 7. He also comments on the outcome of the WTC 7 resolution vote at the AIA convention in Atlanta last weekend.

http://bit.ly/NoLiesRadio
http://bit.ly/911FreeFallRadio

. . .Be VERY afraid.

http://youtu.be/2qn1Iu6olJQ

A short video I made utilising some of the same footage I used in my previous video about the Larry Silverstein "Controlled Demolition" quote (from the missing episode of History's Business). I also used some footage from AE9/11 Truth's 'Experts Speak Out' video and Massimo Mazzucco's film, 'September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor'. Just sharing it with everyone here. If you like it, please share it with others.

Richard Gage AIA and AE911Truth Chief Operating Officer Kelly David discuss the next steps towards 9/11 justice that will happen in the new year, including plans to sue NIST for withholding information from FOIA requests. As well, they discuss how supporters can help AE911Truth in this important and historic effort.

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.

Jump to the 25 POINTS: http://www.ae911truth.org/images/articles/2014/11/twenty-five-points-10-19-14-3.pdf

A new letter by Tony Szamboti and Richard Johns has just been published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The letter shows how difficult it can be to publish simple engineering facts about 9/11 in a top engineering journal, especially one that has previously supported the fire-induced progressive collapse view. Critics of the official accounts of 9/11 have often been dismissed on the grounds that, if they had valid points to make, they could publish their work in top scientific journals. Our letter is a useful case study on this question. A paper published in the Journal of Engineering mechanics contained obvious errors, such as data concerning WTC1 that contradicted the NIST reports. However, our discussion paper correcting these errors was eventually declined for being "out of scope" for the journal, after being under review for more than 2 years.

Our letter includes a brief timeline of events, a summary of our correspondence with the journal, and the various appeals we made. It also includes the two versions of the discussion paper we wrote, and a link to the article we criticized, so that engineers can judge the technical issues for themselves.