It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the 9/11 Forum Dying?

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: hellobruce

It was passed on Oct 17 2001 and it limits what has to be let out with foia due to national security.
Couldn't manage to link cause


All you have to do is post its number.... but, as expected, there were no Executive orders signed on that date!
Here are the EO's signed in October

13227 President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education 2001-10-02 66 FR 51289 2001-10-05
13228 Establishing the Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council 2001-10-08 66 FR 51812 2001-10-10
13229 Amendment to Executive Order 13045, Extending the Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children 2001-10-09 66 FR 52013 2001-10-11
13230 President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans 2001-10-12 66 FR 52841 2001-10-17
13231 Critical Infrastructure Protection in the Information Age 2001-10-16 66 FR 53063 2001-10-18
13232 Further Amendment to Executive Order 10789, as Amended, To Authorize the Department of Health and Human Services To Exercise Certain Contracting Authority in Connection With National Defense Functions 2001-10-20 66 FR 53941 2001-10-24

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

www.911research.wtc7.net...

Apologize, I read it wrong, it was a judicial order.
But it was the one outlining the ability to withhold info in the name of national security



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 04:28 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce




Your refusal to name this non existent EO explains a lot!


when did I refuse, you NEVER asked...

Further Amendments to Executive Order 12333, United States
Intelligence Activities



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

This may allow agencies to withhold information - although I can't find where it says that. Indeed it doesn't use the term withhold in that context - but when did NIST invoke it?



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco

Did you look at my link? Clearly says it, plain as day



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Your link only goes up to 2002 and the EO is from 2008. So I doubt it.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco

But there is clearly a order to restrict foia under the guise of national security. That is the point I wanted to make



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco




This may allow agencies to withhold information - although I can't find where it says that.


of course not....you're a duhbunker here to hide the facts.....not point to them.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob
a reply to: JuniorDisco




This may allow agencies to withhold information - although I can't find where it says that.


of course not....you're a duhbunker here to hide the facts.....not point to them.


How mature. As I've said to you before, your approach is having no effect at all on the 9/11 debate, which you have comprehensively lost in any meaningful way. Perhaps it's time to change your game?

You claim that the document says something but refuse to say where. It certainly does not say anything about literally withholding information since a search reveals only one use of that term and it isn't where you say it should be.

Now, I'm not arguing that civil liberties weren't curtailed or that laws weren't passed allowing agencies not to reveal information. I'm just saying that you haven't demonstrated that this document does that or that NIST invoked it. And saying "I don't have to because erm... duhbunker! har har!!", especially when you are so conspicuously failing to put your arguments into the mainstream, makes you look silly.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco




How mature. As I've said to you before, your approach is having no effect at all on the 9/11 debate


oh no mr duhbunker....it is SHOWING a pattern with YOU!

this is my intent.


the E.O. gives ANY agency the right to withhold ANY info it deems necessary with any ties to 9-11...and in 2009, the NIST invoke it to NOT have to prove their hypothesized claims of brand new physics phenomenon" occurring ONLY on 9-11.





failing to put your arguments into the mainstream, makes you look silly


I am a 'truther' asking questions and DEMANDING the supporting evidence of the ALREADY in-place claims pushed as truth.....HOW does that make ME look silly?

I am not the one responding with this NONSENSE rather than PROVIDING supporting evidence of what I push.

play time is over.......



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Yes, but that doesn't surprise me. All kinds of bad things were done in the wake of 9/11 in the name of 'security'. The other poster is implying that Bush purposely created a ay for NIST to withhold information because - presumably - he was worried that people were getting close to the truth about Building Seven. That would imply a conspiracy, and would go some way to endorsing his views. But as expected he can't actually prove it in any meaningful way.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 03:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob

oh no mr duhbunker....it is SHOWING a pattern with YOU!

this is my intent.


So in the wake of what you consider to be a vast conspiracy by the US government to mass murder and pillage your concern is... me?



the E.O. gives ANY agency the right to withhold ANY info it deems necessary with any ties to 9-11...and in 2009, the NIST invoke it to NOT have to prove their hypothesized claims of brand new physics phenomenon" occurring ONLY on 9-11.


You keep saying this. But you have yet to show that this is true. As I say, it may well be, but your reticence to actually provide the information makes you look like you're hiding somethng.






I am a 'truther' asking questions and DEMANDING the supporting evidence of the ALREADY in-place claims pushed as truth.....HOW does that make ME look silly?

I am not the one responding with this NONSENSE rather than PROVIDING supporting evidence of what I push.

play time is over.......


But you're not providing supporting evidence. You're just saying it exists, which is very different.

My point is that the ball is in your court. Truthers have failed to advance beyond a ridiculed fringe, failed to make any meaningful change to policy, failed to get an indictment, failed even to get an investigation. If this is success, I'd hate to see what failure looked like.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco




in the wake of what you consider to be a vast conspiracy by the US government to mass murder and pillage your concern is... me?


lol...don't flatter yourself...your not that important.





You keep saying this. But you have yet to show that this is true.



sure I did....a few posts up from here.....directly from the E.O Archives.





But you're not providing supporting evidence


what evidence do I need to ask questions and demand the supporting evidence of the already in-place claims pushed as truth....that is your job....and a bang up job yer doing so far!


....not.





Truthers have failed to advance beyond a ridiculed fringe


yes, an imaginary state of mind put there by.....people like you.

more like the OS has stalled in it's tracks.....why do you avoid referencing the official claim of a brand new never before seen physics phenomenon falling WTC7 105 vertical feet equal to g. within the first 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse????

they are on video stating that FACT....well, not the FACT of NEW physics but the FACT they said..."new physics"....lol!

they refuse to prove the claim of new physics....so why don't you.....





failed to make any meaningful change to policy


......uhm....tell me what 'code' changes occurred as a result of 9-11????

.....NONE within this Country.....so WHOM failed to make ANY meaningful 'policy' change as a result of these disasters?





failed to get an indictment


well gee mr duhbunker, lets drag the NIST 08 complicity crew in and find out......lets go!...

let the deal-making and finger-pointing begin!!!!!!





failed even to get an investigation.


uhm......2005 NIST scientific investigation bestowed by an act of Congress found NO scientific reason for collapse x3 on 9-11.....2008 NIST hypothesis crew claims NEW SCIENCE fell these buildings on 9-11......
why can't they prove it?
why do they refuse to prove it?


Sept. 02 2010
Dear Mr. Bob

This letter serves a the final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (Log#10-194) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in which you requested
in connection with its investigation for the technical cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center Tower and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 1,200I:

'1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break element s, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.


2. All input files with connection material properties and all results flies of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities."


NIST is withholding sixty-eight thousand, two hundred and forty-six (68,246) file. These records are currently exempt from disclosure under section (b)(3) of the FOlA., 5 .S.C § 552 (b)(3). Exemption (b)(3) permits an agency to withhold records in an agency's possession which are records that are "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than 5 .S.C552(b», provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for
withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be ...withheld."


The statute underlying the (b)(3) exemption in this case is the at National Construction Safety Team (1 C T) Act, 15 .S.. § 7301 et seq_ Section 12 of the CST Act (ISS_C § 7311) provides that it applies to the activities of 1ST in response to the attacks of September I ), 200 I. Section 7(d) of the NIST Act (15 U.S.C § 7306(d», exempts from disclosure. information received by 1ST in the course of investigations regarding building failures if the Director finds that the disclosure of the information might jeopardize public safety. On July 9 2009 the Director of NIST determined that release of the withheld information might' jeopardize public safety. Therefore, these records are being withheld.
NlST
You have the right to appeal this determination. Such an appeal must be made in writing and received within 30 calendar days of the date on this letter addressed to:

Assistant General Counsel for Administration (Office)
Room 5898-C
U.S. Department of Commerce
14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230


Your appeal should include a copy of you original request,a copy of this determination,and a statement of the reason(s) you believe this determination to be in error and why these records should be made fully available 10 you. Both your letter and the envelope in which it is mailed should be prominently marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal.!!
Sincerely,
~:/_/~~A/
( Catherine S. Fletcher Freedom of Information Act Officer

edit on 10-6-2014 by hgfbob because: for a typo



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 06:39 AM
link   


......uhm....tell me what 'code' changes occurred as a result of 9-11????

.....NONE within this Country.....so WHOM failed to make ANY meaningful 'policy' change as a result of these disasters?

Not all finding require code changes.
Some are so obvious the people involved are able to use the 'well duh!' mind set.

Take the Hindenberg for example.
There is no code that says 'you cannot use hydrogen' for blimps.
It's more of 'well duh, remember the Hindenberg?'.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob


lol...don't flatter yourself...your not that important.


Except to you apparently.






sure I did....a few posts up from here.....directly from the E.O Archives.


Except that's not what your contention is. To be clear, you are claiming that a directive exists which Sunder invoked in order to not withhold information about Bldg 7. Nothing you have written above shows this.






what evidence do I need to ask questions and demand the supporting evidence of the already in-place claims pushed as truth....that is your job....and a bang up job yer doing so far!


....not.


You don't have to provide anything. I'm just pointing out that so far you've got nowhere, and just demanding answers from me is not likely to get you any further. I don't care about your questions, and I care more than almost everyone in the world. If you can't get me interested you're not going to get far.






yes, an imaginary state of mind put there by.....people like you.

more like the OS has stalled in it's tracks.....why do you avoid referencing the official claim of a brand new never before seen physics phenomenon falling WTC7 105 vertical feet equal to g. within the first 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse????

they are on video stating that FACT....well, not the FACT of NEW physics but the FACT they said..."new physics"....lol!

they refuse to prove the claim of new physics....so why don't you.....


Because I don't care and I think you're probably talking rubbish. But the key is if I do nothing the world will continue to agree with me and operate as though I'm right. If you do nothing the same will happen and your view will remain marginal and ridiculed.

So it's not me that has to change my game. It's you.






......uhm....tell me what 'code' changes occurred as a result of 9-11????

.....NONE within this Country.....so WHOM failed to make ANY meaningful 'policy' change as a result of these disasters?


There were a variety of code changes based on 9/11. A lot was baked into the 2004 building codes for NYC

architecture.about.com.../XJ&zTi=1&sdn=architecture&cdn=homegarden&tm=19&f=00&su=p284.13.342.ip_&tt=2&bt=2&bts=23&zu=http%3A//www.ny c.gov/html/dob/downloads/bldgs_code/locallaw26of04.pdf






well gee mr duhbunker, lets drag the NIST 08 complicity crew in and find out......lets go!...


That's my point. You will NEVER DO THIS.






uhm......2005 NIST scientific investigation bestowed by an act of Congress found NO scientific reason for collapse x3 on 9-11.....2008 NIST hypothesis crew claims NEW SCIENCE fell these buildings on 9-11......
why can't they prove it?
why do they refuse to prove it?


Sept. 02 2010
Dear Mr. Bob

This letter serves a the final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (Log#10-194) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in which you requested
in connection with its investigation for the technical cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center Tower and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 1,200I:

'1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break element s, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.


2. All input files with connection material properties and all results flies of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities."


NIST is withholding sixty-eight thousand, two hundred and forty-six (68,246) file. These records are currently exempt from disclosure under section (b)(3) of the FOlA., 5 .S.C § 552 (b)(3). Exemption (b)(3) permits an agency to withhold records in an agency's possession which are records that are "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than 5 .S.C552(b», provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for
withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be ...withheld."


The statute underlying the (b)(3) exemption in this case is the at National Construction Safety Team (1 C T) Act, 15 .S.. § 7301 et seq_ Section 12 of the CST Act (ISS_C § 7311) provides that it applies to the activities of 1ST in response to the attacks of September I ), 200 I. Section 7(d) of the NIST Act (15 U.S.C § 7306(d», exempts from disclosure. information received by 1ST in the course of investigations regarding building failures if the Director finds that the disclosure of the information might jeopardize public safety. On July 9 2009 the Director of NIST determined that release of the withheld information might' jeopardize public safety. Therefore, these records are being withheld.
NlST
You have the right to appeal this determination. Such an appeal must be made in writing and received within 30 calendar days of the date on this letter addressed to:

Assistant General Counsel for Administration (Office)
Room 5898-C
U.S. Department of Commerce
14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230


Your appeal should include a copy of you original request,a copy of this determination,and a statement of the reason(s) you believe this determination to be in error and why these records should be made fully available 10 you. Both your letter and the envelope in which it is mailed should be prominently marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal.!!
Sincerely,
~:/_/~~A/
( Catherine S. Fletcher Freedom of Information Act Officer


That was four years ago. What did your follow-up appeal bring?



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco

lol....oh lookie at all those starz.......




To be clear, you are claiming that a directive exists which Sunder invoked in order to not withhold information about Bldg 7. Nothing you have written above shows this.


except for the NIST refusal letter denying, citing "public safety" as a reason for .

the E.O gives ANY Gov.agency, for what ever reason, the right to withhold data if it concerned anything related to 9-11.
and Sunder was not responsible.....

in which it is mailed should be prominently marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal.!!
Sincerely,
Catherine S. Fletcher Freedom of Information Act Officer





You don't have to provide anything. I'm just pointing out that so far you've got nowhere,



other than posting facts......my only purpose here.....where are yours?

and so far, yer doing a bang up job 'contradicting' my posting......'WHY'gning get ya no where mr duhbunker.





Because I don't care and I think you're probably talking rubbish.


therein lies your problem....you.






There were a variety of code changes based on 9/11


NOTHING load bearing.....what does 'wider stairways' do for the structural support ability?

other Countries.....this was great for international codes....they were plenty messed up anyway..but not here...we already have strict codes.

oh, and learn how to insert a URL ok.....



the world will continue to agree with me and operate as though I'm right.


no duhbunker...right or wrong.....it just goes on......

are ya done 'WHY'gning yet???






That's my point. You will NEVER DO THIS.


me personally....DUH!..... we the people will.

as soon as the masses know of the FACT they claim new science they refuse to prove through science.....

claiming NEW physics ON VIDEO at their own tech briefing......maybe you can tell me WHY they took that video OFF their web site???????





That was four years ago. What did your follow-up appeal bring?


NO RESPONSE!


with ALL the actual science I leave, this is what you reply back with.....BEGGING....



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Corruption is rampant. I happen to live in the most corrupt state in the us. Really we are ranked #1. And I live in one of the more rural areas of this state. Population not even 3000. 9/11 is still in our newspapers from time to time. Mostly the editors ranting. Still gets attention.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob
a reply to: JuniorDisco

lol....oh lookie at all those starz.......


Vey did cuum from the Cee Eye AYY!!!!



To be clear, you are claiming that a directive exists which Sunder invoked in order to not withhold information about Bldg 7. Nothing you have written above shows this.


except for the NIST refusal letter denying, citing "public safety" as a reason for .

the E.O gives ANY Gov.agency, for what ever reason, the right to withhold data if it concerned anything related to 9-11.
and Sunder was not responsible.....

in which it is mailed should be prominently marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal.!!
Sincerely,
Catherine S. Fletcher Freedom of Information Act Officer


So you were lying? Sunder didn't do what you said he did?

Again, I don't care about your views, but I can tell you that if you want to advance them lying in an obvious manner won't work. People will continue to think you a joke.






other than posting facts......my only purpose here.....where are yours?

and so far, yer doing a bang up job 'contradicting' my posting......'WHY'gning get ya no where mr duhbunker.


That's my point. I am where I want to be: in a world that proceeds as though I'm right, and one in which your ideas are considered crackpot, when they are thought of at all. Which is increasingly rare. So as I say I don't have to do a thing.






therein lies your problem....you.


Okay. But I'm fine with that. You aren't apparently, so who's the loser?







NOTHING load bearing.....what does 'wider stairways' do for the structural support ability?

other Countries.....this was great for international codes....they were plenty messed up anyway..but not here...we already have strict codes.

oh, and learn how to insert a URL ok.....


So you were lying again when you claimed there were no changes?

Way to go. Again.




no duhbunker...right or wrong.....it just goes on......

are ya done 'WHY'gning yet???


No investigation, no indictment, no widespread acceptance of any one of your "ideas".

I think it goes on pretty much as I'd like.







me personally....DUH!..... we the people will.

as soon as the masses know of the FACT they claim new science they refuse to prove through science.....


Haha! Great - when's that happening? This year? Next?




with ALL the actual science I leave, this is what you reply back with.....BEGGING....


Begging? For what? As I say I don't need anything from you or care what you think. And neither does the world in general.

Since your response to that is to whinge, I imagine it won't change. Good luck though. You'll need it.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco

oh gee...now we are reducing this to playground banter and tactics...

even taking my posts and throwing them back to me as yours....lmao....where have I seen this before?

YOU ranted there was NO Executive Order....I showed you there is...

YOU ranted NIST did not invoke it....

I showed you they did...

Also i am a little concerned about you..what's the matter?....NO original thought?

here is my post from above...




except for the NIST refusal letter denying, citing "public safety" as a reason for .

the E.O gives ANY Gov.agency, for what ever reason, the right to withhold data if it concerned anything related to 9-11.
and Sunder was not responsible.....




lmao.....now why are YOU posting this back to me as if it is YOUR answer??????




except for the NIST refusal letter denying, citing "public safety" as a reason for .

the E.O gives ANY Gov.agency, for what ever reason, the right to withhold data if it concerned anything related to 9-11.
and Sunder was not responsible.....





all that does is suggest you are a 'shill' here to lie.....twist.....distract......from the facts of 9-11.

...say it isn't so.

9-11 truth is not dying....it is alive and getting stronger everyday, thanks to people like you....it's the idiots pushing the OS that have nothing to argue about anymore.....nothing left to 'make up'

wanna see the number ONE reason why the official story is dying?????

tell me all about the 'brand new never before seen physics phenomenon' that 2008 NIST hypothesized into OFFICIAL STORY....


"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."


why do you avoid this.....come on....tell me how this NEW SCIENCE, removed the required resistance before 1.74 seconds to allow global unified acceleration EQUAL to g. @ 1.75 seconds, when we see the kink form, to 4.0 seconds, as the 2005 NIST found and 2008 NIST tries to hide.


NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."


The NIST WTC7 report has a Fig 3-15 showing the graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. can you SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.

to which ALL taught science states can do NO WORK!

so tell me how fire at ONE end of the building REMOVES structural mass globally either AHEAD of the collapse wave, or all at once...as it must do in order to achieve the same results we all see...


now YOU can PRETEND this is all fine and dandy......lol..pretend.

why do YOU think the 2008 NIST refuses to show this NEW science through science?......which they claim REMOVED 105 vertical feet of continuous vertical support, 8 floors of truss assemblies with carrier beams, lateral, cross and diagonal bracing throughout, tens of thousands of bolts and welds, interior partitions, utilities, 9 floors of office contents....all MUST disappear to allow what we see to occur.

hey, what I just wrote is ALSO supported unwillingly by Shyam Sunder at that same tech briefing where he states, go look on page 16 of the accompanying transcript....



"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"


....and a claimed NEVER BEFORE SEEN new kind of "LOW TEMP thermal expansion" is the cause...'hypothesized' cause....


now, lets see what part of my post here you respond to.
edit on 13-6-2014 by hgfbob because: I corrected spelling....



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

I'll tell you what, I'll check in with you every month to see how you and "the people" are getting on in your crusade

I'm sure we won't be waiting long



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join