- Joined
- Jan 17, 2014
- Messages
- 7,544
- Reaction score
- 1,503
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It would seem the official "story" and the government and its agencies are once again subject collateral attack pending suits for fraud in their reports.
This appears to be raising the 911 truther movement to a whole new level of notoriety and solidifying their credibility.
The OIG wants to get out of it unscathed with an apology, when crimes appear to have been committed.
would a traffic cop let any of us get out of a speeding violation with an apology?
The agencies involved in public affairs have both trust and fiduciary obligations to the public they are presumably intended to serve.
What else did nist lie about?
This appears to be raising the 911 truther movement to a whole new level of notoriety and solidifying their credibility.
As Cole has written in his article, "NIST's failure to show these stiffeners or take them into account in its analysis is yet another area where the omissions and incorrect statements are so egregious, anyone who understands these issues must by now begin to question NIST's motives."
Feeling strongly that the stiffeners revelation is the strongest evidence yet of fraudulent omissions by NIST, Szamboti, Cole, and other professionals at AE911Truth began asking what could be done from a legal perspective. Szamboti reached out to his contacts in the 9/11 Truth community, and Bill Pepper stepped forward. Eventually, a strategy was developed with the ultimate goal of forcing a whole new and independent examination into the collapse of Building 7 by either NIST itself or, better yet, an independent group.
As Pepper put it in the letter that he sent to the Inspector General on December 12, 2013, "Avoidance through stonewalling and prolonged silence will no longer suffice. This will not go away...Silence from your office or a rejection of this reasonable request may prompt my clients to seek legal recourse and to raise this issue with their colleagues in Europe where a number of government officials and professionals have long been critical of the official U.S. Government's position and explanation of the destruction of the WTC on 9/11."
Included in Bill Pepper’s letter to the Inspector General was the DVD by AE911Truth: “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out.”
It should be noted that the OIG pledges publically, “to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department of Commerce's programs and operations. The OIG also endeavors to detect and deter waste, fraud, and abuse. OIG monitors and tracks the use of taxpayer dollars through audits, inspections, evaluations, and investigations. The Inspector General keeps the Secretary of Commerce and Congress fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies relating to Commerce's activities and the need for corrective action.”
In consideration, especially, of the stiffeners issue, our desired outcome is that the OIG will consider Pepper’s letter, evaluate the analysis provided in the letter, detect that NIST’s report on the unprecedented collapse of Building 7 is fundamentally flawed, if not fraudulent, and declare that the corrective action needed is a true and honest investigation into the free-fall collapse of Building 7 based on all the evidence, including the missing stiffeners and also the evidence for explosive demolition. Will the OIG take its mandate seriously? Is such a scenario feasible, or even possible? With your participation in our upcoming campaign, we think that it is. Stay tuned for the Action Alerts.
As legal and other strategies are being weighed, the issue has picked up steam
William Pepper, Attorney at Law, Pursuing NIST via OIG Re: Fraudulent WTC 7 Report
The OIG wants to get out of it unscathed with an apology, when crimes appear to have been committed.
would a traffic cop let any of us get out of a speeding violation with an apology?
The agencies involved in public affairs have both trust and fiduciary obligations to the public they are presumably intended to serve.
What else did nist lie about?