Families, lawyers, AE911Truth, suing the FBI over 9/11 Omissions Report

Families, Lawyers, AE911Truth to File Lawsuit against FBI over 9/11 Review Commission Report.

For the first time ever, 9/11 family members and advocates are taking legal action against the FBI aimed at forcing the Bureau to assess and report the evidence of the World Trade Center’s explosive demolition as well as other unaddressed 9/11 evidence.

Here is the official announcement and explanation:

So, according to the announcement, in 2014 Congress instructed the FBI to consider evidence which wasnt presented or considered in the original 9/11 Omissions Report.

This is the first I'm hearing about this Congressional mandate... Have I been out of the loop? Is this general knowledge to the rest of the Truth community?

My understanding is that the purpose of this law suit is to compel the FBI to abide by its congressional mandate in evaluating all the evidence regarding the attacks.

9/11 investigation still open; disagreement persists.

From 2015:

The commission, mandated by Congress to assess the FBI's continuing anti-terror capabilities, said the FBI's 9/11 investigation into a potential broader conspiracy remains open and "active.'' Yet agency Director James Comey, while acknowledging the inquiry was still "alive,'' said there is no evidence so far that unknown others assisted in carrying out the most deadly terrorist assault in American history.

The goal would be to force the FBI to consider additional evidence and generate an amended report.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

I suspect that the FBI leadership will have to continue the cover-up but the evidence is so overwhelming that I have no doubt that it will be a real eye opener for both the higher-ups and the agents.

Thank you AE911Truth, the brave families, attorneys, Richard Gage and all the others who continue to fight in hopes that one day, the truth will be exposed.

a reply to: gladtobehere

You can watch the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 from the video evidence. There is zero evidence of controlled demolitions.

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...

WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

Just in case you missed it:
“ And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.”

AE 9/11 Truth assertions of CD are based on many falsehoods and junk science.

The AE 9/11 Truth backed WTC 7 Evaluation which promised transparency is now two years late in its release, looks like it will never be open for public comment, with the $300K in donates taken under a false pretext.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: gladtobehere

You can watch the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 from the video evidence. There is zero evidence of controlled demolitions.

Except, of course, all the evidence that it couldn't have been anything but...

Like basic physics.

I guess I'll go back to the WTC7 tower footage and watch carefully where the plane hit...

Or just leave alone the fact that all the buildings were built to withstand multiple impacts from commercial airliners..

Then ignore all the eyewitness reports, the teams of "technicians" all over the buildings a few weeks before, the bomb dogs being called off the job on Sep 10....

Nevermind... you're just right.

It had to be that.

Because you are told to believe that.

a reply to: Lumenari

Can you form an actual example and argument.

Or do you mean impossible as it it would be impossible for controlled demolition systems to survive the jet impacts and fires to initiate the collapse of each twin tower at the sites of the jet impacts.

a reply to: Lumenari

You only have truth movement propaganda and innuendo. Get back when you can cite actual evidence of cut columns.

originally posted by: neutronflux
There is zero evidence of controlled demolitions.

Everyone knows that nano-thermite planes flew into the buildings that day except where they didn't, like the Pentagon, which was a holographic missile.

And I know this because I know someone who is an aviation expert and they told me it couldn't have been any other way.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: neutronflux
There is zero evidence of controlled demolitions.

Everyone knows that nano-thermite planes flew into the buildings that day except where they didn't, like the Pentagon, which was a holographic missile.

And I know this because I know someone who is an aviation expert and they told me it couldn't have been any other way.

I hope they drop their conspiracy book soon, and their speaking tour.

I read there was an Israeli art project right before. They did something with the lights on the buildings for a project.

...Which was interesting because it was right where the planes hit.

a reply to: neutronflux

You could use common sense as an argument.

Trillions missing from pentagon, that just happened to take a hit in the records department.

Tower 7 had a demolition style collapse.

The "plane attacks" drill being run.

The reporter reporting the collapse before it happens.

There are a ton more inconsistancies than that.

Here's Kerry saying it was controlled demo on wtc7 to maintain damage footprint

originally posted by: Mandroid7
I read there was an Israeli art project right before. They did something with the lights on the buildings for a project.

...Which was interesting because it was right where the planes hit.

You mean the art project B-thing that removed a window by a Vienna based art group.

www.cobosocial.com...

The four-piece act of Ali Janka, Florian Reither, Tobias Urban and Wolfgang Gantner, Gelitin has mounted their first solo show ‘Gelatin Gelatine Gelintin’ in Hong Kong, which runs from July 7 to August 20 at Galerie Perrotin.

Break

On one side of the gallery hung a series of monotone photographs, documenting the time when they broke into the World Trade Centre to remove a window in order to build a balcony – or did they? One of the collective’s most expertly executed acts, The B-thing (2000) has taken on a mythical quality over the years, owing – not in the least – to the demise of the WWT a year later.

a reply to: Mandroid7

Why, when you have the actual collapse video.

I would think a common sense investigation would start with the collapse video and proof it held evidence of controlled demolitions. And then it would have corresponding seismic evidence.

Again.

Or do you mean impossible as it it would be impossible for controlled demolition systems to survive the jet impacts and fires to initiate the collapse of each twin tower at the sites of the jet impacts.

Why I am referring to the collapse of the towers, while you want to talk about anything else.

Can you cite evidence of actual cut columns.

a reply to: neutronflux

I don't have time for cocky word salad.

Here's your quote...

You can watch the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7...

I just posted a video of John Kerry stating at least 7 was demo-ed.

Your argument is pathetic.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: neutronflux

I don't have time for cocky word salad.

Here's your quote...

You can watch the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7...

I just posted a video of John Kerry stating at least 7 was demo-ed.

Your argument is pathetic.

I guess you admit there is no evidence of cut columns.

I can link to videos of the twin tower columns bowing inward and buckling to initiate collapse.

www.metabunk.org/the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...

Can you link or post to a video of one WTC column being cut?

a reply to: neutronflux

Why would I be talking about the 2 towers?
I'm talking about wtc7.

Quit moving the goal posts

a reply to: Mandroid7

How does video of a politician equal physical evidence of cut columns by planted pyrotechnics at the WTC.

Keeping going with the prapaganda from the charlatans of the truth movement and ignoring the actual video, audio, seismic, and physical evidence of the WTC.

a reply to: Mandroid7

Ok, post a video of a WTC 7 column being cut. Or audio proof there was a detonation from WTC 7 with the force to cut the vertical columns. Seismic evidence?

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: neutronflux

Why would I be talking about the 2 towers?
I'm talking about wtc7.

Quit moving the goal posts

How is posting, “Can you link or post to a video of one WTC column being cut?“ moving the goal post........

Any more false arguments?

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: neutronflux

Why would I be talking about the 2 towers?
I'm talking about wtc7.

Quit moving the goal posts

Bro, words of advice — you’re not going to get a logical argument on this topic with ole neutronflux.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Lumenari

Can you form an actual example and argument.

Or do you mean impossible as it it would be impossible for controlled demolition systems to survive the jet impacts and fires to initiate the collapse of each twin tower at the sites of the jet impacts.

It's rather easy to give you an actual example.

As to how the demolition was accomplished. That is by taking out the outer core columns every third floor and the corners of the perimeter.

The molten metal found in the rubble was probably from use of thermite in the fire affected areas, used to initiate the collapses. After the collapses started explosives would have been used on the core columns to break the welds to ensure the collapse continued reliably and the sounds would be masked by the collapse itself. Most of the discharges would have been contained within the perimeter and those that weren't would be masked by the debris falling outside. However, it wasn't a perfect job and we do see some ejections.

The amount of explosive needed to provide a concussion powerful enough to break the welds on the core columns is significantly less than that needed to cut through them. These charges could have been tamped to cause most of the energy to go into the column and reduce the noise level.

The arguments made by debunkers like Mark Roberts, that the sound levels would be much higher if explosives were used, are simply bare assertions. Roberts and others like him do not consider methods like tamping and breaking the welds to accomplish the demolition. They don't do the calculations which show it is feasible to minimize the percussive noise to a level consistent with that of the collapsing material, while still generating more than enough force to remove the column by breaking the weld.

That's how you take down buildings that size to fall into their own footprint. You shear off the columns with thermite at regular intervals.

The base of the columns would look like this...



Picture from WTC1 ground zero.

In your world an airplane caused that.