TOTAL INFORMATION ANALYSIS

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

The National Institute of Standards and Technology finally responded earlier this month and denied a Request for Correction (RFC) filed by Dr. Morgan Reynolds regarding its 9/11 report. Reynolds has offered some preliminary thoughts at his NoMoreGames.net:

"At the appropriate time I will formally appeal NIST's decision, but meanwhile I have filed two requests to obtain NIST data under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) so that I may properly exercise my appeal rights:
• Video evidence from original sources of airplanes at the WTC, held on a secure NIST server
• NIST contract with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and related documents regarding the NIST work performed by SAIC

[...]

Airplane Video Fakery

So-called live videos of the south tower plane "event" showed a plane image disappearing behind the South Tower wall, although at least one shows a plane's nose momentarily exiting the opposite north side, then fade to black, an obvious "overshooting" error in video fakery. Subsequent videos of airplane image entry into the south tower emerged in days, months and years later. These "penetration" videos show impossible physics like little or no deceleration, which NIST and its contractors have accepted at face value. These impossibilities were modeled, allegedly via sophisticated methods, according to the NIST response to my RFC: "The models used to analyze the aircraft impact into the towers fully capture the constitutive properties of the aircraft and the building materials and account for the deformation, fracture, and failure of these materials as well as conservation of momentum and energy." NIST, of course, did no such thing. NIST did not account for the conservation of momentum and energy because energy can only be spent once. Energy consumed in fracturing tower materials and impressing a cartoon-like outline of an airliner's silhouette of passage is not available for constant speed. The event as depicted by NIST is impossible.

NIST asserts in its defense, "By using original sources of photographic and video evidence and by using a NIST expert to obtain copies of material directly from these original sources, NIST was able to ensure the integrity of the photographic and video evidence used in the investigation. Further, all photographs and video records obtained by NIST are kept on a secure server with access limited only to authorized NIST personnel." Am I supposed to accept NIST assertions at face value? Does NIST deny, for example, that the FBI had custody of the Evan Fairbank video for hours and returned only part of the video to Fairbank? NIST does not comment. NIST claims it "collected photographs and videos from original sources only," yet evidence showing physically impossible events like no crash and no deceleration in the plane image must be fake unless NIST believes Newtonian mechanics no longer apply. "Further, all photographs and video records obtained by NIST are kept on a secure server with access limited only to authorized NIST personnel," NIST asserts. Secret evidence is no evidence at all. Until shown otherwise, I am told to rely on NIST assertions, undocumented, without proof. To properly pursue my appeal, that is, confirm NIST's claims independently, I must have access to the photographic and video evidence NIST has denied to me and other taxpayers. I will file a FOIA request to obtain this evidence in order to properly exercise my appeal rights.

Are SAIC's Hands Clean?

In my supplemental letter, I asserted that SAIC had a clear and palpable conflict of interest and offered evidence to support that proposition. "SAIC was contracted by NIST to provide administrative support to the team conducting the investigation," NIST responds. "They did not perform technical work in support of the investigation." Yet NIST offers no proof and no documentation for the claim that SAIC did no technical work, only administrative work. SAIC was the largest NIST contractor with 25 employees assigned, followed by ARA with 9, so it is hard to believe that SAIC performed no technical work. SAIC does not reveal the job titles and professional training of its employees and NIST likewise has kept its WTC contract with SAIC secret. I will file a FOIA request to obtain this NIST contract and all related evidence to discover the work SAIC performed.

Are ARA's Hands Clean?

My original RFC identified ARA as the principal contractor hired to analyze plane impacts and create relevant animations. I obtained this data from the NIST contract with ARA as presented on NIST's website. But NIST is silent about the role ARA played in plane analysis and animation. The NIST published contract with ARA clearly specified that ARA would perform analyses and animations of plane impacts on the towers. If accurate, ARA plainly violated Newtonian mechanics and substituted patently false physics in its analyses and animations and is therefore culpable for fraudulent and misleading misrepresentations. What role did ARA play? Unless NIST reveals ARA's role with supporting evidence, I may have to file a FOIA request regarding the work ARA performed.


-----

Labels: 9/11, ARA, NIST, SAIC, tvfakery

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Dr. Morgan Reynolds has announced that his qui tam lawsuit against the federal government's National Institute of Standards and Technology has been unsealed. Reynolds posted the announcement to his NoMoreGames.net August 21, 2007:

"Last month the U.S. District Court, Southern New York, unsealed a 9/11 case filed by Dr. Morgan Reynolds, thereby making the case public. Reynolds is suing on behalf of the United States of America after the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York who represents "the government" declined to intervene in the case. The suit, a so-called qui tam case, alleges that the 9/11 contractors NIST hired to investigate destruction of the WTC Towers on 9/11 defrauded the U.S. government of substantial money by rendering bogus, impossible physical analysis and animations about how two hollow aluminum aircraft (allegedly Boeing 767s) flew into a steel/concrete tower and disappeared. Yet it can be easily demonstrated, after a great deal of hard work by dedicated 9/11 researchers, that no planes hit the towers. The office of Reynolds' attorney, Jerry V. Leaphart of Connecticut, is now serving(notifying) the defendants in the suit, including Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Applied Research Associates (ARA), Boeing, American Airlines, United Airlines and Silverstein Properties. I will post new information on the case as developments warrant.
-----


And some exceprts from the unsealed complaint, available in toto here [PDF]


"DR. MORGAN REYNOLDS on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Relator vs. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.; APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, BOEING; NuSTATS; COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.; DATASOURCE, INC.; GEOSTAATS, INC.; GILSANZ MURRAY STEFICEK LLP; HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC.; AJMAL ABBASI; EDUARDO KAUSEL; DAVID PARKS; DAVID SHARP; DANIELE VENEZANO; JOSEF VAN DYCK; KASPAR WILLIAM; ROLF JENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC; ROSENWASSER/GROSSMAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P.C.; SIMPSON GUMPERTZ HEGER, INC.; S. K. GHOSH ASSOCIATES, INC.; SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL, LLP; TENG & ASSOCIATES, INC.; UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC.; WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES, INC.; AMERICAN AIRLINES; SILVERSTEIN PROPERTIES; and UNITED AIRLINES, Defendants

[...]

THE DEFENDANTS' SCHEME
50. The destruction of the WTC on September 11, 2001, was caused, in whole or in part, by the use of Directed Energy Weapons, consisting in High Energy Lasers and or other operational, but largely secret weapons that are, nonetheless, known to exist and known to have been deployed and/or deployable in the year 2001, before and after. It is also clear and apparent on its face that NIST’s explanation of the destruction of WTC1,2, issued in or about the month of September, 2005, is blatantly false, incomplete, misleading and fraudulent.

[...]

SAIC engaged in fraud, then, in the wrong place and in the wrong context. Between ARA and SAIC, some twenty-five (25) persons were assigned to work on, by literally surrounding and, accordingly, controlling and manipulating, NIST officials such that fraud, the intended outcome, did, in fact, occur. It is telling that the two contractors who were most numerous among NIST’s contractors were those whose primary expertise includes the development of Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) and psychological operations (psy ops), as that term is understood for military and warfare purposes, respectively. Small wonder, then, that NIST did not investigate what caused the destruction of WTC 1,2; namely, DEW, carried out in the manner of a psy op.

[...]
-----



Dr. Reynolds is demanding a jury trial.

Labels: 9/11, ARA, NIST, SAIC