Here are just a few of the witnesses and recordings that NIST says DO NOT exist.
You be the judge.

Here’s NIST’s Statement from their website “Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. …”

On Feb. 19, 2010, Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth held a press conference at the Mariner’s Club & Hotel in San Francisco, CA, USA, announced the milestone of having achieved in excess of 1,000 signatures from architects and engineers from around the world, demanding a new, truly independent investigation of the facts regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2001, saying that the conclusions drawn by the 911 Commission reek of cover-up, are not at all supported by the facts.
The 80-minute press conference included presentations by
Richard Gage, AIA, founder of AE911Truth, who summarized how the facts support demolition being the cause of the World Trade Center buildings 1,2 and 7, not fire;
David Ray Griffin, author of “The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7″, talking about the questionable science of NIST, concluding that they lied and are party to the cover-up;
Steven E. Jones, professor Emeritus from BYU, who talked about evidence found in the WTC dust that can only be explained by intentional demolition; and
Eric Lawyer, founder of Firefighters for 911 Truth, who pointed out the many ways in which long-established protocols for handling crime scenes involving fire and building collapse were egregiously violated, consistent with a cover-up.
As a sad commentary on the press corps, not one news agency in the world so far has done any coverage on the Feb. 19 event that was simultaneously broadcast at press conferences being hosted concurrently in cities throughout the US including San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Seattle, Portland, Chicago, Austin, Dallas, Madison, Dover, NH, Tulsa, Tucson, Boston, Alexandria, VA (DC), Tampa, Temple Terrace, FL, Denver, Newark; and internationally in Ontario, Vancouver, Brussels, Denmark, Sydney, and Wellington, NZ.
Read more…

Emergency coordinator and 9/11 witness Barry Jennings has passed away with controversy about WTC7 still hot as the BBC hit piece and NIST report have been released to counter Jennings’ exclusive testimony of explosions inside Building 7

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
September 16, 2008

UPDATED SEPT 17 4:05 PM CST: NYC Housing Authority spokesman Howard Marder has now officially confirmed that Barry Jennings indeed passed away approximately a month ago after several days in the hospital, matching confirmations from several other employees at the Housing Authority. Marder commented that Jennings was a great man, well liked by everyone at the Housing Authority, and that he would be missed. No other details were available.

Barry Jennings’ now dead at 53 details his eyewitness account while trapped inside WTC7 on 9/11 in a 2007 interview. Jennings told reporters on the day of 9/11, as well as Loose Change cameras in 2007, that he heard repeated explosions inside the building before either Tower 1 or Tower 2 collapsed and testified that he was “stepping over dead bodies” while exiting the “blown-out” lobby to WTC7.

Barry Jennings, a key 9/11 eyewitness who was an emergency coordinator for the New York Housing Authority, has passed away at age 53 from circumstances not yet disclosed.

From Scholars for Truth and Justice

PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS-Dr. Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is a former university professor and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.

February 2, 2008

Many Americans are content with the 9/11 Commission Report, but the two chairmen of the commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton are not. Neither was commission member Max Cleland, a US Senator who resigned from the 9/11 Commission, telling the Boston Globe (November 13, 2003): “This investigation is now compromised.” Even former FBI director Louis Freeh wrote in the Wall Street Journal (November 17, 2005) that there are inaccuracies in the commission’s report and “questions that need answers.”

Both Kean and Hamilton have twice stated publicly, once in their 2006 book, ‘Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission,’ and again in (January 2, 2008), the New York Times, that there are inaccuracies in their report and unanswered — or mis-answered — questions.

On the second day of this new year, Kean and Hamilton accused the CIA of obstructing their investigation: “What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the President, to investigate one of the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.”

In their book, Kean and Hamilton wrote that they were unable to obtain “access to star witnesses in custody who were the only possible source for inside information about the 9/11 plot.”

The only information the commission was permitted to have about what was learned from interrogations of alleged plot ringleaders, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, came from “thirdhand” sources. The commission was not permitted to question the alleged plotters in custody or even to meet with those who interrogated the alleged plotters. Consequently, write Kean and Hamilton, “We had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information” that was fed to them by third party hands. “How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was telling us the truth?”

The fact that video tapes of the interrogations existed was kept secret from the 9/11 Commission.

The video tapes have since been destroyed. The destruction of the videos has become an issue because of White House involvement in the decision to destroy the tapes and because the videos are believed to have been destroyed because they reveal methods of torture that the Bush administration denies using.

According to President Bush, the US does not practice torture even though he and his Department of Justice (sic) assert the right to torture.

Is the torture issue a red herring? The 9/11 Commission was not tasked with investigating interrogation methods or detainee treatment. The commission was tasked with investigating al Qaeda’s participation in the 9/11 attack and determining the perpetrators of the terrorist event. There was no reason to withhold from the commission video evidence of confessions implicating al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

Was the video evidence withheld from the 9/11 Commission because the alleged participants in the plot did not confess, did not implicate al Qaeda, and did not implicate bin Laden? Does anyone seriously believe that evidence of confession would not have been revealed — evidence that could have foreclosed what has become a massive industry of 9/11 truth seekers involving large numbers of highly credible persons?

There is no reason for the Bush administration to fear the torture issue. The Justice Department’s memos have legalized the practice, and Congress has passed legislation, signed by President Bush, giving retroactive protection to US interrogators who tortured detainees. The Military Commissions Act, passed in September 2006 and signed by Bush in October 2006, strips detainees of protections provided by the Geneva Conventions: “No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.” Other provisions of the act strip detainees of speedy trials and of protection against torture and self-incrimination. The law has a provision that retroactively protects torturers against prosecution for war crimes.

Did the Bush administration cleverly take advantage of the torture claims in order to spin the destruction of the CIA video tapes as a “torture story.” It is much more likely that the tapes were destroyed because they reveal the absence of confession to the plot. As Kean and Hamilton ask, without evidence how do we know the truth? All we have is the word of the administration that told us Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that, while sitting on a NIE report [National Intelligence Estimate on Iran] that concluded that Iran had terminated its weapons program in 2003, told us that Iran had an ongoing nuclear weapons program and was close to having a nuclear weapon.

What about the bin Laden video tape in which he takes credit for the 9/11 attack? Every indication is that the tape is a fake. The bin Laden in the November 9, 2001, “confession video” looks nothing like the bin Laden in the last confirmed video of December, 2001.

Recently, the Italian newspaper, Corriere Della Sera, reported that the former president of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, said that Italian intelligence had concluded that the bin Laden confession video was a fake.

William Arkin in the online Washington Post, February 1, 1999, described a voice-morphing technology developed at the government’s Los Alamos laboratory. Arkin reported that digital morphing, including appearance, “has come of age, available for use in psychological operations.”

Investigative reporter Kristina Borjesson reminds us that “six days after 9/11, CNN reported that bin Laden had sent a statement to Al Jazeera denying that he had been involved.” She also reminds us that the FBI says it has no hard evidence that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. The FBI wants Osama for the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, not for 9/11. Borjesson also reports that in the “confession video” bin Laden is revealed writing with his right hand, but is known to be left-handed.

If the bin Laden “confession video” is indeed a fake, as it appears to be, why run the risk of creating such a video if the CIA has on video tape the confessions of the alleged al Qaeda participants in the 9/11 plot? Why destroy such evidence, especially when torture has been given a green light by the DOJ and US Congress?

——————————————————————————–

NFPA 9.3.6 covers Spoliation of Evidence. Specifically, 9.3.6.7 reads as follows: “Once evidence has been removed from the scene, it should be maintained and not be destroyed or altered until others who have a reasonable interest in the matter have been notified. Any destructive testing or destructive examination of the evidence that may be necessary should occur only after all reasonably known parties have been notified in advance and given the opportunity to participate in or observe the testing.”

It would seem painfully obvious the very engineers and investigators that are tasked to determine the cause of collapse would be “reasonably known parties” and would find it very helpful to “participate in or observe the testing” in order to aid in their investigation.

Since when do we destroy evidence before we identify the cause of collapse? We don’t solve crimes, or get safer buildings by destroying evidence, and then hypothesize the cause. There is nowhere in the NFPA guidelines, or any investigation guidelines that we have found that call for the destruction of evidence, and then the investigation.

We often hear people say it was about the money in the recycled steel. We haven’t been able to find one other example of a mass murder, and engineering catastrophe where the evidence was destroyed prior to determining cause, for the money. Don’t accept that excuse. Willful destruction of evidence before an investigation completion is only done to hinder the investigation or hide the truth!

Glenn Corbett, Professor of Fire Sciences, discusses the destruction of evidence.

In Congressman Curt Weldon’s (R. Pennsylvania) testimony (below) about Able Danger he reports a D.O.D. official was ordered to destroy 245 terabytes of data related to prior knowledge of 9/11. This is obvious destruction of evidence. And, the 9/11 Commission Report mentions nothing of this! Our Constitution has been eviscerated because of 9/11, and people are still dying today. Don’t we deserve the truth?

$ELLING OUT THE INVESTIGATION