Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Prosecute the NIST for Obstruction of Justice

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

NIST may have deliberately lied about the collapse of Building 7 --said to have been 'pulled' even by Larry Silverstein, its owner. The NIST, charged with investigating the building's collapse, is still trying to peddle the absurd ex post facto rationalization that 'heat expansion' is responsible for the perfectly symmetrical collapse of a building that had never been struck by aircraft.

Lies about crimes are crimes. 911 was a crime. Lies about 911 are obstructions of justice. NIST lied about 911 and now, a group urging a real investigation of 911, is suing to charge NIST with obstruction of justice.

In case after case, scandal after scandal, American federal law enforcement officials have clearly shown by their indictments and prosecutions that there is no confusion in their minds—lying is a crime. Businesspersons need to clearly understand those rules and what prosecutors define as lying.

In recent corporate scandals, some executives have learned the hard way that lying is still a crime in corporate America. Martha Stewart was accused of selling her ImClone stock allegedly after receiving insider information. However, she was not convicted of securities fraud. She was instead convicted for lying. In addition, Computer Associates executives were indicted and some have already pleaded guilty for lying to their own company’s attorney during an internal investigation when their lies were passed on by their attorney to the government.

--Linnea B. McCord, JD, MBA, Kim Greenhalgh, JD, and Michael Magasin, JD, The rules regarding lying in business in the U.S. are currently being vigorously enforced
911 liars held to a lesser standard, a parallel system of justice in which the laws that apply to everyone else are ignored or winked at whether the 'persons of interest' happen to be proponents of new and phony laws of physics or the numerous lies told by George W. Bush himself.
Recently, Congress enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002[15], which included a specific section declaring that the destruction or alteration of documents (or the inclusion of false entries in such documents) constitutes the crime of obstruction of justice, which carries a twenty-year prison sentence. Destroying documents—or otherwise concealing tangible evidence—clearly can subject anyone engaging in such conduct to criminal prosecution.

From the legislative history of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, it appears that the new obstruction of justice section was intended to be broader in scope and to eliminate some of the ambiguities and technicalities that had been required for a conviction as described above.[16]

--Linnea B. McCord, JD, MBA, Kim Greenhalgh, JD, and Michael Magasin, JD, The rules regarding lying in business in the U.S. are currently being vigorously enforced
It is clear enough to anyone who has followed the time line of events. Bush --his administration, his gang of 'close supporters' --exploited the events of 911, overtly obstructed investigations, and repeatedly lied about the crimes. The result has been the disastrous and criminal regime of George W. Bush. It matters.

The official theories about 911 are all indefensible, revised often to overcome new objections as they arise. All are lies, ex post facto rationalizations to cover up the crime. Certainly --the lies themselves are crimes and it is time to bring the 911 liars to justice. Bush may defy the 'laws of this nation' but he is impotent against the 'laws of physics' and entropy. No more lies. No more bullshit. No more re-inventing the laws of physics. No more new-speak. No more double plus good.

There is no reason to suppose that anything supernatural happened at WTC 7; there is no reason to suppose that laws of physics discovered and described by William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, Newton, Galileo et al were repealed.

There is reason to suspect that something highly illegal happened at WTC 7. Persistent heat patterns, observed and photographed from space are big holes in Bush's official theory which cannot explain them innocently. If 'thermal expansion' is to be implicated, the source of additional heat --a violation of fundamental physics --must be demonstrated. An ex post facto cover story, like Arlen Spector's magic bullet theory, is not it. Anyone who has ever built a fire knows that fires run down, get cooler and eventually burn out. Left alone, fires never get hotter. Likewise, steel exposed to fire will only get cooler over time. The only thing that might have saved the sorry assess of the 911 liars is an non-existent exception to the laws of entropy.

In thermodynamics, the concept of entropy is a measure of the amount of energy no longer capable of conversion into work after a transformation process has taken place. Things run down. Hot things get cooler. If the 'cool' kerosene fires were insufficient to melt steel, then the presence of melted steel must be explained in another manner. If the fires are now said to have gotten hotter, the additional energy must be explained rationally. Neither Bush nor his legion of paid 911 liars can change the laws of physics.

The best explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 is still the simplest --Silverstein's simple statement that the building had been 'pulled' following his discussion and agreement with firefighters. Silverstein's own explanation --that the building was 'pulled' --explains everything while providing sufficient probable cause to bring mass murder charges against Silverstein.
A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. U.S. v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992). In terms of seizure of items, probable cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer warrants a "man of reasonable caution" to conclude that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. U.S. v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. Denied, 112 S. Ct. 401 (1992).

It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984). Probable cause exists when "the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime." United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 825 (1990) (citing United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185 (1986)).

When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears.

In an action, then, for a malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is bound to show total absence of probable cause, whether the original proceedings were civil or criminal.

--probable cause
Silverstein is on video tape confirming that within minutes of his discussion with firefighters, in which it was agreed that the building be pulled. The building would not be pulled, however, until two major news outlets reported the collapse before it happened in fact. That building 7 is irrefutable. It looks like every other controlled demolition because that is precisely what it was.

'Thermal expansion' differs among various materials. The 'thermal expansion' co-efficient of steel can be looked up on the internet for free! If you are willing to pay a small yearly subscription fee, you can plug that coefficient (for steel) into an 'online' calculator that will tell you precisely how much 'expansion' can be expected per degree of heat in various scales. The coefficients are one thing. Of more interest are the exponents which, as I recall, are always negative, as in negative 6. Any positive number to the power of negative six, for example, is very, very, very small. Any coefficient to a negative power is very, very, very small.
Post a Comment