Humint Events Online: Why So Many Redacted 9/11 WTC Oral Histories?

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Why So Many Redacted 9/11 WTC Oral Histories?

the list of these histories can be seen here.


Why are so many histories severely redacted?

Take Rene Davila for instance (File No: 9110075)-- almost ten pages of redacted testimony.

Take Ronald Coyne (File No: 9110395)-- about four pages of redactions.

Take John Coyle (File No: 9110406)-- a paragraph completely redacted.


OVERALL, a very large percentage of these reports have major redactions.

What are they hiding from us???

They aren't taking out gruesome descriptions, or reports of explosions-- because these are left in.

They aren't taking out names.

I can only imagine that mostly they are taking out the most highly incriminating testimony that tells of the towers being blown up-- quite possibly to all matters relating to nukes.

(Tip to Anon. Physicist for topic)

12 Comments:

Blogger Ningen said...

Hi Spooked. Saw your post at DU and the guy who said read the case. Here it is:

http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions/mar05/13opn05.pdf

The appeal court ruled that the Fire Department would be given the opportunity to show the trial court portions of the oral histories that should not be disclosed because they would "cause serious pain or embarassment to interviewees if they were disclosed."

Apparently the trial court ruled that many portions met that standard. We will never know what they said and why it would cause serious pain or embarassment.

3:57 PM  
Blogger Ningen said...

Page 15 of 22 of the opinion is where that was said.

Here's a paper on the case.

http://www.citylaw.org/studentcomments/Published%20Version.doc

The 911 calls and dispatch calls were also protected from full disclosure. If there had been a real investigation I could perhaps see this, but since local, state and federal law enforcement have not done real criminal investigations, and the people need the information to do what the authorities have failed to do, the ruling is wrong.

There's no telling what has been covered up but we have every reason to suspect that statements inconsistent with the official story would be redacted for that reason.

4:03 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

Thanks very much, Ningen.

I'm sure you are right that they used that excuse to cover up incriminating evidence.

6:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ningen:

Thank you for posting these 2 url's. I have perused them, but did not read them through. (And I am not an attorney.)

First some general q's. Is there not another (higher/final) level of Appeal in NYS? If so, has this next appeal been filed?

And if all NYS appeals are turned down, can this go to Federal Court? Similarly, can the Federal FOIA be used in this instance, and off the bat?

If so, are you admitted to the Federal Bar (or however it is termed)? If you are, and this is something a federal court has jurisdiction over through the FOIA (or other reason), can you start an action yourself, as you are an attorney, to uncover the massive redactions Spooked cited?

Relatedly, after reading several of these 500 odd depositions, it is clear that what is redacted is NOT merely what goes against the OCT/NIST drivel. As Spooked cites, responders hearing and seeing explosions, and numerous other matters that the OCT says didn't happen, were NOT redacted.

Likewise such massive and continuous redactions of some responders' statements cannot be reasonably assumed to be because they had names of wives, or 911 callers, or the "private feelings" of responders, or similar hangouts. I have already posted at this site, that former CIA director Woolsey was inserted into this after these statements were taken, and before the court cases began, as I recall.

Finally the ruling by the Appeals Court was a Split decision. The majority decision, to me, was as specious, as disingenouous, as rotten, as anything that has come out of this regime since 1963.

The majority decision (correct me if I am wrong), in part, said that the NY Times did not prove how disclosure was in the public interests. And the minority decision noted that without first seeing the information, logic dictates that they could not cite what they were banned from seeing.

This, of course, was the whole point of such FOIA laws, that came about after the Kennedy and King Assassinations and Watergate; whereby the people, to a tiny extent, woke up and realized the nature of this regime, and wanted to have access to info the regime didn't want them to have.

In general, in each conspiracy, "unknowability" is always manufactured by the regime itself. One aspect of this has been to silence eyewitnesses. RE JFK, most eyewitnesses were killed, RE 9/11, we have this "ruling", and as I have released, responders stating that they have been ordered to shut up about what they saw (Woolsey?) due to the old standby "national security," now interlaced with "counter-terrorism" yada yada, under penalty of jail time, loss of pension, death benefits, etc.

Does anyone reasonably believe these redactions are about 9/11 callers' names, or responders' feelings, or some similar hangout?

Anonymous Physicist

7:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me make something even more clear, as to the likely real purpose behind this entire massive responder database and its subsequent redactions, and court rulings, and direct threats to the responders.

The PTB, of course, know full well what they did. I believe it was two things that brought this whole 500 odd responder database thing about. The PTB know that there were no plane hits, and that the WTC was demolished with (its own) nuclear weapons. The purpose of getting every single responder down there to go on record, was to

1. find out what each one knew
2. To silence indefinitley those who had knowledge/proof of certain crucial things. The things I cited above (no planes and nukes), and perhaps other matters I do not know about.

Again the ruse of "national security" and "counter-terrorism" along with threats of jail and loss of pension and death benefits is part of this cruel scenario of attempting to forever silence these brave eyewitnesses/responders.

Anonymous Physicist

7:49 PM  
Blogger Ningen said...

"(And I am not an attorney.)"

That's not necessary - just time. I just skimmed and think that page 15 addresses the reason.

I'll answer your questions with the usual disclaimer - this is not legal advice and I am not licensed in New York. These are just some basic principles that may not apply. Plus I don't have time to research.

"First some general q's. Is there not another (higher/final) level of Appeal in NYS? If so, has this next appeal been filed?"

New York is strange - the trial court is the Supreme Court, which has an appellate division for the first of appeal, and what most states call the Supreme Court is the Court of Appeal. (Law and Order - Du Du.) This is the final state decision, although it's possible the New York Times appealed the decision of the trial court, after the case was remanded, on what parts of the oral history would be redacted.

"And if all NYS appeals are turned down, can this go to Federal Court? Similarly, can the Federal FOIA be used in this instance, and off the bat?"

I guess it would go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court if there is a constitutional issue. I can't think of one offhand. FOIA applies to federal agencies - this case was under the state law analogue to FOIA which likely is similar though perhaps interpreted differently.

"If so, are you admitted to the Federal Bar (or however it is termed)? If you are, and this is something a federal court has jurisdiction over through the FOIA (or other reason), can you start an action yourself, as you are an attorney, to uncover the massive redactions Spooked cited?"

Even if there is a basis for federal jurisdiction, I would have to show standing - some harm to be redressed by the court. I would not have to be licensed anywhere if I was a plaintiff. Someone in New York might have a better chance at standing, though we are all affected. But standing is tough - interest as a citizen or taxpayer is usually not enough.

"Relatedly, after reading several of these 500 odd depositions, it is clear that what is redacted is NOT merely what goes against the OCT/NIST drivel. As Spooked cites, responders hearing and seeing explosions, and numerous other matters that the OCT says didn't happen, were NOT redacted."

So it's possible that we aren't missing much. There's no way to know.

"Likewise such massive and continuous redactions of some responders' statements cannot be reasonably assumed to be because they had names of wives, or 911 callers, or the "private feelings" of responders, or similar hangouts. I have already posted at this site, that former CIA director Woolsey was inserted into this after these statements were taken, and before the court cases began, as I recall."

Which suggests we could be missing something.

"Finally the ruling by the Appeals Court was a Split decision. The majority decision, to me, was as specious, as disingenouous, as rotten, as anything that has come out of this regime since 1963."

The court narrowly defined the public's interest in 911 calls as only being in knowing how good the emergency response was. That's wrong, of course, given that there has been no real criminal investigation. So yes, it stinks to high heaven.

"The majority decision (correct me if I am wrong), in part, said that the NY Times did not prove how disclosure was in the public interests. And the minority decision noted that without first seeing the information, logic dictates that they could not cite what they were banned from seeing."

I agree with the dissent -- most of the 9/11 calls were reports of crime scene facts and there has been no showing of deeply private statements like last wishes. What were people reporting? Why shouldn't that be a public record? The dissent cites cases of many state courts that 9/11 callers have no expectation of privacy when they call 9/11 and their calls are public records.

The dispatch calls are strange -- usually exemptions for intra-agency communications apply to deliberations.

"This, of course, was the whole point of such FOIA laws, that came about after the Kennedy and King Assassinations and Watergate; whereby the people, to a tiny extent, woke up and realized the nature of this regime, and wanted to have access to info the regime didn't want them to have."

Agreed.

*In general, in each conspiracy, "unknowability" is always manufactured by the regime itself. One aspect of this has been to silence eyewitnesses. RE JFK, most eyewitnesses were killed, RE 9/11, we have this "ruling", and as I have released, responders stating that they have been ordered to shut up about what they saw (Woolsey?) due to the old standby "national security," now interlaced with "counter-terrorism" yada yada, under penalty of jail time, loss of pension, death benefits, etc.*

Yes, and the problem is that the plaintiff here, the New York Times, has not shown itself to be interested in full disclosure.

"Does anyone reasonably believe these redactions are about 9/11 callers' names, or responders' feelings, or some similar hangout?"

I don't, but that's not the point. The point is that there should have been full disclosure and like so much surrounding 9/11, usual procedures have not been followed.

9:12 PM  
Blogger Ningen said...

Your surmise about the real purpose of the oral histories is logical.

9:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

may i suggest that you guys not dwell too hard on this redaction issue?
IMO it probably leads nowhere.
look at Rene Davila File No: 9110075 testimony; most of the redactions appear to be names of individuals and things that were possibly said to individuals.

look; if this simple photo, out of the many many photos of 9/11, not to mention the many many testimonies etc, is not enough to rebut the official fairytale then certainly an obscure/uncertain issue such as these redactions can only be a waste of time/energy...perhaps by design.
^ha.

11:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for your legal expertise.

If I understand this correctly, one of these 500 responders would him/herself have perhaps the best legal "standing" to demand full disclosure, of at least his/her own deposition. He/she would perhaps use different legal bases, so the NY Times rulings (perhaps designed to fail, if you know what I mean?) will not have precedence.

So let's say we have a NY Firefighter who files a FOIL action for complete disclosure of his own statement. Is he not trapped in a Catch 22? Let's say he is the Holy Grail. He was looking right at the "plane hit" facade and saw explosion without any plane, or saw an Air Force jet flyby that did not impact. Later, let's say he's in one of the WTC buildings and sees a blinding flash, and feels heat on his skin and then notes that he and others near him have burnt, hanging skin even though he and they were not in a fire, someone further away that he saw walking around seconds ago is now a charred remnant. He describes these things in great detail.

He later finds that his deposition is missing 10 pages when "released".

Years later he or others who were near him, have teeth falling out and he (or they) have rare blood cancers. He has learnt about radiation in the interregnum, and wants to tell the world.

But the Catch 22 is that he knows he was forced to sign a non-disclosure statement related to everything in his deposition. It cited "national security" and "counter-terrorism" while providing severe penalties of jail time and lose of benefits including his wife losing death benefits if he violates his "oath."

Hell, with the newest "laws" recently passed, they could then inform him that since he violated the "law", he is now considered to be a terrorist himself! If he saw all those things and has done some reading and put it all together, he would know just who and what he is up against, and that legal and financial reprisals are not the only things he has to worry about.

So between the Catch 22's, and worse, we can see why it may be unlikely that we will see any responders--who have good standing in NY--filing FOIL cases. We may have to wait (if any of us are still here) for such a person and his benficiaries to all be deceased, before any statement from such a fireman may become public. Of course, by then the MSM, as now, will be totally controlled, and will not publish his death-bed affidavit, and the net may be history.

So I guess we will not likely see any of these redactions removed in our lifetimes.

Of course, the PTB did not get non-disclosure signings from people like Basement Engineer Mike Pecoraro who said he saw a 50 ton steel press had disappeared and a 300 pound steel/concrete door shriveled up like aluminum foil as I noted here:

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/08/by-anonymous-physicist-sgt.html

So while it would have been nice to have intrepid firemen's complete, non-redacted statements, we will have to make due with all the evidence (even if circumstantial) and testimony regarding hanging skin, teeth falling out, hundreds of very rare [but common from radiation exposure] cancers, nearly 2000 people who apparently were vaporized (along with the chairs they were sitting on, and the concrete floor they were on, as well), and all the photos and eyewitness testimony of high temperatures, and molten metal months afterwards; all telling us what indeed occurred.

A.P.

11:40 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

This article that surveys the witneeses to explosions is quite good and thorough:

Here.

7:35 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

The article is here.


Scroll down to 118 Witnesses.

7:37 AM  
Blogger Dan Plesse said...

Here is the lawyers talking about the above..

Demand Access to 9/11 Recordings 9/11 Oral Histories
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKzPuqoZVBM

3:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger