http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/nist-we-are-unable-to-provide-full.html

On April 11th, 2007, family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice filed a petition with NIST demanding that it correct its erroneous methods and findings.

On September 27th, NIST finally replied.

While the reply is mainly bogus, and the filers of the petition intend to appeal the decision of NIST not to correct the many fatal errors in its reports, attorney James Gourley (who drafted the petition) has pointed out one interesting statement. Specifically, NIST says in its reply:

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

U.S. Code

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2382

§ 2382. Misprision of treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

Senator: WTC7's Omission from 9/11 Report is 'Black Helicopter Stuff'
Coleman Refuses New Probe; "I don't think there's a new investigation to 9/11 that's really called for"

JonesReport.com | October 12, 2007

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/former-nist-employee-blows-whistle.html

A former NIST employee made the following statements regarding NIST's politicization and corruption (these emails were forwarded to me by a prominent 9/11 truth activist, I simply edited them to remove names so as to protect the anonymity of the whistleblower):

Communication dated October 1, 2007:

Found this at ICH, I thought it was to good to be missing from 911-blogger ..
Original article HERE :
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18344.htm

Science in the Bush: When Politics Displaces Physics

By Dr. Crockett Grabbe and Lenny Charles

09/08/07 "ICH" -- -- The majority of us accept as fact that the current administration manipulates science for political ends. Few were surprised to hear experts from industry challenge overwhelming evidence of man-made climate change. Frustration within the scientific community had grown so much that by Dec. 2006 more than 10,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science, had signed a statement accusing the Bush administration of "distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends".

Scientific integrity within the administration has often not been rewarded. Recently fired US surgeon general Richard Carmona said after leaving, "In public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science, or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds."

Hi all,

I checked out JREF for the first time in awhile today, and finally their own Ryan Mackey has offered an answer to David Ray Griffin's latest book - at least the NIST chapter. It's an MS Word document totaling 198 pages.

I've read the first several pages where he gives a general overview. I don't have the time or energy to get into it in depth tonight (or for that matter this whole weekend). I would like to read it all, but perhaps some of you can beat me to it. I am open to all sides of an argument and this would indeed be the first lengthy critique to any aspect of Griffin's book. That being said, much of what I've read so far isn't impressive; he basically says, (in a long-winded way designed to fill up space), that "YOU are claiming controlled demolition, so the burden of proof is on YOU, not on NIST."

Anyone out there want to help me out? I'm interested in what people think are the paper's strong points and flaws. I think it's important that Truthers and Debunkers put their strongest stuff out in the open to be examined objectively.

Dr. Frank Legge has published an excellent article “Conspiracy Theories, Myths, Skepticism, and 9/11: their Impact on Democracy” in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, today. It passed peer review prior to publication.

It begins thus: “Abstract: A discussion of conspiracy theories, myths and skepticism is presented. The importance of skepticism in a society in which myths may be deliberately created by authorities to manipulate the public is stressed. A range of methods of avoiding acceptance of myths, including application of the scientific method, is demonstrated using the events of 9/11. A clear understanding of events, unclouded by myths, is essential for the proper functioning of a democracy.

Key words: conspiracy, myth, skepticism, 9/11, democracy, propaganda, thermite, trans fats, cholesterol, PNAC, NIST, FEMA, EPA, Orwell

Frank Legge
PhD (Chem)

digg_url = 'http://digg.com/politics/Former_Chief_of_NIST_s_Fire_Science_Division_Calls_for_Independent_Review_o';

----NETSCAPE ----

http://news.netscape.com/story/2007/08/21/former-chief-of-nists-fire-science-division-calls-for-independent-review-of-wtc-investigation

Alan Miller of Patriots Question 9/11 has this important story over at Op Ed News.

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

(this is just a draft -zbh)

First, the basics:

World Trade Building Seven was a 47 storey steel-framed highrise building that made up part of the New York skyline until September 11, 2001. In fact, on that terrible day, no passenger jet struck building 7. To be fair, WTC 7 was a good 350 feet from the North Tower, the closest of the Twin Towers. Nestled between the North Tower and building 7 were WTC 5 and 6. These were not tall buildings, probably no more than 30 storeys combined. They were pounded with falling debris from the destruction of the Twin Towers, and yet, at the end of the day, these two buildings, part of a circle of seven standing buildings surrounding the compact debris pile of WTC 7, proved to be stronger than the building that housed NY's Office of Emergency Management, the NY CIA station's offices, the Secret Services NY offices, the Securities and Exchange Commissions offices, and so on.

World Trade Building 7 fell to the earth at around 5:20 PM on 9/11. The characteristic failure of the buildings structural supports was fairly unusual; I will list some of them:

1. The Building 'Collapsed' Suddenly:

In this short documentary-style video, I outline the mathematics and science of WTC7 as it relates to its uniform 6.5 second collapse at 5:20 pm on the evening of September 11th. I also briefly touch upon the government analyses conducted by FEMA and NIST, and I compare the collapse to known controlled demolitions and similar steel structures with fire and/or structural damage. Additional info that the viewer may find applicable is that more than half of the diesel fuel was recovered by the two largest underground storage tanks post-collapse (documented by FEMA), and that fires on the north, west, and east sides of the building did not appear to be out of control. In the intro to the vid, the BBC field reporter mysteriously digitizes out of the conversation minutes before WTC7's collapse, after having prematurely reported its collapse 20 minutes before it occured (with the building standing behind the field reporter in plain sight). Also interesting to note, if the hypothesis of NIST is true, then controlled demolition crews only have to weaken one core column in a skyscraper to perfectly implode it.

This video was made by Steve Spak of the FDNY. It contains close-up shots of WTC7's infamous corner along with shots of WTC1&2's sliced core columns.
For background see:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10295
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8788
http://www.911blogger.com/node/7471

http://www.archive.org/details/Steve_Spak_Day_Of_Disaster
Direct link to .iso image:
ftp://ia350625.us.archive.org/3/items/Steve_Spak_Day_Of_Disaster/Steve_Spak_Day_Of_Disaster.iso

PS: lots of interesting things in the archive.org footage -> http://911blogger.com/node/10284

The following message was sent to Michael Newman, spokesperson for NIST’s WTC investigation, on June 19th.

Dear Mr. Newman,

I've been asked to identify a defender of the official story of 9/11/01, for a possible debate or discussion on the Thom Hartmann radio show.

Would anyone from NIST be interested in joining me for this debate? If so, please respond to me, and David Pool (copied), the producer of Thom's show.

Thanks.
Kevin Ryan

To date there has been no response to this invitation, from Mr. Newman or anyone else at NIST. Having waited nearly three years to hear back from NIST’s Frank Gayle, I can say that this is no surprise.

But here is a new paper covering one of the issues that might have been discussed in such a debate, that is, if NIST scientists actually did have the integrity to stand up for their work.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf

At 5:20 p.m. on the evening of September 11th, 2001, the Salomon Brothers Building, also known as 7 World Trade Center (WTC7), the northernmost building on the World Trade Center complex, uniformly collapsed in 6.5 seconds. It produced a rubble pile with a radius similar its original dimensions and approximately seven stories tall [1].

This is a simple, single-issue, undebunkable flyer i've been working on for a while now.

The WTC7 structural steel from FEMA 403, Appendix C hasn't been seen since 2002.
and this is AFTER the 'swiss cheese' appearance of it led the NY Times reporters to
call it "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation".

So i made a 'MISSING' flyer, similar to a missing person flyer but all about the steel.

I've contacted WPI, NIST, ARA, the NY Times, etc. and none of them seem to care.

I've contacted most of the Truthers whom i respect and none of THEM seem to care either.
(w/ the rare and gratifying exception of Richard Gage @ ae911truth.org)

I even contacted 911blogger.com, and got the same response that i got from NIST and
the Times. that is to say, none.

So after years on the sidelines i've gotten a 911blogger account to see if i can put it up myself.

Missing Steel

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 29, 2007

CONTACT: Michael E. Newman
(301) 975-3025
michael.newman@nist.gov

A team of scientists and engineers at the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that is investigating the collapse of New York City's World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) building expects to release its draft report for public comment by the end of the year. WTC 7 was a 47-story office building adjacent to the WTC towers (WTC 1 and 2) that collapsed following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. WTC 7 collapsed later that afternoon.

NIST's investigation of WTC 7 includes an extremely complex analysis that incorporates detailed information about the building's structure and construction, as well as data about fires, damage sustained from falling WTC 1 debris and other technical factors to determine its probable collapse sequence.

A collaboration of group 9/11 family members and researchers challenging the official reports of the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11/01 has filed a Request for Correction (RFC) with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This RFC is published in the June, 2007, volume of the Journal of 9/11 Studies: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/RFCtoNISTbyMcIlvaineDoyleJonesRyanGageSTJ.pdf

The Request asserts that the NIST Final Report violates information quality standards, draws a conclusion that is inconsistent with its own computer simulations and physical tests and available evidence contrary to it. The Request also says that if this bias is corrected, the NIST simulation clearly indicates that the Towers should not have completely collapsed with such rapidity due to plane damage and fire. The obvious alternative, which the group says should be seriously studied by NIST, is explosive demolition.