In the first paragraph on p. 4 of a letter from NIST to Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and some 9/11 family members, NIST says the following:
"Your letter contends that NIST's report violates the Information Quality Standard of 'utility.' NIST believes that the report has utility. In fact, the codes and standards bodies are already taking actions to improve building and fire codes and standards based on the findings of the WTC Investigation. As we mentioned previously, we are unable to provide an explanation-of the total collapse."
So the 9/11 conventional wisdom, the "man on the street" would tell you that the twin towers fell because of fire caused by being hit by planes full of jet fuel. However, NIST--the National Institute of Standards and Technology, part of the Department of Commerce--will not say that. NIST says they don't know why the builidings collapsed.
9/11: What we thought we "knew"
So another federal agency screws up the official 9/11 myth. Let's see where that leaves us:
1. Fire and jet crashes did not cause fall of Twin Towers (NIST)
2. Osama bin Laden did not "commit" 9/11 (FBI)
3. All high-altitude cell-phone calls on 9/11 were impossible (FBI)
4. Barbara Olson never reached Ted Olson on the phone (FBI)
Very interesting, yes?
1 comment:
Hi Clinton,
I read thru the letter and have a few comments.
1. Is there a copy of the letter of correction they are referring to available to read?
2. The paragraph just before the one you cite states"In the case of the WTC Towers, NIST has established that the failures initiated in the floors affected by the aircraft impact damage and ensuing fires resulted in the collapses of the towers. This conclusion is supported by large body of visual evidence collected by NIST."
3. Two paragraphs after the one you cite they talk about the theory of explosives. They basically cite that after all the interviews they could not find anything to suggest that there were explosives.
4. Even though they state that they cannot explain the total collapse in one paragraph, they state in the end that they are sticking to their original assertions. I think what they mean by "unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" is that they could not satisfy the letter writers request for additional data and not that they did not have a valid explanation.
5. This letter is hard to read (even for an engineer)and I find a few grammatical mistakes in it as well. Just makes me a little curious as to the authenticity of it. However I have no evidence to support that assertion. Just an observation on my part.
6. With regard to the cell phones: Although I use cell modems in my electrical designs, I don't know about their ability then or now to perform at high altitude. Has this been tested in real life?
Anyway, just thought I would put my two cents in...
LarryG
Post a Comment