Friday, 2 May 2008

Steven Jones et al Publish Paper in The Open Civil Engineering Journal

Read the paper from Steven Jones blog linked below.

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

On the question of NIST's refusal to investigate or even consider the possibility that World Trade Centre building 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition, the paper mentions the following exchange (below), which says something about NIST's attitude towards doing tests for the use of explosives. Remember that NIST - whose investigation props up the official governmental 9/11 story - said they found no evidence for the use of explosives whilst also admitting that they had done no tests for them. While NIST have not yet been able to provide any explanation as to why WTC 7 collapsed they continue to ignore and dismiss this possibility.

Anyone who thinks it's ludicrous that WTC 7 could have been brought down by controlled demolition have to realise that NIST, which is a government funded agency, did not scientifically investigate the possibility that it was. There are now many highly credible controlled demolition and architectural experts who have shown, I think conclusively, that WTC 7's collapse has every hallmark of a typical controlled demolition. The evidence is very clear and straight forward. Buildings tend not to spontaneously disintigrate like this of their own accord. A partial collapse is one thing. It is quite another when a building suddenly collapses and the structure below offers the same resistence as air.
The exchange below is between investigative reporter Jennifer Abel and NIST spokesperson (Michael?) Neuman.
Abel: "...what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?”

Neuman: "Right, because there was no evidence of that."

Abel: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?

Neuman: "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time...”

No comments: