While I appreciate the OD printing my letter regarding the NIST Report I am upset that you left out my observation that the report was fraudulent. The scientists at NIST are not idiots, they know they should address all the data. To call their report fraudulent is not a stretch and was the whole point of the letter. 3,000 people died that day and millions more will, it's not time to mince words.
I thought it was an opinion page. If someone disagrees, let them respond.
Here's the letter in today's Utica Observer-Dispatch written by Herb. Fearing that they might offend Charlatan-Americans, they omitted only one word from his original, which isn't bad for them. If you would, mentally tack "and fraudulent" onto the end of the essay for the full experience.
Government report on towers inadequate
A 10,000-page, $20 million National Institute of Standards and Technology report purports to be the definitive government explanation for the collapses of the Twin Towers on 9/11. In truth, it can best be described as a pre-collapse theory.
The NIST report "does not actually include the structural behavior of the Tower(s) after conditions for collapse initiation were reached." This is a startling admission since most of the evidence for a controlled demolition or pre-positioned explosives occurs after collapse initiation.
Further, collapse initiation was obtained via computer simulations which, despite calls from structural engineers, NIST refuses to make public. We have no idea how closely NIST's input data correlates to the conditions faced by the Towers.
It doesn't require any special technical background to see the NIST report is unscientific.
HERBERT SMITH
Utica
1 comment:
Screw your goddamn spamming! If you have a pertinent comment on the material presented, by all means post it. We're already familiar with, and use, Firefox. Get lost!
Post a Comment