NIST Violated Data Quality Act

In this interesting article, Ed Haas argues that NIST violated federal law by failing to demonstrate quality, utility, objectivity, and integrity in its analysis of why World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 collapsed.

Why did the U.S. government deem it appropriate to exclude the NIST reports from being used as evidence in lawsuits and legal actions? There is only one plausible explanation. The U.S. government knows that the NIST findings could not withstand the rigors of cross-examination. The fact that approximately 150 plaintiffs that refused the government’s 9/11 Victims Fund are still waiting for their day in court nearly five years after 9/11 validates my premise that the government is allergic to any civilian force that desires to put the government’s account of 9/11 to the test of a jury trial.

If the NIST scientists responsible for the 'probable collapse sequence of WTC-1 and WTC-2' had to take the stand in a civil court proceeding, it would quickly be discovered by the world that NIST failed to perform and disseminate its research regarding the collapse of the twin towers in accordance with its own Data Quality Act guidelines. Even a rookie attorney fresh out of law school would be able to quickly dissect and dismiss as irrelevant, the NIST conclusions. It is precisely what NIST did not consider in its research that makes its published conclusions suspect. NIST simply refused to consider and vigorously pursue a second working hypothesis; that the twin towers collapsed as the result of controlled demolition."

Any lawyers want to sue NIST for violating the Data Quality Act?

FrankV... you're being

Very good article by Ed

Very good article by Ed Haas. I really enjoyed his previous article interviewing the NIST scientist about WTC 7.

Alex Jones Interviews Ray

hahaha sheer

DRG is on my site...

DRG is on my site... AAAAHHHH!!!

AAaagh! I just got back in,

AAaagh! I just got back in, and also lost my cookie to your site. AAagh!! Hey if I don't chat at you, y'all have a GREAT and productive time in Chicago!

What about the idea that

What about the idea that NIST explicitly says nothing it says can be used in court because they want to protect against having it used in liability cases against the Port Authority and the builders?

Why would they want to do

Why would they want to do that? Isn't their job to ensure that standards are upheld?

Why they would want to do

Why they would want to do something and what their job is supposed to be are two different things.

Someone would want them to do that, ultimately, as a tacit political order to protect certain interests, like the PA and its contractors.

Keep in mind, the Victims Compensation Fund requirement that applicants forego litigation against US entities was not sold (explicitly or behind the scenes) as a need of the 9/11 cover-up, but of the economy which would be devastated if the airlines and WTC builders were to go down.

Even given the demolition hypothesis, this would be a way of applying a more traditional and "acceptable," less suspicious motivation for their, yes, bizarre insistence that their own supposedly authoritative work at taxpayer expense cannot be used in support of legal filings.