You can do what you want

But several very credible, well-known 9/11 scientists and family members are about to file a petition to NIST.

Show "911blogger hasn't covered extant data quality challenges to NIST" by Constitutionalist

Oh yes. I'm sure NIST will

Oh yes. I'm sure NIST will take seriously the suggestion that space beams brought down the towers after they were hit (or not hit?) by holographic airplanes.

These "credible scientists" you are referring to are not credible in the slightest, and have done exactly what they planned to do which is muddy the waters with enough B.S. that a real request for correction will receive less attention from the public. The next step of course is for them to take their frivolous correction requests to court and have a federal judge laugh them out of his courtoom, thereby creating damning legal precedent which the real legal effort will have to battle to overcome.

I would just like to be there for the first hearing on the space beam/hologram correction requests:

Judge: Counsel, you think WHAT brought down the World Trade Center Towers?

Leaphart (straightfaced): Your Honor, the Twin Towers were destroyed with a beam weapon fired from outer space after the Towers were hit with holographic airplanes.

Judge: Case Dismissed. Counsel is advised to check into a well-staffed mental hospital. Now, get the F$$K out of my courtroom.

Which will then be followed by a well researched and detailed legal opinion issued by the Judge that will serve as persuasive (although hopefully not binding) legal precedent against the real legal effort that comes afterward.

Yes, things seem to be going pretty well for the disinfo/disruption crowd on the legal side, but methinks they have underestimated their opponents. I do give them credit for their tenacity, but I have confidence that the truth will ultimately prevail.

@ Constitutionalist

Frauds? You mean like these...

Jim Fetzer & Prof Judy Wood on RBN Live - WTC Destruction 11 Nov 2006 (13.5 MB)
Right Click & Choose "SAVE AS" To Download

Forward to 35:35 to listen to a real "credible" scientist explain how the towers were destroyed...lol

Also don't miss Judy's "credible" analysis @ 6:15

(dz, could you please mirror this broadcast before it disappears down the memory hole like the original links to it from RBN disappeared... or should I say "poofed"?)

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

NIST is too modest

Based on the review it has conducted, NIST believes that it does not currently produce or sponsor the distribution of influential scientific information (including highly influential scientific assessments) within the definitions promulgated by OMB.


Or they want to limit challenges to their data.

Thank you for information, Adam. It looks like you were ahead of everyone else in considering this Information Quality Act procedure.

NIST can state that they

NIST can state that they believe they do not sponsor influential scientific information or highly influential scientific information until they are blue in the face. Whether and impartial trier of fact legally determines that NIST does not sponsor influential scientific information is an entirely different question, and a more relevant one.

agency makes that determination first

and I think it effects procedural remedies. So it could have to decided by a court. Even if the court defers to the agency, one hopes that the NIST WTC reports would be considered influential scientific information by any definition.


Double post, and nothing else to say.

I was checking through my

I was checking through my email folders using a NIST search, and apparently I sent NIST (wtc@nist.gov) an email as early back as April 18th, 2006 - to which I received no reply.

Also of interest, when I initally received my reply back from NIST about how to formally request an error correction, I forwarded the info to all of the hyperlinked emails on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website.

I received a bizarre email from "Joseph Keith" , where he stated:

"Hello, Adam,
It's sure great to hear from someone young and with your great interest in the great 911 hoax, especially another engineer like me, although I'm retired. My interest in 911 takes a different path than most others. Here's why: On the morning of 9/11/01, when I finished my newspaper, I turned on the TV. The first tower was already smoking, but soon the alleged 2nd airliner came into view and I watched it enter the tower like a hot knife cutting through butter. As the talking heads described the alleged live event as a definite terrorist attack, I thought to myself that the video was definitely faked. Then, getting control of my senses, I thought - "This must be a simulation as the cameras were all facing the other tower's damaged face and were not available to film this event. Then, after about a week of my friends and neighbors convincing me that The Establishment had officially claimed this video to be the real event, I was definitely and absolutely convinced that this horrendous crime was a US Government inside job. Here was all the evidence one needs to hang the obvious perpetrators. This video would obviously be used in any court in the World to declare as Judicial Notice that 'Airliners don't meld into structural steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them'. (See WTC tower construction details here: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2.htm ). The proof of guilt can be easily demonstrated by viewing any DVD video of the crash, and when the airliner comes into view, hit the pause button on your remote and then hit the single step button until the airliner is completely absorbed into the tower. Then apply Newton's laws of motion to what you see and notice there is no deceleration of the airliner and no reactions seen as the airliner hits various points of resistance in the tower. Case closed!!! Newton's laws can only be violated by ' acts of God'.
Here is another very curious reaction of a man of definite note and credibility, Robert Fisk, the London Times Middle East correspondent.:

Chapter 21. Why, Page 837 -
....The United passenger jet slid into the side of the south tower again and again, as if some scientific achievement was being demonstrated, as if this airliner was supposed to knife so effortlessly into the thin skin of the tower. And then there was the golden spray of fire. CNN put the edited sequences together so that the United plane crashed into the building while its burning fuel splashed out the other side, the second tape spliced in a millisecond after the collision. Hollywood could not compete with this----because this was Hollywood. The disaster movie of September 11th would never be made. It has already been made. Al-Qaeda productions got there first. This was "shock and awe" before America invented the expression for its invasion of Iraq.
Then in the next paragraph .....Still the United plane went on sliding into the tower, obsessively, obscenely, its passage so well known that one looked elsewhere on the screen. Did the tower shake, just a little, with the impact?

So, Mr. Fisk is telling us that the film is fake! Why else would he think that CNN would edit out a millisecond of the film? Or, is he hinting that we should investigate this? He also mentions the thin skin of the tower. Well, the tower is anything but thin skinned. The exterior consists of 256 structural steel 14 inch box beams, 59 on each side, tied together by 52 inch structural steel spandrel plates which surround the towers and were tied to the interior core by structural steel beams and structural steel flooring pans filled with 5 inches of concrete at each floor level. Personally, I think Mr. Fisk is trying to protect his publishing rights while hinting at the heresy.
Here is another article advocating the 'no plane theory' (NPD) by another member of SPINE, Morgan Reynolds, that you should definitely read: http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes .
If you have any question, please feel free to contact me again.
Joseph M. Keith ( a member of S.P.I.N.E.)
Tustin, CA"

I responded back to him with this:

"Where did you graduate from college? And with what specific degree?

And why are you focusing on something that can not be proven? Analysis of the steel beams - by Dr. Steven Jones - will provide the most definitive evidence that the towers were taken down by controlled demolition.

While I appreciate your thoughts - I am very apt to believe that your no plane theory is one of the ideas that most 9/11 truth people warn readers about. By diluting what the main issues should be, it makes it harder for people to take the collapse of WTC 7 and controlled demolition evidence seriously.

No offense, but I think you should re-think your main arguments concerning the events of 9/11.


Then he wrote back with this:

"Hello, Adam,
I graduated from California State College at Los Angeles, with a BS in Engineering, Electrical. When I graduated it was called Los Angeles State College. Would you like a scan of my degree?
Dr. Jones analysis of the steel beams is an absolute obvious fact, but as evidence it is a dead item. Any Zionist controlled investigation will claim tampering with the evidence. Or, do you believe NIST was honest? I'm un-diluting the 911 issues, I'm adding more proof to the evidence!!!
I agree with your analysis of WTC evidence supplied by Steven Jones. However, I disagree with your analysis of me. I believe the 'no plane theory' is the only thing you can prove. You prove it with the evidence the Government provides, the videos. The Government is stuck with them. The only defense they could possibly have is to try and prove somebody else faked the videos. This would be seen as an obvious lie, and open up an inevitable investigation of the Media. Wow!, what a circus that would be. That is why the NPT is treated like a heresy. While the internal demolition of the 3 WTC towers is obvious, it can never be absolutely proven. It can always be said that the owners sabotaged them. There are an infinite number of lies that can be told to blame the collapses on.
There is also the matter of the NORAD/Airforce stand down. The stand down is impossible!! It would take thousands of Air Force personnel to implement it, and enforce the quintessential anti-conspiracy logic that, in any conspiracy that large, someone would always come forward. Using the NPT, there would be no airliner hijacking, only a few reports of hijackings and NORAD would be unable to locate any non-existing hijacked airliners. The only necessary members of the conspiracy would be minimal at most; a few pseudo eye witness at the crash scene, and a team of MOSSAD demolition experts to pre-set up the towers with the owners permission. The eye witnesses that did claim they saw airliners hit the towers can easily be dismissed, as they are noted by professional crime investigators as the most unreliable sources of evidence. See: http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/2003Nature.pdf .
What really confuses me is that most of the 911 truth seekers readily admit that no hijacked airliners were involved in the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crashes, but swear on their mother's honor that they were involved at the WTC when no airliner wreckage was found there either, unless they have a warehouse full of DVDs to sell. For instance, attached to this email is a photo taken of a crash cavity after the smoke cleared at the WTC. Where is the airliner wreckage???? HUUUUUH?
Now, let me ask you a question, as one engineer to another? Have you performed the test I suggested. Did you play a DVD of the 2nd crash and study it as I suggested. If you haven't, you have disgraced yourself by criticizing me and suggesting or implying that I am some kind of idiot or low lifer. All I did was suggest to you that I had seen all the evidence to absolutely prove the Government's compliance in the dastardly act and in this email I am stating that I unequivocally agree with your charges of the Government's complicity in the act of purposely internally demolishing the WTC buildings. That is also obvious!
One of the things I learned in college English 101, is that in any intelligent discussion, when you disagree you seek evidence from the possible adversary. When he supplies it, you either investigate the evidence or you politely state that you are either disinterested or unqualified to discuss the subject. I don't believe you read Morgan Reynolds' article which I exposed you to! And, if you have an Engineering Degree, I know you didn't investigate by playing a WTC crash DVD, because I believe that anyone with the IQ of a piss ant couldn't help but see that the 2nd airliner crash into the WTC was a fake!!! Here's a site to play around with: http://www.webfairy.org/ . That is, if you're interested.
Lastly, if I don't hear a response from you, I will assume that you admit to having met someone (me) who absolutely has the facts and ability to intelligently out-argue you.
Regards, and don't take the piss ant reference too personal as I realize that it has been quite effective in the past,
Joseph M. Keith
Tustin, CA

PS: A good piece of advice from an old man: Never criticize someone before studying the provided facts! And, never state as facts things you can't back up with facts or a good argument."

Surprisingly, I was also referred to Kevin Barrett on July 1st, 2006, by "Kee Dewdney" , one of the Scholars, in a cc:ed email reply, where she wrote:

"Dear Kevin,

This seems to be up your alley. Want to respond?

All the best


but there was no follow-up by Dr. Barrett.

And then on August 30th, 2006, I forwarded the error correction to Morgan Reynolds, after I volunteered it in a previous email. He stated in that reply:

"Sure, send me that NIST instruction. Glad you are processing inputs with an active mind on SJ's work.
Morgan Reynolds"

The end of the story.

What do you think of this, Adam?

Then apply Newton's laws of motion to what you see and notice there is no deceleration of the airliner and no reactions seen as the airliner hits various points of resistance in the tower.

NIST says the plane did not slow at all entering the South Tower, treating as authentic the Scott Myers video, which NIST also used to measure the oscillation of the tower after the impact. That does not seem possible - I would like to hear your opinion as an engineering grad.

It's too bad Keith had to go on about Zionists and the Mossad, but I think he fairly asked your opinion as an engineer, not an activist.