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

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.
Regards,
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.

peace,
adam"

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

Kee"

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.