Support 911Blogger


NEW ARTICLE ON THE DOC OIG COMPLAINT

The Scientists For 911 Truth have posted a new article on the complaint served by Dr. William Pepper on Todd Zinser, Inspector General of the Department of Commerce.

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/

Informative, succinct article

regarding the legal challenge versus NIST - to get NIST to confront the data!

Speaking of confronting the data, the Scientists for 911 Truth website also recently noted:

QUOTE: There are two new items in the Recent Articles and Letters section on this page: "Science, Activism, and the Pentagon Debate" by Frank Legge, and a "Letter to Massimo Mazzucco" by David Chandler, Frank Legge, and John D. Wyndham. The Papers section has been augmented with recent papers on the Pentagon.

Prima Facie Counts

Great to see scientists for 911 truth recognising the issue of omissions and errors in the NIST WTC7 report. People are slowly coming round to the fact that this is prima facie evidence that has the potential to put the official story re 911 into real trouble.
Reading the article and letter I cannot help but reflect on the comparison between the two situations (WTC7 Vs Pentagon).
http://scientistsfor911truth.net/docs/Legge_Pentagon_Letter.pdf and
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Mazzucco_letter_Oct2013.pdf this.... are fairly hefty blows to land on the official 911 fiction. But this.......
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf
has the potential to break down the door and put our movement in a position where we have room to swing punches.
That anything hit the pentagon should be enough for intelligent people to question the events of 911. But to see in front of you in black and white from NIST themselves a trail of errors and omissions laid bare, that all happen to make their story look just a little more credible is an issue that can gain real purchase on the general public and remove the remaining thin veneer of credibility that NIST retain in the minds of some.

Fantastic

But the only problem is the lack of a deadline for NIST to respond in some way. It is not unfair to assume that NIST is likely to stall responses and then try to bury this thing with partial non-responses over years and years. I hope NIST will get the message that the same old #### is not going to fly anymore, and that it will have to agree to a meeting with some of your representatives this summer to discuss the next steps.

I really and truly wish you good luck, this is the best effort I have seen since Harrit´s paper in 2009.