KnightersRevenge said:
. No-one to my knowledge has posted anything that can be found in the pages of any scientific journals or credible national newspapers that backs up their case. You have said there is peer-reviewed literature, where is it?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/Brookman-Vol-33-Oct2012.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Falsifiability.pdf
For those who don't want to read the entire text -
Many of these criticisms of the NIST report could fairly be dismissed if subsequent reviews had
provided explanations of apparent contradictions and thus had produced a testable hypothesis that
coincided with the real-world data. This has not occurred. Despite possession of all the
resources available in the $20M study, NIST adheres to an explanation for the collapses which is
basically circular and fails at critical points. It is unable to produce forensic evidence for the
required high temperatures; the test results contradict its claims; it is internally inconsistent; it
ignores many lines of contrary evidence; and it makes no attempt to search for an alternative
explanation.
NIST has resisted attempts to have the report corrected, thus publicly implying that the HICT
does not need revision. It is therefore clear that further investigation is urgently required and that
it must be independent of the bodies involved in the previous studies.
Even though NIST’s explanation appears to be either false or useless in explaining the events of
September 11, 2001, government complicity does not necessarily follow, but if official
explanations fail to cohere with the known evidence, the possibility of government complicity
must at least be explored. This is dangerous theoretical territory because it requires us to come to
terms with distressing possibilities.
The NIST report was produced by skilled scientists and technicians, hence it seems likely that
many of them would have themselves generated the arguments presented here. The fact that they
did not utilize such arguments implies either that some political pressure was put upon them to
underplay the significance of particular findings or that, as an agency of the Department of
Commerce, they simply had no say in the content of the report. Any attempt to explain the
inconsistencies and shortcomings within the report as simultaneous incompetence by hundreds of
scientific professionals is patently implausible.
Many Americans appeal to the admittedly complicated logistics of a planned operation to destroy
the towers with explosives as a means to avoid considering the evidence altogether. Arguments
from logistical complexity, however, do not serve to reconcile the evidence with official theory.
Indeed, these arguments offer no explanation of the collapses whatsoever. For many they serve
merely as psychological defense mechanisms, the essential purpose of which is to protect the
individual from having to confront the relevant evidence from the outset. Although government
complicity does not necessarily follow from the observations listed here, a detached evaluation of
the evidence simply cannot rule it out.
