Edmund Storms wrote:

The whole conspiracy approach is based on a profound distrust of this government. While they could not go so far as to plant explosives, how far would they go to gain an advantage by such an event? Would they make sure the planes were not stopped?

That is at least plausible. It would be a small conspiracy with only a few people involved. If you want NIST to lie about an engineering analysis, you would have to enlist thousands of experts world-wide to go along.

This administration does engage in low-level, incompetent conspiracies which are easily revealed. Most of the "evidence" for the WMD evaporated before the invasion. After the invasion, the administration planted letter in one of Saddam Hussein's offices. This single letter said that Hussein did have a connection to Al Qaeda and they did buy yellowcake. Needless to say, it was soon revealed as a fake. See R. Suskind, "The Way of the World." (Previous U.S. administrations have engaged in similar hanky-panky, although seldom with as much chutzpah.

 Such questions were not explored by NIST.

That would be a job for the FBI, not NIST.

NIST investigates fires and catastrophes. When my father was there, I used to go out and visit the labs where they burned down buildings and crushed reinforced concrete. Anyone who thinks he can second-guess them is wrong. It is like Arata's second-guessing Bockris or Fleischmann about electrochemistry. They are leading experts on materials and construction failure. But as I said, there are many other experts worldwide, and if NIST published a flawed analysis of the worst and most famous structural failure in history, these other experts would come down on them like a ton of bricks.

- Jed

Reply via email to