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.