In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:19:53 -0400:
>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.
It isn't necessary for the scientists to lie. Just tell them to find "the
scientific explanation" for the collapse of the building (as if it weren't
already known), and they will happily trot off and create lots of lovely models
to explain it. IOW they inadvertently work within the framework that they are
given. They are scientists, not politicians, and will naturally concentrate on
the physical rather than the human aspects. For them, the given facts are that
there was a fire, and the building came down, then they are told to "explain"
When they have created their lovely little fantasy, it is trotted out by the
leadership, as the definitive reason.
So this doesn't have to be a massive conspiracy, just a matter of
compartmentalizing information.


Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to