Debunking the Debunkers: A Message to the 9/11 Grand Jury - ATTENTION POTENTIAL 9/11 GRAND JURY MEMBERS! - The NIST 9/11 report, is inadmissible in a court of law in the United States, because it fails the *Daubert* standard + Listen to These Three NIST Whistleblowers

Thursday, February 28, 2019

A Message to the 9/11 Grand Jury - ATTENTION POTENTIAL 9/11 GRAND JURY MEMBERS! - The NIST 9/11 report, is inadmissible in a court of law in the United States, because it fails the Daubert standard + Listen to These Three NIST Whistleblowers

Posted by JM Talboo

Video References:

Music:

https://www.bensound.com/

9/11 Grand Jury: Conclusive Evidence Towers Were Brought Down By Explosions:

https://truthunsealed.com/conspiracy/9-11-grand-jury-conclusive-evidence-towers-were-brought-down-by-explosions/

Debunking the Only Bad Review of 'The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7':

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/04/debunking-only-bad-review-of-mysterious.html

Proof That Leslie Robertson Saw Molten Steel at Ground Zero:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/03/proof-that-leslie-robertson-saw-molten.html

The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel:

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/wpi_steel.html

Forensic Metallurgy Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

9-11 Debunker, Steven Dutch (Natural and Applied Sciences, of the University of Wisconsin), has this to say:

https://www.metabunk.org/does-concrete-melt.t2578/

Concrete Pulverization Twin Towers' Concrete Turned to Dust in Mid-Air:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html

Molten Steel and Concrete:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.html

My Thoughts on the State of 9/11 Demolition Research:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2019/02/my-thoughts-on-state-of-911-demolition.html

Debunking 9/11 Debunking: On WTC’s Design to Withstand 707 Impact:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2013/03/debunking-911-debunking-on-wtcs-design.html

Other Collapses in Perspective: An Examination of Other Steel Structures Collapsing due to Fire and their Relation to the WTC:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/06/other-collapses-in-perspective_04.html

Collapse Rates of the WTC Consistent With Controlled Demolition:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/07/collapse-rates-of-wtc-consistent-with.html

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2018/07/infact-building-7-did-look-like.html

Google Books: Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/05/google-books-debunking-911-debunking.html

Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/02/debunking-real-911-myths-why-popular.html

The below link proves that many thousands of family members want a new investigation. Likely the amount of people killed that day is outnumbered by these 9/11 victim's family members.

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/03/thousands-of-victims-family-members.html

Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry Historic Step – Federal Grand Jury to Hear Prima Facie Evidencehttps://t.co/HgCMKNcPll
— JM Talboo (@JM_Talboo) December 16, 2018

ATTENTION POTENTIAL 9/11 GRAND JURY MEMBERS! - The NIST 9/11 report, is inadmissible in a court of law in the United States, because it fails the *Daubert* standard + Listen to These Three NIST Whistleblowers

By Greg Roberts

The NIST's investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, that resulted in the NCSTAR report, is inadmissible in a court of law in the United States, because it fails the Daubert standard, this determines the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal courts, The Federal Rules of Evidence and the Admissibility of Expert Opinion Testimony in an Adversarial Evidentiary Proceeding

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, on its own initiative but only after consultation with local authorities, may initiate and conduct investigations to determine the causes of structural failures in structures which are used or occupied by the general public. No part of any report resulting from such investigation, or from an investigation under the National Construction Safety Team Act [15 U.S.C. 7301 et seq.], shall be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report.

Under the standards established by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed 2d 469 (1993) and its progeny, expert testimony offered to support the official theory and hypotheses concerning the cause of the destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7 (the WTC) on September 11, 2001 would probably be excluded from admission into evidence by an impartial judge in a civil or criminal proceeding

The Daubert standard provides a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony during United States federal legal proceedings. Pursuant to this standard, a party may raise a Daubert motion, which is a special case of motion in limine raised before or during trial to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy refers to the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard

Under Daubert and FRE 702, when carrying out evidentiary gate-keeping duties under the Federal Rules of Evidence, judges must at a minimum inquire into:

1 Whether the opinion or theory is susceptible to testing and has been subjected to such testing

NIST fail - their theory is unproven and untested, there own testing, in particular, the material and fire tests conducted by NIST, did not support its initial findings They did not look for evidence of explosives, contrary to NFPA guidelines.

More importantly, any actual relevant sections of the official report are classified for public safety, they will not even release them to a licensed NYC architect in regards a FOIA request

2 Whether the opinion/theory has been subjected to peer-review and publication

The NIST report is not peer reviewed, it was and still is, self published and thus has zero credibility. In academia, peer review is used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.

3 Whether there is a known or potential rate of error associated with the methodology used and whether there are standards controlling the techniques’ operation

The rate of error is 100%. That is, the previous rate of success in collapsing two 110-story steel skyscrapers such as WTC 1 and 2, by a fire ignited by jet fuel (even taking into account aircraft impact damage) and one 47 story steel skyscraper such as WTC 7 (which had no aircraft impact damage) is 0%. The official explanation of the destruction of these three buildings on September 11, 2001 assumes unprecedented processes and events in all three cases.

4 Whether the opinion/theory has been scrutinized and generally accepted by the scientific community.

There is no general acceptance of the United States Government conspiracy theory in the scientific community. The official theory has been rejected by many qualified experts who have reviewed and scrutinized the NIST reports and the data that NIST has made available.

*There are additional factors considered by courts, but all four main Daubert factors are applicable to all cases generally (where the Federal Rules of Evidence apply or where the state courts have adopted the Daubert or similar test)

NIST's specific objectives were:

Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
Determine why the injuries and fatalities were so high or low depending on location, including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation, and emergency response;
Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction,
Identify, as specifically as possible, areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce failed on every single one of these objectives

Related:

Former NIST Employee Speaks Out with LTE in Europhysics News:

Originally published at AE911Truth.Org by AE911 Staff on 11/24/16

Two days ago, Europhysics News released its first issue since the publication of “15 years later: On the physics of high-rise building collapses,” which has now been viewed nearly 350,000 times since its release — and which even caused the magazine’s server to break down at one point.

Lo and behold, on page 43 is a startling and extraordinary letter to the editor by a former employee of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Peter Michael Ketcham, who worked at NIST from 1997 until 2011.

Peter Ketcham (bottom center) appears in this photo from the NIST Mathematical and Computational Sciences Division’s “Summary of Activities for Fiscal Year 2000.”

In his letter, Mr. Ketcham makes it clear that he did not contribute to NIST’s World Trade Center investigation. In fact, it wasn’t until last August that he began reading the NIST WTC reports and watching documentaries challenging NIST’s findings. The more he investigated, he writes, “the more it became apparent that NIST had reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring, dismissing, and denying the evidence.”

Mr. Ketcham closes his stunning 500-word rebuke by calling upon NIST to “blow the whistle on itself now” before awareness of the “disconnect between the NIST WTC reports and logical reasoning” grows exponentially.

The courageous stand Mr. Ketcham has taken in criticizing the reports issued by his former employer of 14 years is yet another sign of the rapidly increasing skepticism toward the official 9/11 narrative among scientific and technical professionals. No doubt, his emergence will help accelerate the path toward exposing NIST’s WTC reports as false and unscientific.

Read the Whole Issue of Europhysics News

Read “15 years later: On the physics of high-rise building collapses”

Former Chief of NIST’s Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation:

http://911truth.org/former-chief-of-nists-fire-science-division-calls-for-independent-review-of-world-trade-center-investigation/

Excerpt:

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let’s look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what’s the significance of one cause versus another.”

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become ‘Conspiracy Theorists’, but in a proper way,” he said.

.......

From the book The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False:
We also have the testimony of a former NIST employee who had held "a supervisory scientist position at the top civil service grade" until 2001, after which he worked as a part-time contractor until 2006. Although this man wishes to remain anonymous, for fear of possible retaliation, he is known to physicist Steven Jones, who has confirmed that he is indeed who he says he is... Speaking in particular about the implications of NIST's politicization for its work on 9/11-related issues, he wrote:

When I first heard of [9/11 truth] and how the NIST "scientists" involved in 911 seemed to act in very un-scientific ways, it was not at all surprising to me. By 2001, everyone in NIST leadership had been trained to pay close heed to political pressures. There was no chance that NIST people "investigating" the 911 situation could have been acting in the true spirit of scientific independence, nor could they have operated at all without careful consideration of political impact. Everything that came from the hired guns was by then routinely filtered through the front office, and assessed for political implications before release.

Truth Teller's Radio Episode 16 - 9/11/2018 JM Talboo Interviews Richard Gage about the 3000+ Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

http://truthtellersradio.blogspot.com/2018/09/truth-tellers-radio-episode-16-9112018.html