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

Video References:


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':

Proof That Leslie Robertson Saw Molten Steel at Ground Zero:

The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel:

Forensic Metallurgy Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives:

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

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

Molten Steel and Concrete:

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

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

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

Collapse Rates of the WTC Consistent With Controlled Demolition:

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

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

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.

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

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

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


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


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:

My Demolition Company

Written August 22, 2008

OK... OK... So maybe NIST's final WTC 7 report released yesterday is shameful, embarrassing, and completely flawed, but the good news is that debunking NIST's conclusions about WTC 7 is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel! The best news of all is that since the geniuses at NIST have now shown, after their three-year research efforts, that fire can collapse a skyscraper into its own footprint at nearly freefall speed, I'm starting my very own, one man, demolition company!

Here are my tools of the trade...

1. A very reasonably priced copy of the 9/11 Commission Report if I do say so myself...

$11.99 with shipping.

2. This nifty fire extinguisher butane lighter...


And I'm ready to do the job with under 16 bucks overhead cost. That's right folks, that is all the equipment I need according to NIST! The 9/11 "debunkers" tried much harder, bringing up the "massive hole" in the building. The same massive hole described here.

"I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though." - former NYPD officer and first responder, Craig Bartmer

Even NIST now admits that "the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse."

Of course the diesel fuel for WTC 7's emergency generators was something that seemed to have some promise, but no. They state that the diesel fuel "played no role in the destruction of WTC 7," and that it was "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building," and that they were "similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings."

So, if you need a building demolished just let me know, I'll do it for half price... maybe even free. Because the 9/11 Commission report is almost 12 bucks, the lighter is almost 2 smackers, but knocking down a building with office fires...


Update September 30, 2009:

I just found out that a two man operation was started on the same day my one man operation was last year...



WTC7 and the British Brainwashing Conspiracy