Re '..........I have never answered with references to NIST as though it was gospel.'
Why? have you got a choice. NIST is your only resource.... unless there's been another investigation that we don't know about.
That fraud that doesn't explain anything... and couldn't even if it tried.
Of course I have a choice. There have been
numerous investigations, and several are ongoing. Before NIST, there was the MIT study led by Dr. Wierzbicki, and the Weidlinger Associates and Exponent studies done for the insurance companies. During NIST there was University of Edinburgh and Sheffield, along with some work in China. Ongoing to this day is Arup, University of Maryland, and Purdue, and through it all is the ubiquitous Dr. Bazant of Northwestern.
Understandably, NIST's is the most detailed and comprehensive study, but all of these efforts have their strengths, and many are superior to NIST in one or two specifics. The closest direct comparison to NIST is the work at Purdue. All are worth reading about. All have slightly different conclusions. All support NIST's major findings, and all are 100% at variance with anyone I know of in the Truth Movement.
Again, I spend a lot of time describing, referencing, contrasting, and synthesizing these results in my whitepaper. I did so because there are many like you who are unaware of these other, independent, multi-national efforts, and who would possibly enjoy learning about them.
Since you are apparently unaware of these, some of which are mentioned in the NIST Report itself, I find your reference to it as "that fraud" to be exceptionally arrogant. I trust you have at least read the NIST Executive Summary, and preferably the whole report, before making such a proclamation.
So Dr Jones and his fellow scientists decided to write a letter to Bentham telling them what wonderful work NIST did?..... you really believe that do you? Or are your just pretending for comic effect.
The title of the paper in question is
"Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction," so the above description is probably a lot closer to the truth than you expect. I don't blame you for being so surprised. Give it a read.
If, after educating yourself about its contents, there's anything in that paper that you feel disproves NIST, I'll be glad to help you see where Dr. Jones has it wrong.
So much for 'unswerving honesty'.
I remind you,
keep it respectful. If on the off-chance you think I've made a mistake, I'll be glad to check. There's no need to make irresponsible accusations.
On that note how about we get a copy of that letter/email you got from the 'editor-in-chief of the Journal in question'. You know, so we can check it's authenticity, if it really exists.... and maybe send a copy to Dr Jones...... who lets face it will be shocked to find that the people who published his paper, never bothered reading it.
The JREF Forum does not permit printing of e-mails given in confidence. However, you are welcome to contact him yourself:
Dr. Dong-Sheng Jeng of University of Dundee.
You also misunderstood me. The publisher may have read the paper. The publisher handled whatever review process all by himself. This is part of the problem. The
editors are the ones who should be handling the review process, and the
editor in chief did not read the paper, nor can he find out who, if anyone, did. That's a broken review process, one of the most transparent I've ever come across.
As for your whitepaper. That wouldn't be that magnificent piece of work where you're completely incapable of telling the difference between 'didn't find any evidence of explosives' and 'didn't bother our backsides to look for any evidence of explosives'.
I suspect you can tell the difference, but decided not to...... cos to do so wouldn't been condusive to deluding the already ignorant. And that's the tactic that you and other debunkers rely so heavily on.
I don't know what report you're describing, but it isn't my whitepaper. Again, you should read things before attempting to criticize them. I describe quite thoroughly how NIST did in fact look for explosives, how explosives would have left secondary signatures in other evidence -- signatures that don't exist, how all of the supposed evidence in favor of explosives is not evidence at all, and how there remains no coherent hypothesis in the first place. Without such a hypothesis, you cannot design a specific test for explosives. I explained that in some depth to
Swing Dangler early in this thread.
Re 'I've done a literature search, and determined that my concerns are shared by scientists doing continuing research into exactly those areas --'
Very poor arguement... for what, I don't know.
You should attempt to understand what you're criticizing before passing judgment. It's not poor at all. All of the problems I have with NIST are being studied, right now, by some of the best experts one could ask for. All I have to do is wait, and periodically do a journal search for only a handful of names. It's being handled. Problem solved.
There's many highly qualified scientist, engineers, architects, pilots, aviation professionals and professors who have serious doubst/questions regarding NIST findings, and can see it for the nonsense it is.
No, there aren't. If you're referring to such organizations as the
Scholars for 9/11 Truth and/or Justice and
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, they betray through their writings such a comprehensive lack of understanding, they aren't even in a position to question NIST, let alone "see it for nonsense." This too is treated in my whitepaper as a peripheral subject.
---
So far all you've done is question my motivation, and then the contents of papers you apparently haven't read. I remind you, this thread is for
asking and answering critical questions. Please return to the topic. Thanks.
(no way to make it shorter?)
):