9/11 researchers must question NIST's assumptions

I have already criticized Steven Jones for assuming the authenticity of aircraft debris in support of his "planes" thesis, here:

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/my-concerns-about-professor-joness.html

and here:

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/scholars-for-911-truth-and-justice-on.html

To emphasize my point, I publish page 28 of NIST NCSTAR 1-5, which accepts without question highly implausible propulsions of aircraft debris far from the Twin Towers.

Given NIST's failures in relation to the "collapses" of the Twin Towers, it is not surprising that NIST is not questioning events that may be equally implausible.

Any 9/11 researcher that assumes that the perpetrators of 9/11 are lying about the "collapse," and that NIST are covering this up, should not be at all surprised that the perpetrators would fabricate aircraft debris evidence and that NIST would not question this "evidence."


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Afternote:

Should I question NIST's results on "Flight 175" video deceleration that disprove the "planes"thesis? Perhaps, but I have independent evidence that disproves the thesis, and there is a limit to what I can do.

I have another idea about this: the more I read NIST, the more I think that NIST, between the lines, is offering important evidence that the official story is false. It is important to recognize that and not accept clearly invalid assumptions in support of the official story. NIST scientists are not stupid or evil; they are just constrained by the circumstances of their employment. Take what they can give.