In this interesting article, Ed Haas argues that NIST violated federal law by failing to demonstrate quality, utility, objectivity, and integrity in its analysis of why World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 collapsed.
Why did the U.S. government deem it appropriate to exclude the NIST reports from being used as evidence in lawsuits and legal actions? There is only one plausible explanation. The U.S. government knows that the NIST findings could not withstand the rigors of cross-examination. The fact that approximately 150 plaintiffs that refused the government’s 9/11 Victims Fund are still waiting for their day in court nearly five years after 9/11 validates my premise that the government is allergic to any civilian force that desires to put the government’s account of 9/11 to the test of a jury trial.
If the NIST scientists responsible for the 'probable collapse sequence of WTC-1 and WTC-2' had to take the stand in a civil court proceeding, it would quickly be discovered by the world that NIST failed to perform and disseminate its research regarding the collapse of the twin towers in accordance with its own Data Quality Act guidelines. Even a rookie attorney fresh out of law school would be able to quickly dissect and dismiss as irrelevant, the NIST conclusions. It is precisely what NIST did not consider in its research that makes its published conclusions suspect. NIST simply refused to consider and vigorously pursue a second working hypothesis; that the twin towers collapsed as the result of controlled demolition."
Any lawyers want to sue NIST for violating the Data Quality Act?
No comments:
Post a Comment