Jones Beene wrote:
If you were charged with doing a thorough investigation, would not
you at least interview him - hopefully with a grant of immunity from
future prosecution ?
I do not understand this comment. Why would he need a grant of
immunity?!? This makes no sense. He is not accused of bringing down
the buildings, is he?
If any of the Loizeaux family thinks this was a controlled
demolition, I expect they would say so They are well known for
speaking their minds, taking risks and supporting unconventional
ideas. If they were to write a book supporting this hypothesis they
would make millions of dollars so there would be every incentive for
them to speak out. Plus, I am sure that if they sincerely believe any
such thing they would feel it is their patriotic duty to speak out.
Anyone would.
Nothing in the NIST report (or any of NIST's activities) can be used
in a court case. There is no chance that criticizing it would lead to
legal problems. That would be a violation of the Constitution, and in
any case NIST makes no regulations and has no authority in law. It
never did. It has always been a strictly scientific organization,
like LANL. Quote:
"As part of the NCST Act, no part of any report resulting from
investigations can be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or
action for damages. Additionally, NIST employees are not permitted to
serve as expert witnesses. "
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/nist_investigation_911.htm
If I were doing a thorough investigation, I would consult with and
coordinate with hundreds of leading experts and organizations
worldwide, in the construction industry and in the government, such
as CII, IAI, IAFSS, ASME, MIT, LANL, Princeton, Georgia Tech, Pen
State, W.R. Grace, United Technologies, UL, FM Global and so on. I
would have the report thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts in these
organizations before publishing. That is what NIST did. You seem to
think that all of these experts made horrendous mistakes and
overlooked obvious errors. I doubt it. I admit that I am no expert in
this subject but I am sure these people are, and the behavior you
describe is utterly unlike that of any experts I am acquainted with
-- except perhaps the 2004 anti-cold fusion panel reviewers. But you
can't compare their situation to the WTI investigators. The CF panel
spent a few hours glancing at the subject whereas the people at NIST
spent three years. The 2004 anti-CF members were engaged in a
cocktail party stunt; they were not staking their careers on the
result. They never believed a word of it and they made no bones about that.
By the way, Steve Jones' paper is available at NIST's website:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
Some of his anti-cold fusion papers are available at LENR-CANR.
Apparently NIST and I agree that the best way to deal with this kind
of opposition is to publish it in full. That is not how people who
want to avoid a debate or squelch information generally act.
They are way more respectful toward the 9/11 denier-crowd than I am
toward the anti-cold fusion people but of course they have to be.
They are government agency. See their responses to this item:
"Has NIST responded to those who believe that the WTC towers
collapsed in ways other than the mechanisms determined by the NIST
investigation?"
Regarding general distrust of the government, let me remind the
readers here that the US and Italian governments have been the most
honest, reliable, and best supporters of cold fusion. We all know
there has been some dishonesty at the DOE and elsewhere. The 2004
report was largely a farce, as I said, although about half of the
panel members took an honest & sincere look at the data, which is
probably a higher percentage than you would find in a random
selection of scientists. Yes, the government has not done enough, but
what have the universities and industrial corporations done? Nothing.
If it were not for enlightened government agencies and decision
makers, cold fusion would be forgotten. In particular, DARPA and the
U.S. Navy deserve credit for keeping cold fusion alive and advancing
the research.
- Jed
