A Correspondence with the National Institute of Standards and TechnologyPosted: November 16, 2013
With the help of a volunteer from AE911Truth.org, Wayne Coste, three members of my local community and I engaged in a correspondence with NIST that was “shepherded” by our congressman’s office.
In the first letter we asked three questions: (1) How does NIST explain building 7’s 2.2 seconds of freefall, and the apparent visual discrepancy between video of the collapse and NIST’s visualization based on their computer simulation? (2) How does NIST explain the documented presence of nano-thermite in the WTC dust? (We cite the relevant article.) And, (3) how does NIST explain he the abundance of iron-rich microspheres in the dust? Our other two letters are follow-ups regarding NIST’s innitial answers. Our third letter summerizes and puts the whole thing in context.
*PDF files of our Complete Correspondence with NIST.
Notes and Acknowledgements (including minor faults on our part):
(1) We neglected to date our third letter to NIST. It was sent on April 12, 2012.
(2) There is an error, I believe, in the third question of our first letter. Referring to the iron-rich microspheres, it says, “Some estimates are that 0.04% (by weight) of the dust was comprised of these spheres.” I think what was meant was 4%, but frankly I’m not sure where this figure came from. I regret our mistake/oversight, but it played no role in the subsequent dialog with NIST.
(3) I made PDF files of our first and third letters from Word files. Those are not photocopies of printed letters (while the others are), and so there may be trivial differences in font, pagination, and what not, between the PDFs and the actual letters.
(4) Wayne Coste of AE911Truth drafted our first and second letters. I wrote our third. Jerry Carpenter was our local organizer, middleman, and letter sender.
(5) For the record, while Wayne and Jerry are officially volunteers for AE911Truth, and our effort was part of an AE911Truth initiative, our letters did not go through a formal vetting procedure with AE911Truth. (I submitted our third letter for review, but there was neither a formal verdict, nor any input from anyone at AE911Truth besides Wayne. We eventually went ahead and sent the letter anyway.)
(6) We had a prior correspondence with Congressman Bill Owens of New York, also with Wayne’s help. This included a meeting with Owen’s staff.
If anyone out there would like to respond to NIST based on a careful study of the sections referred to in their final letter, please feel free.