how much more does it take why do you people keep posting your stupid POPULAR MECHANICS DEBUNKING HIT PIECE...THIS
IS THE
OFFICIAL TALKING .THE MAN THAT FOR 6 YRS TRIED TO MAKE PHYSICS FIT THE WHITE HOUSE STORY THAT HAD ACCESS TO THE EVIDENCE..WHATS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!! DO YOU KNOW THE COURAGE IT TOOK FOR THIS MAN TAKE MAKE THIS STATEMENT THE RISK TO HIS CAREER AND MORE...CAN YOU READ BETWEEN THE LINES AT ALL !?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/gen...ef_of_nist.htm
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”
“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”
Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists'
Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [”official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)