NIST WTC7 Update on Live Teleconference

The National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Advisory Committee (Committee), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), will meet via teleconference Tuesday, December 18, 2007, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. The meeting will be audio webcast so that the public may listen to the meeting as it takes place.

wtc.nist.gov...

Here are the links to listen in:

Webcast URL:
origin.eastbaymedia.com...

Help URL:
www.eastbaymedia.com...


It will be interesting to see how far along they are in the final report and hopefully they will have a date as to when the report will be published...Then the same old bickering and nit picking will begin.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

The National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Advisory Committee (Committee), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), will meet via teleconference Tuesday, December 18, 2007, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. The meeting will be audio webcast so that the public may listen to the meeting as it takes place.

wtc.nist.gov...

Here are the links to listen in:

Webcast URL:
origin.eastbaymedia.com...

Help URL:
www.eastbaymedia.com...


It will be interesting to see how far along they are in the final report and hopefully they will have a date as to when the report will be published...Then the same old bickering and nit picking will begin.

Of course. The report will be rejected if NIST demonstrates its hypothesis with evidence.

On the other hand, the 9/11 Truth Movement will have to reject it if NIST claims it was brought down by controlled demolition since NIST is a "government agency", and therefore is, a priori, lying through its teeth.

The 9/11 Truth Movement will be left in a very depressing bind. It cannot possibly get any satisfaction no matter which way the dust blows.

Originally posted by jthomas

Of course. The report will be rejected if NIST demonstrates its hypothesis with evidence.

Isn't that rather a quite insulting baseless statement toward others? If evidence is validated by scientific laws and theories, I have no qualms about accepting validated evidence.

Had NIST or anyone else touting the "officical" version presented scientifically validated evidence by now, so many people would not still be demanding a full independent investigation into 9/11.

What is about not blindly accepting what makes no logical or scientifically proved sense appears to drastically trouble some people?

When enough independent people, apart from the person presenting a hypothesis, while using the same methodolgy as the one presenting the hypothesis, plus, effecting the same proved tested result as the originator of the hypothesis, the hypothesis becomes a theory. Unless a hypothesis is proved to theory, it remains nothing more than unproved personal opinion aka hypothesis.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by OrionStars]