NIST Bad or Good?

It’s safe to say that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth doesn’t like NIST and FEMA very much. A substantial portion of its argument is an outright attack on both these institutions and the WTC reports that have come from them.

So why does Gage use them as authorities in other sections of his slideshow?

Several times graphic information from NIST and FEMA, most notably detailed drawings of building elements, are used authoritatively, even while the presenter rails against how deceptive graphics from these sources can be. Such “deception” exists only when ignoring the clear labels and explanations.

And yet this selective use of authorities goes further. Gage touts demolition expert Danny Jowenko and engineering professor Hugo Bachmann as proponents of the idea that 7 World Trade was indeed a controlled demolition. And yet Dr. Bachmann is open to the collapse of the Towers being the result of the impact damage and fires alone. Jowenko is quite sure of this. Somehow Gage fails to mention that his experts don’t see the Towers the same way he does.

Only bare quotes are available from Dr. Bachman, not any deeper exposition of his reasoning. Jowenko is different. His explanation was videotaped, and he shows clear signs of being influenced by extraneous information (like the Silverstein “pull it” detour). It also appears that he has not analyzed the full collapse of 7, but only the short clip usually displayed by conspiracy theorists. With bad information in, it’s no wonder that Jowenko gave a bad opinion on 7 World Trade.

Most controlled demolition advocates will not even try to deal with the contrary opinions of their experts on the Towers. AE911Truth simply quotes the parts it likes and lets any contradictory information disappear – a deceptive practice called “cherrypicking.”