by Elizabeth Woodworth July 2019 Elizabeth Woodworth, retired health sciences librarian and coauthor of “9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation,” has been researching 9/11 evidence, editing books, and writing articles on the topic since 2006. She is co-founder and…
by Peter Dale Scott September 2016 Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is a poet, writer, and researcher. Among his prose books are The War Conspiracy (1972), The Assassinations: Dallas and…
Under the standards established by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed 2d 469
(1993) and its progeny, expert testimony offered to support the official theory and
hypotheses concerning the cause of the destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1,
2 and 7 (the WTC) on September 11, 2001 would probably be excluded from admission
into evidence by an impartial judge in a civil or criminal proceeding. In contrast, expert
testimony presenting an alternative theory and hypotheses explaining the cause(s) of
the destruction of the WTC grounded in and adhering to accepted and reliable scientific
principles using the scientific method would satisfy the Daubert test and would be
admitted into evidence.
Posted in Articles
, MUST READ
Tagged with: Law
The underlying issue stems from the official NIST Report (NIST NCSTAR 1-9- Nov. 2008) which basically contends that for the first time in history, the symmetrical, complete collapse of a large, fire protected, 47 story steel framed building was said to be fire induced.
Since the issuance of this NIST Report, members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, as well as other independent researchers have vigorously disputed the conclusions of the NIST and its Report.