Okay, so Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has proposed new legislation that would force government agencies to correct false and inaccurate reports that they publish.

Sounds good. It shouldn’t be necessary, but …

So how would it work? How could such a bill help to further expose the lies of the 9/11 official story to the world? How might it work in a practical sense?

To answer this question, all one needs to do to is look at the “Request for Correction” that AE911Truth and a number of 9/11 family members made to the National Institute of Standards and Technology in April 2020. The request called on NIST to correct false claims and inaccurate data in its 2008 Building 7 report and to compel NIST to reverse its conclusion that fires were the cause of Building 7’s destruction.

The request points out eight areas where NIST’s report on Building 7 contradicts the standards spelled out in the Data Quality Act along with guidelines on information quality from the Office of Management and Budget. Both in its initial response in August 2020 and its final one in June 2021, NIST completely refused to address the substance of the request. AE911Truth contends that throughout the process, NIST has been “blatantly unresponsive” and that its assertions are “unsubstantive and unscientific.”

In September 2021, the family members and AE911Truth filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging NIST’s response. The goal of the suit was to force the agency to perform new analyses and develop a new “probable collapse sequence” that is physically possible and consistent with the available evidence.

AE911Truth sought to have the U.S. Supreme Court hear the case, but its petition was denied in April of this year.

If passed, the Scientific Integrity Act would force NIST to not only address the false information in NIST’s report but also to correct it. How would it do this? The first way is that it would ensure that any citizen or organization that seeks to challenge the scientific claims in a government report has the legal standing to do so.

AE911Truth chairman Roland Angle explains that the Scientific Integrity Act, which is currently being drafted, would affect NIST and its blatantly false report in the following ways:

1. NIST would be required to correct the computer models used in its analyses to reflect the actual conditions in the structural frame [of building 7].
2. NIST would be required to correct its calculations to reflect the actual known properties of steel acting under a thermal load.
3. NIST would be required to correct its incorrect calculations regarding its claim that a cascade of floor failures would have resulted in the northeast corner of the building that they alleged was initiated by the supposed collapse of the northeast corner of the 13th floor.
4. NIST would be required to provide a corrected global collapse analysis based upon the changes caused by the above three corrections.

“The NIST report on the destruction of WTC put forward the notion that a progressive collapse was the cause of the failure,” Angle explains.

“Think of a progressive collapse like a line of dominoes lined up in such a way that when each domino falls, it hits the next domino and causes it to fall. In a structural progressive collapse, the failure of one structural element leads to the failure of another supporting element, and this process continues, ultimately causing the failure of the entire structure.”

Angle explains that the Request for Correction pointed out eight problems with the NIST progressive collapse theory for WTC 7. Five of these problems had to do with the fact that NIST either misrepresented the structural details of the building frame, provided faulty analyses of the known properties of steel, or failed to provide analyses of the collapse mechanisms of the building that were consistent with standard engineering analyses, i.e., their input data did not match their output conclusions.

In addition, the Scientific Integrity Act would force NIST to include eyewitness and audio evidence of explosions that occurred during the building failure, provide an analysis that explained the severe erosion of the steel found in the building, and correct their analysis of the seismic data to reflect known analytical methods for determining seismic data.

You can review the exchanges between AE911Truth and NIST here. This includes AE911Truth’s September 2020 appeal, NIST’s final decision in June 2021, and AE911Truth’s lawsuit in September 2021.

The Scientific Integrity Act would be a significant tool at the disposal of 9/11 truth activists and anyone who doesn’t believe the government should be able to stand behind scientifically false data and claims. While the government and the courts can always continue trying to obfuscate and deceive, this law would make that more difficult.

It would help us to pull back the curtain even further on the lies that are protecting the official story of 9/11.

---

Craig McKee is a writer for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and the creator of the blogs Truth and Shadows and Thought Crimes and Misdemeanors. He also hosts the Truth and Shadows podcast on YouTube and Rumble.

 

*** 

 

Read the PDF: A Declaration of Integrity