Round Two: Let’s Make NIST Explain Latest Refusal to Release Data

round-two:-let’s-make-nist-explain-latest-refusal-to-release-data

05-11-19 08:26:00,

We’re not taking no for an answer.

The “no” in question has come from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in its response to several dozen emails from the public, sent at the urging of AE911Truth, asking NIST to annul its 2009 “Finding Regarding Public Safety Information.” This policy states that the disclosure of certain computer modeling data and other information used by NIST in its investigation of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 cannot be released to the public because it “might jeopardize public safety.”

In response to those who contacted NIST last month, NIST’s Public Inquiries Office wrote:

“The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) stands by the conclusions reached in its WTC 7 investigation, as well as the finding under Section 7d of the National Construction Safety Team Act. Based upon this finding, NIST did not release limited and specific input and results files for certain models because they might jeopardize public safety.”

The big question is how could the release of NIST’s computer modeling data possibly jeopardize public safety?

Today, on behalf of more than 3,000 architects and engineers whose foremost duty is to protect the public’s safety, we’re asking you to keep up the pressure on NIST. Please email NIST Director Walter Copan to ask him how releasing this data could jeopardize public safety and how exactly terrorists could use this data to “devise ways to destroy buildings,” as claimed by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

It’s time to let NIST know that the boilerplate statements will resolve nothing and that the pressure will keep on coming.

As one AE911Truth supporter put it to NIST: “I would like to urge greater transparency in the scientific process regarding the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11. I fail to see how withholding this information ensures any type of public safety. This looks like a deception rather than anything in the public interest.”

NIST’s stonewalling stands in stark contrast to the full disclosure of all input data, results data, and simulations used or generated during the University of Alaska Fairbanks study of Building 7’s collapse.

 » Lees verder

Let’s Have a Financial Crisis: First, We Need a Central Bank – Global Research

let’s-have-a-financial-crisis:-first,-we-need-a-central-bank-–-global-research

07-10-19 02:21:00,

Westerners have been for generations infused with a conviction that a nation’s central bank must, under threat of great ‘moral hazard’, be kept separate and independent of that nation’s government. The reasons are unclear, but since this mythology qualifies as a biblical pronouncement, it is by nature not open to question. The proposition is, of course, nonsense. How can a country manage its affairs without having control of its own money and its own central bank? Think of a corporation having no access to its own money or credit, having to depend on an outside “unrelated and independent” third party for all funding, a party with no common interests whatever with this corporation, and with its own commercial interests often diametrically opposed to those of the company. Even worse, imagine the company having to “borrow” its own money from this independent source, and repay with interest. How could that possibly make sense? Welcome to the world of secret bankers and privately-owned central banks, like the Bank of England, of France and Germany, and the US Federal Reserve, the ultimate source of financial crises, of recessions and depressions, and of wars.

The history of economic turmoil and of wars has always revolved around those who control the world’s central banks. In fact, recessions and wars tend to have the same broad objective which is to put yet more money into those same hands. History is not short of documented evidence of the European bankers, primarily the Rothschilds but including eight families in all, not only inciting and fostering wars and revolutions but profiting by financing both sides of the conflicts. One problem after a war is that we have a (rich) victor and a (poor) loser. The rich victor may be easily able to repay his war financing with interest, but the poor loser is in a precarious position. Therefore, the war financing contracts typically contain a clause obligating the victor to permit the defeated country latitude to accumulate sufficient funds to repay its war debt in full – usually to the same banker or his brother or cousin. This may have been the origin of the expression “a win-win situation”. In any case, in addition to the huge profits from financing international conflicts, wars provide much opportunity for those bankers and their closest friends to purchase for pennies all the attractive assets of the newly-devastated losers,

 » Lees verder

Let’s Play Follow The Climate Money!

let8217s-play-follow-the-climate-money

08-01-19 02:54:00,

Authored by Paul Driessen, originally published at CFACT.org

The climate crisis industry incessantly claims that fossil fuel emissions are causing unprecedented temperature, climate and weather changes that pose existential threats to human civilization and our planet. The only solution, Climate Crisis, Inc. insists, is to eliminate the oil, coal and natural gas that provide 80% of the energy that makes US and global economies, health and living standards possible.

Failing that, CCI demands steadily increasing taxes on carbon-based fuels and carbon dioxide emissions.

However, as France’s Yellow Vest protests and the latest climate confab in Poland demonstrated, the world is not prepared to go down that dark path. Countries worldwide are expanding their reliable fossil fuel use, and families do not want to reduce their living standards or their aspirations for better lives.

Moreover, climate computer model forecasts are completely out of touch with real-world observations. There is no evidence to support claims that the slight temperature, climate and weather changes we’ve experienced are dangerous, unprecedented or caused by humans, instead of by the powerful solar, oceanic and other natural forces that have driven similar or far more serious changes throughout history.

More importantly, the CCI “solutions” would cause unprecedented disruption of modern industrialized societies; permanent poverty and disease in poor countries; and serious ecological damage worldwide.

Nothing that is required to harness breezes and sunshine to power civilization is clean, green, renewable, climate-friendly or sustainable. Tens of billions of tons of rock would have to be removed, to extract billions of tons of ores, to create millions of tons of metals, concrete and other materials, to manufacture millions of wind turbines and solar panels, and install them on millions of acres of wildlife habitats – to generate expensive, intermittent energy that would be grossly insufficient for humanity’s needs. Every step in this process requires fossil fuels – and some of the mining involves child labor.

How do CCI alarmists respond to these points? They don’t. They refuse to engage in or even permit civil discussion. They rant that anyone “who denies climate change science” is on the fossil fuel industry payroll,

 » Lees verder