|Ethics Symposium Meets 9/11Truth|
|Written by James McDowell|
|Monday, 30 June 2014 23:54|
200 Hundred Scientists Learn of Explosives in Buildings
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) — the world's largest professional association dedicated to advancing technology — provided an exciting opportunity for AE911Truth to bring its message to the forefront of the scientific and engineering community last month.An inaugural ethics conference sponsored by the
IEEE promised that its 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Engineering, Science, and Technology, held in Chicago on May 23-24, would offer "a rich scientific program of highest quality," feature speakers from throughout the world, and bring together "scientists, engineers, ethicists, and practitioners from different disciplines to discuss questions and concerns related to ethics in science, technology, and engineering."
Based on that billing, three 9/11 Truth Movement activists were inspired to respond to the call for papers with a case study addressing the topic "Ethics and Professional Responsibility in Science, Technology and Engineering." The resulting paper, Ethics and the Official Reports about the Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2) on 9/11: A Case Study, was co-authored by physicist John D. Wyndham, Ph.D. (a member of Scientists for 9/11Truth) and engineers Wayne H. Coste, PE, and Michael R. Smith (both members of AE911Truth and the IEEE).
Their paper began with a summary of the codes of ethics — adopted by many professional societies — that set forth the obligations of engineers "to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity" in order to uphold the credibility and usefulness of the profession. It then laid out evidence of scientific misconduct by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding the collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.
The authors detailed "fabrication and falsification" of data — data that NIST used to "support its hypothesis of a gravity-only structural weakening and subsequent failure" of World Trade Centers One and Two. Furthermore, they recounted statements about NIST's failures from knowledgeable insiders, such as James Quintiere, Ph.D., former chief of the NIST Fire Science Division. One such statement was that NIST permitted only limited public comments. Another was that NIST's "final report did not include an independent peer-review process."
Wyndham, Coste, and Smith created a poster to show their audience the anomalous evidence. The post summarizes areas where the NIST reports included: misrepresentations; failure to study the destructions and their aftermaths; failure to follow NFPA guidelines; failure to study consequences to public health; and failure to provide to most essential theory.
Coste and Smith, who made the presentation, credited colleague Wyndham (who was unable to attend the conference) as the driving force behind their treatise.
Ironically, the October 15th deadline for abstracts was the same day that Noam Chomsky gave a talk at the University of Florida, in which he said, "[Scientists seeking the truth about 9/11] are not doing what scientists and engineers do when they think they've discovered something. What you do, when you think you have discovered something, is you write articles in scientific journals [he admitted that "one or two minor articles" were written on the subject], give talks at the professional societies, and go to the civil engineering department at MIT or Florida or wherever you are, and present your results."
And that is precisely what Wyndham, Smith, and Coste were attempting to do. Explains Coste: "Many of us had kicked around the possibility of writing technical papers for some time, but I am not a structural engineer — so opportunities are a bit more difficult to find. We felt it was imperative to do what we could to approach professional societies. When I subsequently heard about this ethics conference, I thought Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth could put together a paper that would focus on ethics. We had seen that the ASCE and other professional societies had put up barriers and defenses to 9/11 Truth-related papers, but felt that possibly the IEEE would not be so resistant."
They were right. Some of the conference's 200 attendees already had suspicions of controlled demolition being the modus operandi. Thus, they were grateful for the 9/11 Truth team's presence. Most members of the audience, though, hadn't heard of the theory that explosives were placed in the Twin Towers. They initially had difficulty grasping the grim implications, but eventually the Wyndham-Coste-Smith message prevailed. "It was interesting to watch them realize that there was some information that they did not know previously," recalls Coste.
"The only noisy, walk-away 'push-back' came from a State University of New York (SUNY) professor," recounted Coste. "He would not entertain our critique of the NIST studies once he understood that it supported the use of explosives to destroy the Twin Towers. The next day in conversation with this professor, I learned that he had a former colleague at Clemson University who had written a book on the Twin Towers. He alluded to the fact that this book was the basis of his disdain for those who question the official story." The author's name: Judy Wood. Her book's title: Where Did the Towers Go? The Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11.
Following the Chicago symposium, Coste headed south to VA Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, where he made a similar presentation a few days later. This time, however, the paper, written by Smith and Coste, focused on the suspicious nature of the afternoon collapse of the third New York City high-rise — World Trade Center Building 7. The VA Tech crowd was less receptive to the implication of implosion, Coste reveals. He remains confident that no one can stay in the dark forever —especially at the rate that AE911Truth is shedding new light on the subject.