Ethics Symposium Meets 9/11Truth
Written by James McDowell
June 30, 2014
An inaugural ethics conference sponsored by the 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.
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.”