How Science Died at the World Trade Center

Science has been misused for political purposes many times in history. However, the most glaring example of politically motivated pseudoscience—that employed by U.S. government representatives to explain the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC)—continues to be ignored by many scientists. As we pass the 10th anniversary of the introduction of that account, it is useful to review historic examples of fake science used for political purposes and the pattern that defines that abuse.

An early example of pseudoscience used to promote a political agenda was the concerted Soviet effort to contradict evolutionary theory and Mendelian inheritance. For nearly 45 years, the Soviet government used propaganda to foster unproven theories of agriculture promoted by its minister of agriculture, Trofim Lysenko. Scientists seeking favor with the Soviet hierarchy produced fake experimental data in support of Lysenko’s false claims. Scientific evidence from the fields of biology and genetics was banned in favor of educational programs that taught only Lysenkoism and many biologists and geneticists were executed or sent to labor camps. This propaganda-fueled program of anti-science continued for over forty years, until 1964, and spread to other countries including China.

pseudoscienceIn the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt, authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway describe several other examples of the misuse of science, spanning from the 1950s to the present. They show how widely respected scientists participated in clearly non-scientific efforts to promote the agendas of big business and big government. Examples include the tobacco industry’s misuse of science to obfuscate the links between smoking and cancer, the military industrial complex’s use of scientists to support the scientifically indefensible Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), and several abuses of environmental science.

As Oreskes and Conway made clear, science is about evidence. “It is about claims that can be, and have been, tested through scientific research—experiment, experience, and observation—research that is then subject to critical review by a jury of scientific peers.” In science, if experiments performed do not support a hypothesis, that hypothesis must be rejected. If conclusions fail to pass peer-review due to a lack of supportive evidence or the discovery of evidence that directly contradicts them, those conclusions must be rejected.

From Lysenkoism through the examples given by Oreskes and Conway, politically motivated pseudoscience demonstrates a pattern of characteristics as follows.

  1. There is a lack of experiments.
  2. The results of experiments are ignored or contradicted in the conclusions.
  3. There is either no peer-review or peer-reviewer concerns are ignored.
  4. The findings cannot be replicated or falsified due to the withholding of data.
  5. False conclusions are supported by marketing or media propaganda.
  6. Hypotheses that are supported by the evidence are ignored.

All six of these characteristics of pseudoscience are exhibited by the U.S. government investigation into what happened at the WTC on September 11th, 2001. That investigation was conducted by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and it had much in common with the examples given by Oreskes and Conway. As with the false science that supported tobacco use, millions of lives were lost as a result—in this case through the “War on Terror.” Like support for the Strategic Defense Initiative, the abuses were focused on bolstering the military-industrial complex. And as with the environmental examples, NIST’s manipulations affect everyone on the planet because they prop up a never-ending war.

In terms of historical experience, the destruction of the three WTC skyscrapers was unprecedented. No tall building had ever experienced global collapse for any reason other than explosive demolition and none ever has since that time. In terms of observation, nearly everyone who examines the videos from the day recognizes the many similarities to explosive demolition. Perhaps the most compelling evidence in favor of the demolition theory is that the NIST WTC Reports, which took up to seven years to produce, exhibit all six of the characteristics of politically motivated pseudoscience.

The lack of experiment:

NIST performed no physical experiments to support its conclusions on WTC Building 7. Its primary conclusion, that a few steel floor beams experienced linear thermal expansion thereby shearing many structural connections, could have easily been confirmed through physical testing but no such testing was performed. Moreover, other scientists had performed such tests in the past but since the results did not support NIST’s conclusions, those results were ignored (see peer-review comments below).

The results of experiments were ignored or contradicted in the conclusions:

  • For the Twin Towers, steel temperature tests performed on the few steel samples saved suggested that the steel reached only about 500 degrees Fahrenheit. This is more than one thousand degrees below the temperature needed to soften steel and make it malleable—a key requirement of NIST’s hypothesis. NIST responded by exaggerating temperatures in its computer model.
  • Another key requirement of NIST’s explanation for the Twin Towers was that floor assemblies had sagged severely under thermal stress. Floor model tests conducted by my former company Underwriters Laboratories showed that the floor assemblies would sag only 3 to 4 inches, even after removal of all fireproofing and exposure to much higher temperatures than existed in the buildings. NIST responded by exaggerating the results—claiming up to 42-inches worth of floor assembly sagging in its computer model.
  • After criticism of its draft report in April 2005, NIST quietly inserted a short description of shotgun tests conducted to evaluate fireproofing loss in the towers. These results also failed to support NIST’s conclusions because the shotgun blasts were not reflective of the distribution or trajectories of the aircraft debris. Additionally, the tests suggested that the energy required to “widely dislodge” fireproofing over five, acre-wide floors—required by NIST’s findings—was simply not available.

There was no peer review and public comments from peers were ignored:

NIST published its own WTC reports and therefore its work was not subject to peer-review as is the case for all legitimate science. The people and companies involved in the NIST investigation were either government employees or contractors dependent on government work and were therefore not objective participants.

In terms of indirect peer-review, the international building construction community has made no changes to building construction standards in response to NIST’s officially cited root causes for the WTC destruction. Furthermore, no existing buildings have been retrofitted to ensure that they do not fail from those alleged causes.

NIST provided a period for public comment on its draft reports but the comments provided by those not beholden to government were not supportive of NIST’s findings. In some cases, as with NIST’s linear expansion claim for WTC 7, independent scientists submitted comments about physical tests they had performed (which NIST had not) that directly contradicted NIST’s findings.

There was one important exception to NIST’s ignoring of public comments. After a physics teacher’s well-publicized comments, NIST was forced to admit that WTC 7 was in free-fall for a vertical distance equivalent to at least eight stories of the building. Structural engineers have since noted that many hundreds of high-strength steel bolts and steel welds would have had to vanish instantaneously for an 8-story section of the building to fall without any resistance.

The findings cannot be replicated or falsified due to the withholding of data:

NIST will not share it computer models with the public. A NIST spokesman declared, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, that revealing the computer models would “jeopardize public safety.” Because NIST’s conclusions depend entirely on those computer models, they cannot be verified or falsified by independent scientists.

False conclusions are supported by media or marketing propaganda:

As with the Soviet propaganda machine that supported Lysenkoism and the tobacco industry’s marketing propaganda, NIST’s pseudoscience was fully and uncritically supported by the mainstream media. Hearst Publications, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), and Skeptic magazine are examples of media that went to great lengths to stifle any questioning of the official account and divert attention from the glaring discrepancies.

NIST depended on that media support as indicated by the timing of its release of reports. NIST’s final report appeared to be scheduled for dual political purposes, to coincide with the seventh anniversary of 9/11 and to give the appearance of finished business at the end of the Bush Administration. The timing of NIST’s other reports coincided with political events as well. These included the draft report on the towers in October 2004—just before the election, the final report on the towers—just before the fourth anniversary of 9/11, and NIST’s first “responses to FAQs”—just before the fifth anniversary. All of them appeared to involve politically motivated release dates.

The report release dates allowed time for the media to quickly present the official story while public interest was high, but did not allow time for critical review. With the report on WTC 7, the public was given just three weeks prior to September 11th, 2008 to comment on a report that was nearly seven years in the making.

Hypotheses that are supported by the evidence were ignored:

Throughout its seven-year investigation, NIST ignored the obvious hypothesis for the destruction of the WTC buildings—demolition. That evidence includes:

  • Free-fall or near-free fall acceleration of all three buildings (now acknowledged by NIST for WTC 7)
  • Photographic and video evidence demonstrating the characteristics of demolition for both the Twin Towers and WTC 7

The WTC reports produced by NIST represent the most obvious example of politically motivated pseudoscience in history. The physical experiments NIST performed did not support its conclusions. The reports were not peer-reviewed and public comments that challenged the findings were ignored. NIST will not share its computer models—the last supposed evidence that supports its conclusions—with the public and therefore its conclusions are not verifiable.

These glaring facts should be readily recognizable by any scientist and, given the unprecedented impact of the resulting War on Terror, this abuse of science should be the basis for a global outcry from the scientific community. The fact that it is not—with even Oreskes and Conway ignoring this most obvious example—indicates that many scientists today still cannot recognize false science or cannot speak out about it for fear of social stigma. It’s possible that our society has not suffered enough to compel scientists to move out of their comfort zones and challenge such exploitation of their profession. If so, the abuse of science for political and commercial purposes will only get worse.

This entry was posted in 9/11. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to How Science Died at the World Trade Center

  1. Werner says:

    Congratulations, a brilliant article with loads of good informations and links.
    Just a reminder: I never got a critical answer to my remarks on the hypothesis of “basement” bombs”, in the North Tower (if, which is not at all proven, why only there?) :

  2. aletho says:

    Well gee.

    Just look at climate “science”.

    Or pharmaceutical studies.

    Worst of all, the saturated fat/cholesterol scam.

    The consequences have been arguably far greater than GWOT in terms of lives lost.

  3. Drew Gibbs says:

    Thank-you Kevin for your energetic research and writing… very inspiring! Some of us out here are listening!

  4. David Fletcher says:

    All very good, but an examination of Orrestes’ own swervings from scientific method in service to the ‘warmist’ agenda should have sounded a warning to mr Ryan. eg. the shoddy basis for her claims that 97% of scientists support “The Science”. For a normally meticulous researcher, I suggest that mr Ryan has not checked her out all that thoroughly.
    A quick perusal of the one star amazon reviews of her “Merchants of Doubt” should raise serious doubts as to her motivation and methodology. Her ad-hominem attack style, in itself, should sound the alarm.
    In addition, her argument by analogy conflating Big Tobacco with the Big Whatever which would seek to ‘deny’ her take on climate matters, doesn’t advance anyone’s understanding one iota, other than to warn that powerful interests will dissemble. Like we didn’t know that already
    The elephant in the room which consistently escapes the notice of politically purblind far green left eco-warriors such as N.O. is the cabal of far more powerful interests , specifically banking, who must be delighted to have Orrestes et al, all looking in the other direction for their villains!
    Otherwise, a fine rational artical as ever Kevin.

  5. Daniel Noel says:

    Thank you so much for the last paragraph. It points to the most successful and most alarming layer of the 9/11 conspiracy: the apparent amazingly effective censorship of a self-evident televised criminal controlled demolition of the twin towers and of its transparent cover-up. Much evidence supports the theory that the 9/11 false flag and Osama bin Laden’s associated aerial prowess suffered from error and improvisation. By contrast, there is no question that the censorship was been masterfully prepared and executed. Hence the conspiracy theory that the 9/11 censorship would be only one manifestation of a much larger conspiracy.

    I’ll add that the technical censorship of the World Trade Center’s controlled demolitions is a worldwide phenomenon. Particularly intriguing is the continued silence of engineering institutions in countries that are ostensibly threatened by some U.S. military intervention, like Iran.


    • aletho says:

      All institutions serve first and foremost state authority. GWOT serves all states to the degree that they utilize it. It’s there for the taking.

      For example, Iranian authorities use it to rally domestic support for measures taken against the Taliban among others.

      Any threat can be claimed “al Qaida linked” and dealt with accordingly.

      Which leader would give up such power? Hugo Chavez.

  6. student says:

    This is one of your best articles. There’s a great need for methodology in exposing establishment corruption, given that you can’t expect the establishment’s judiciary to do it.

  7. taowells says:

    Reblogged this on Presentations Tao Wells and commented:

  8. good American says:

    Thank you once again kevin. Very interesting and concise compilation of the facts and who is ultimately involved with it’s coverup.
    A simple quantificaton of conservation of momentum for the building mass during their collapse is yet another example of the science that is conveniently missing from the nist “analysis”….and surely someone in the controlled media has the ability to do a little simple physics also.
    Thanks again kevin

  9. CS says:

    No need for evidence. The facts were obvious from the start:

    Here it is in Science Magazine just ten days after 9/11:

    “The structure’s core, floor supports, and tubelike outer frame—more than 200 columns that bore most of the building’s weight—were formed by steel beams. But those beams would have become severely degraded with sustained exposure to temperatures of 600°C and above. A deadly cascade began when the 20-centimeter-thick floors exposed to the most intense heat separated from the frame and fell onto the floors below, sending a shock wave down the structure. The accumulated weight caused the building to collapse vertically, as demonstrated by the TV antenna barely wavering as it began its descent.”

    It seems interesting, also, that both Science and Nature published a number of items about thermitic materials prior to 9/11, some dating back to the 30’s, but none since. Likewise Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (source).

  10. CS says:

    Also worth remembering is the paper by Kieth Seffen of Cambridge University, an attempt, it seems, to harness the scientific reputation of the world’s most famous center of scientific learning, in support of the same bogus “scientific” explanation of the collapse of the Twin Towers as that offered without benefit of evidence or inquiry by Science Magazine.

  11. Lee Anderson says:

    Just wanted to thank Kevin Ryan for his excellent research and contributions to truth and justice. I also wanted to alert everybody to the fire in the skyscraper 2/21/15 in Dubai, called, ironically, The Torch. A massive fire and the building didn’t collapse. Let’s all use this event to saturate the message boards and blogs with the facts of controlled demolition on 9/11.

  12. desertspeaks says:

    Science died long before 9/11.. it was and IS bought and paid for.. scientists will lie, cheat, steal commit outright fraud FOR THE HIGHEST BIDDER and FUTURE FUNDING!

  13. Tom Loeber says:

    Got Chomsky to engage me in a lengthy email chat over a period of about a week or two. I started it with claiming he is exhibiting characteristics of senility. He repeatedly attempted to use ad hominem and straw-man false logic in our discussion. His stance seems to throw light on why people embrace not being of integrity, misinforming others as well as the self. He has continually voiced support for pursuing a “syndicated anarchy.” That assumes we don’t have such now. Our current social conditions appear similar to what was depicted in one of the original Star Trek series, “A Piece of the Action.” There are many claims of legitimate governing systems but they are merely gangs of people who seek to align with power. Belief in epistemic relativism, what Daniel C. Dennet called “a mental aberration,” appears wanton. It is basically the opposite of the scientific method, weight of opinion is considered to determine truth. Suspect, in line with your final warning, lack of integrity in communications will continue and exacerbate until and if we find a functional way to govern ourselves. Heinlein voiced the Fermi paradox as “Can intelligent life survive its own information explosion?” H.G. Wells voiced similar concerns in his statement “Civilization is in a race between education and catastrophe.” Edward Hess’ recent book “Learn or Die” appears to plumb the characteristics of the situation though one might gain more insight from it if considering the organization we need find and sustain is our humanity and not any nation or corporation. Borrowing a bit from Dumas, one for all and all for one or nothing.

  14. Lois freeh says:

    1993 1st World Trade Center bombing
    FBI informant Ahmed Salem
    FBI agents/handlers.

    Oklahoma City bombing
    FBI informant Timothy McVeigh
    FBI agent handler Larry Potts

    Mumbai attack India
    FBI informant David Headley

    FBI handlers?

    Omagh bombing Ireland
    FBI informants
    Whitey Bulger
    David Ruppert

    FBI handlers Boston FBI office

    Is the builder of the Boston bombs still on the loose?

    March 5 2015

    Investigators have always wondered if more people were involved in the bombings than just the brothers
    Former Navy investigator: I think “they had somebody who was more of a skilled bomb maker .. assist them”
    There was no evidence the brothers ever tested their bombs before using them, CNN analyst says

    (CNN)It was a sophisticated attack with sophisticated devices.

    Authorities quickly identified the Boston bombing suspects, but almost immediately after Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed during the manhunt for the perpetrators and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured, investigators privately questioned if more people were involved.

    If there were others, perhaps a bomb maker is on the loose.

    Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told police he and his brother built the bombs, but court documents show some people involved in the case had their doubts.

    The bombs were described as powerful pressure-cooker explosives controlled remotely. There were fuses from Christmas lights and detonators constructed from model car parts.

    The twin bombings in April 2013 killed three people and wounded more than 250 others.

    “These relatively sophisticated devices would have been difficult for the Tsarnaevs to fabricate successfully without training or assistance from others,” prosecutors wrote in a filing opposing a move by Tsarnaev’s lawyer to throw out statements he made in the hospital.

    No testing?

    Two years after the attack Michael Marks, a former special agent for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, agrees on the technical aspects of the bombs.

    “These were two relatively sophisticated devices that went off almost simultaneously. They had a very, very short delay,” he said. “It would be my opinion that they had somebody who was more of a skilled bomb maker, an engineer if you will, assist them in saying these are the steps you need to go through and then assemble the device to make it safely and to make it function the way they want.”

    They were the kind of bombs that need testing to make sure they work the way you expect.

    “There has been no evidence that the two brothers actually tested and tried out making a bomb and detonating it,” CNN National Security Analyst Juliette Kayyem said. “Now it could be luck that they put this thing together, put it at the Boston Marathon finish line, and were able to detonate them so close to each other and sequentially. But it was a pretty sophisticated attack.”

    Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told FBI agents he and his brother built the bombs following instructions from al Qaeda’s Inspire magazine.

    No one has been publicly named as a possible co-conspirator. Investigators have focused on Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s suspected ties to militants.

    In 2012 the older Tsarnaev spent six months in Russia. Authorities have questioned how much exposure he may have had to radicals and whether he could have received training there.

    There are other clues that the brothers would have needed help with the bombs. There wasn’t trace evidence — black powder from fireworks — found in either home, their cars or anywhere associated with them, the court documents said.

    Also, investigators apparently were troubled that they recovered one remote-controlled detonator at the scene of the bombings when there should have been two. That suggested the other was being kept to use with other bombs.

    Marks said investigators didn’t find circuit testers.

    “You want a separate circuit tester in order to test the functionality of the components without it being hooked up to the actual device, for your own safety,” he said.

    Co-conspirator or victim?

    The trial underway in Boston will center on not whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev did it, but why he did it.

    The prosecution will paint a portrait of a cruel co-conspirator, an equal partner in hideous crimes. A man who planned to kill and did.

    But the defense will draw the accused as a boy living in the shadow of a mastermind older brother. Younger, struggling in school, abandoned by his parents. An easy victim of deep manipulation.

    The question of how he was influenced is essential to the case.

    Kayyem, who said she believes the brothers acted in tandem without outside help, said she think the defense strategy will be to create enough doubt within the jurors’ minds of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

  15. Olivier says:

    Hi Kevin, I forwarded your post to a friend of mine who didn’t like it. His argument was that the NIST report is just a compilation. The peer-review requirement was met, he says, by papers like those that pop up in a search like this one:

    Would you comment on that?

    • Kevin Ryan says:

      No, the NIST WTC Reports are not a compilation of other articles or reports. And obviously they can’t be a compilation of the articles you cite because most of those came out years after NIST published its WTC reports.

      • Olivier says:

        Sorry “compilation” was my own shortcut word, incorrectly chosen in haste. Let me be more precise: The google search pops up a number of articles that

        1. On the face of it don’t seem to challenge NIST
        2. On the face of it seem to have gone through a peer-review process,

        And so, on the face of it, one might consider those papers to legitimize the conclusions put forward by NIST since, after-the-fact like you note, the review process would have been applied to those conclusions.

        And so my question to you is: What is your assessment of those papers? In particular:

        1. Do they in fact support NIST’s conclusions?
        2. Were they in fact reviewed as one would hope they would?

        Thanks, Olivier

      • Kevin Ryan says:

        You’ll have to be more specific.

      • Olivier says:

        More specific questions:
        Do google-pop-upped papers explain mechanical phenomena that would seem to have been observed, or seem to be necessary for crash-fire-gravity-induced collapses such as:
        1. The break up of ALL outer perimeter columns at impact height in WTC1&2
        2. This happening fast enough for the upper section to gain enough speed, rather than just buckle down
        3. The sufficiency of kinetic energy gained to start crashing floors, and more specifically the core rather than just layers of trusses.
        (One would expect a falling floor to break the underlying trusses, given that they only need to carry one floor, rather than break the core, given that it should carry zillions.)
        4. The subsequent mechanism of progression of core collapse rather than truss pancake
        5. The tilting top section not just crashing down on the side of the tower
        6. The speed of WTC7 coming down
        7. The horizontal orientation of the WTC7 roof?

        Was any of this explained in the presumably peer-reviewed literature? Did people TRY to explain them? What are, in fact, the questions or the discussions that those papers address in your view?

        8. Do any of them manage to exclude controlled demolition? Do they try?

        Thanks, Olivier

        (Not even talking about chemical, thermal, etc phenomena)

  16. ajlucientes says:

    Reblogged this on wecandomuchbetter.

  17. Bob Brown says:

    You can find some mainstream, pro-official-story publication citations (mostly from early 200s) here, and elsewhere on their site:
    No, I haven’t read any of them. I am very sceptical of this official line, because it looks like these publications have been tailored to fit (and support) the conclusions of the official story, which I find ludicrous, and many if not most use tweaked computer-models.
    My family is the majority owner of a top-200 ENR construction company, which has built many 10-20 story high-rises. I investigated the twin towers collapse reasonably well. If I or my family had come to the conclusion that fires less than 1000 F could have brought down large skyscrapers, we would have quit the business or greatly increased load-bearing capacities. Instead, we have done neither, and as far as I can tell industry standards have changed little or nothing.

  18. Colin Doran says:

    @Kevin Ryan Would you say the 9/11 truth movement is politically motivated in it’s use of science?

    • Kevin Ryan says:

      Would you say the truth movement has a political affiliation?

      • Colin Doran says:

        The 911 truth movement has no party political affiiliation, it is across the political spectrum, I am talking about political with a small ‘p’. It is a campaigning organisation that talks about the wars that have resulted from 911 and the restrictions on freedoms etc. and the intention is to undo all of those things by undermining the ‘official story’ of 911. That is not a scientific motivation. It is an ideologically driven one that is not conducive to scientific objectivity.

      • Werner says:

        Colin Doran.
        “Would you say the 9/11 truth movement is politically motivated in it’s use of science?”
        I say clearly n o, because and its core members are professionals in buildings construction. A politically use of science can e ruled out and can be proven.
        NIST is a goverment institution with all its (political) implications.

      • Colin Doran says:

        Would you say AE911Truth is a campaigning organisation? What are they campaigning for and what is their objective? I don’t know many groups of engineers and architects doing world tours and talking about stopping wars and rolling back the security legislation like the Patriot Act etc. I don’t think I’ve ever come across an organisation of engineers less interested in explaining the collapse of the buildings on 911. They don’t want it explained , unless it involves explosives. Richard Gage’s presentation – and I’ve been to one – is almost exclusively about explosives. They have no interest in any other explanation for the collapse of those buildings. On the contrary any alternative explanation is subjected to criticism and attack as if even suggesting other alternatives might be an indication of some kind of complicity in a crime.

  19. Lee Andderson says:

    Their is no public debate on 9-11 because debate would be devasting to the worlds financial elite. Consider this argument: if OBL really took credit for 9/11 then why didn’t he crow about taking down Bldg 7 as collateral damage? Surely this would have proven Alahas blessing.
    Keep up the great work Kevin!!

  20. Werner says:

    @ Colin Doran
    “They have no interest in any other explanation for the collapse of those buildings. On the contrary any alternative explanation is subjected to criticism and attack as if even suggesting other alternatives might be an indication of some kind of complicity in a crime.”

    There is no alternative explanation as controlled demolition (especially for WTC 7) , because WTC 7 collapsed totally for the first 25m (32m following NIST) in freefall.If you have another exlanation for these freefall phenomenom, please show us.
    This is not a question of having no interest for the total collapse in its footprints for these three skyscrapers, there is no other rationale as controlled demolition, when the principles of science are followed! See the work and proofs of

    • Colin Doran says:

      @Werner “There is no alternative explanation as controlled demolition (especially for WTC 7) , because WTC 7 collapsed totally for the first 25m (32m following NIST) in freefall.”
      Are AE911 truth looking for an alternative explanation? I’ve been to a Richard Gage presentation and it was all about explosives. There was one just hypothosis put forward. Everything was compared to explosives. The presentation started with the consequences of 911, the wars, invasions, the security and surveillance etc. and how exposing the lie of 911 would help to end all these things. Well I’m all for ending wars and conflict but that has nothing to do with science and I have managed to get to age I am without ever been told by anyone about controlled demolition and what does or doesn’t or can or can’t happen in a controlled demolition. Controlled demolition is not a structural explanation for the collapse of buildings it’s a non-structural one. It’s an explanation that says ‘we can’t explain it – it must be explosives’ – after making little or no effort to explain it other than by explosives. They don’t want an explanation that doesn’t involve explosives because they have tied their explanation to a moral crusading purpose ,to stop wars and surveillance etc.
      If the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition , cutting the steel supports with cutter charges, cutting the steel ‘like a knife through butter’ then there would be cut steel everywhere afterwards. Where is it? Where is the evidence for it? It would be obvious on the ends of every piece of steel. Anyone who planned to CD the WTC buildings would know there would be cut steel everywhere afterwards. They would know that in advance. They would know that if they carried out a CD that it would be obvious afterwards. So at the WTC site as soon as the dust settled there was cut steel everywhere anyone looked. It took about 9 months to clear the site, with hundreds of first responders , firefighters, construction workers, engineers there on the site. Where is the evidence for steel columns with the ends cut with cutter charges? I asked AE911 truth what evidence they had for cut steel and was told
      ‘There is little or no evidence for cut steel at the WTC site, to say the least.’
      I asked Richard Gage if he had evidence for cut steel and he talked about these pictures with the big diagonal cuts but said they couldn’t say they were results of cutter charges as they could have been done during the clear-up of the site- which they obvious were. If all these steel supports were cut then they would be everywhere , cut. I see no evidence of it.

      • Werner says:

        @ Colin Doran
        ” It’s an explanation that says ‘we can’t explain it – it must be explosives’ – after making little or no effort to explain it other than by explosives. They don’t want an explanation that doesn’t involve explosives because they have tied their explanation to a moral crusading purpose ,to stop wars and surveillance etc.”

        So please make an effort to explain how e.g. WTC 7 could totally collapse as seen, without explosives. NIST did this with a (secret!) computer model, making belive that a single column out of 82 columns could bring the main part of WTC 7 6,9 seconds later into freefall. This is physically not possible.
        Therefore there NISTs computer model was not brought to public verification.
        There is no other explanation for the mode of failure of about 62 columns at beginn of freefall than explosives. If cutter charges were used is another question.
        Colin Doran
        “If the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition , cutting the steel supports with cutter charges, cutting the steel ‘like a knife through butter’ then there would be cut steel everywhere afterwards. Where is it? Where is the evidence for it? It would be obvious on the ends of every piece of steel.”

        This assumption is false. You can use for example high-tec/military explosives also to knock out e.g. the core columns every 10 floors from top to down the towers. This is what we saw. By the way NIST investigation on the towers only went to the initiation of the totalcollapses, they stopped ther “investigation” exactly here and did not investigate e.g. the squibs (which also proof the top down controlled demolition of the twin towers) or the hot spots in all three footprints (see Lidar fotos), or they don t looked for explosives (residues) as they should , they did not explain why nearly all the towers content , concrete, glass, together with more then 40 % of the victims in there, went into finest dust (see also the three huge dust clouds, the initial pyroclastic like flows) except the stee, which was found on ground zero and hastily shipped away.
        How many hints and proofs (especially the freefall for 25 m of the main part of WTC 7 ) do you need to abandon the idea that ordinary cutter charges were needed to bring the towers or WTC 7 down?

        Remember :

        “Among the dozens of people I have spoken to recently who are experts in the construction of tall buildings (and many of whom witnessed the events of September 11th as they unfolded), only one said that he knew immediately, upon learning, from TV, of the planes’ hitting the buildings, that the towers were going to fall. This was Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Incorporated, a Maryland-based family business that specializes in reducing tall buildings to manageable pieces of rubble. “Within a nanosecond,” he told me. “I said, ‘It’s coming down. And the second tower will fall first, because it was hit lower down.’ ”

        How could he knew this? Never before a skyscraper (even hit by an airplane) came down, especially not in the way the towers did. NIST and other “experts” needed at least the damage and the hot fires and perimetral failing floors plus a totally failing remaining 42 core columns (there were no big fires in the core region!) to explain the initiation of the total collapse of the twin towers.

        By the way : nearly every child can see, that the twin towers and WTC 7 were demolished by obviously hig-tech explosives.
        Only politically confused and unexperienced people d ont see it. Look at the videos and the explanations in

      • Daniel Noel says:

        “I asked AE911 truth what evidence they had for cut steel and was told
        ‘There is little or no evidence for cut steel at the WTC site, to say the least.’”

        AE911Truth botched their answer or you have not faithfully reported it. Evidence of cut steel at the WTC is overwhelming. The photographs of the World Trade Center after the Twin Towers’ destruction clearly show that their steel columns have been cut into thousands of pieces. Moreover, most of these cuts are rectilinear and many are about 10 m in length, commensurate with standard flatbed trucks. This is, at first sight, compatible with the hypothesis of a controlled demolition and incompatible with an accidental destruction by airplane impacts and the ensuing fires. This incompatibility will be cleared whenever somebody–presumably a team of experts–will find a technically credible airplane/fire destruction scenario that would account for this as well as the rest of the macroscopic evidence. In the meantime, these steel cuts provide an important reason to disbelieve the airplane/fire hypothesis while they do not provide an important reason to disbelieve the controlled demolition hypothesis.

        Incidentally, it is generally an error to argue the triple WTC controlled demolition based on the steel cuts. People whose brains have been rewired along the superstitious attribution of 9/11 to Osama bin Laden’s fanatical hijackers have great difficulty, through no fault of their own, paying attention to an explanation more complex than a 30 s commercial. You will find your 9/11 curriculum much easier to teach if you initiate it with some undisbelievable teaser.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s