In 2017, hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets to protest the Trump Administration’s denial of science. This began with the “March for Science” in April and continued throughout the year with scientists and supporters trying to find their political voice. However, most people in this new science-promoting movement willfully deny basic laws of science when those laws relate to one particularly sensitive subject of national discourse.
For example, many Americans have denied the Law of Conservation of Momentum as it relates to the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. This point was made in a peer-reviewed scientific paper published in a journal of civil engineering (see point #5). Although conservation of momentum is taught and understood by students in secondary school, the alleged violation of this law is widely accepted by those who are faced with the obvious, evidence-based alternative that explosives were used to bring the buildings down.
Similarly, Americans who support the official account have also denied the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum. In this case, the top section of the south tower rotated off its axis and should have continued rotating and falling intact along the side of the building but it did not. Instead the top section was simply pulverized in mid air by unseen forces.
The Law of the Conservation of Energy was also violated on 9/11, if one believes the official government account. One way in which this can be seen is with regard to temperatures needed to achieve the government’s claim that steel softened throughout a wide swath of each building. The jet fuel and office furnishings in the Twin Towers did not provide the energy needed for the steel components to reach temperatures needed to soften steel. More importantly, molten metal was observed at the site of the WTC destruction and this fact can only be explained by the presence of thermitic materials, for which there is an enormous amount of evidence.
The U.S. government took great pains over a period of years to ignore the evidence for what actually happened at the WTC site while taking a politically driven, anti-scientific approach to it. Sadly, subsequent administrations and many professional scientists have ignored this political abuse of science in order to avoid sensitive implications that could threaten their careers. Today’s science-promoting Americans have, in many cases, also ignored the evidence and have therefore practiced the opposite of what they preach. That is, abuse of science is bad when Trump does it but is perfectly acceptable when “conspiracy theories” are the only other choice.
Meanwhile, 9/11 victim’s families continue to fight for justice and scientists in other countries can be seen rejecting the spread of America’s anti-science approach.
When Americans are truly willing to stand up for science no matter the political implications, society might begin to heal from the violence and destruction of American values that began with those fateful crimes. Until then, the world will continue to suffer the consequences of the willful ignorance of science in America.
Thank you for keeping this alive. I agree completely, and am hopeful that someday the public will know the truth, and those responsible will be held accountable if they’re still alive.
Great and timely post. Confront the gatekeepers! Jon
As you probably know, this is just the tip of the iceberg of lies from the deep state. I would very much like to chat or possibly meet in NYC. If you know of or are organizing such a group, please let me know.
Let us not vilify President Trump.
He has a huge job to do in exposing wickedness in the US and in building strength.
The US presently does not have the strength to examine 9/11.
Let this Presidency become firmly established, and let the Deep State be exposed first.
There is no value to the 9/11 Truth Movement in attacking President Trump.
Thank you. Chris Moyler
The NIST hypothesis has not been proven yet, and there is no scientific consensus.
Those who want to believe there is a scientific consensus are mostly pro-GMO activists who don’t understand how science works and what a scientific consensus is.
What hypothesis? Their report is simply fraudulent from every which way.
* They excluded controlled demolition as the most likely cause on the basis of “too loud sounds” (there were loud sounds, there was visual evidence of explosions and there were all the other hallmarks of controlled demolition, including molten metal which they managed to keep themselves unaware of, while there wasn’t a single hallmark of fire as cause in the collapse);
* They fraudulently did not test for explosives or do any forensic examination of the physical evidence – most of it was shipped away hastily and illegally but, of course, there was a little physical evidence that independent researchers managed to study.
* Everything they said about how fire brought the buildings down was purely in the realm of speculation. You need to have a basis for an hypothesis. There simply was no basis for their hypothesis and they ignored the screamingly obvious one.
You need nothing more than that. A pervasive and false belief in determining how a crime was committed is that you need huge amounts of information. You do not – you only need enough to prove your case. And when you shed the propaganda and power of the Hitlerian lie, the collapse of the the towers by “fire” at the WTC is simply the biggest case of the Emperor’s New Clothes the world has ever known.
The NIST presented an hypothesis that is either right or wrong (I’m also convinced it is wrong). The burden of prrof is for those who believe in it to bring proofs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
The skeptics don’t have to proove the hypothesis is wrong. The probleme with most of the skeptical movement, like Michael Shermer, is that they pretend to be skeptics but that are only when they decided that something is wrong. It means they are not real skeptics.
The technical community’s failure to affirm the evident controlled demolition of the Twin Towers is one of the fundamental teachings of 9/11. After it appeared that law enforcement and the mass media were covering it up, the American Society of Civil Engineers could effortlessly blow the whistle by simply inviting its members to have a critical look at the video and photographic record of the event. If the “big bad ugly” U.S. government somehow controlled it, then Canadian, Japanese, Venezuelan, Iranian or Russian engineering associations and university faculties of engineering could be expected to pick up the slack. Thinking of it, this may have been sufficient to make 9/11 fall flat before the Afghan war could be launched.
The reverse truth is that the Master 9/11 conspirators, who were smart enough to understand the danger the technical community could expose them to, managed to obtain assurances during the 9/11 project that no technical organization of significance, anywhere in the world, would ever duly educate its members on this topic. 17 years later, it appears that they succeeded.Love,
I think people who expect Trump to expose the “Deep State” are naive and sadly mistaken. Whoever the “Deep State” is that Trump is supposed to “expose,” we can rest assured that he won’t be exposing the military/industrial complex:
“PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP has weaponized the revolving door by appointing defense contractors and their lobbyists to key government positions as he seeks to rapidly expand the military budget and homeland security programs.”
And the only time that Trump criticizes the intelligence community is when they investigate him. When they investigate his political enemies, he is all in favor of them.
So if you’re expecting Trump to help expose 9/11, it’s time to give up your pipe dream.