Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth funded this multi-year project at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, to model the structure and assess the possible collapse mechanisms of WTC 7. The conclusions of the study make it clear that fire and progressive collapse were not the mechanisms that brought the building down.
Simple observations show that WTC 7 fell at or near freefall. Measurements show that it fell at actual freefall. Highschool physics is all it takes to conclude that there was no resistance, and therefore the massive amounts of actual structural resistance had to have been completely and suddenly removed by demolition charges.
However, those who have been skeptical of any explanation that deviates from the official story maintained that somehow the structural details would allow for some kind of progressive collapse. This project, by a research team led by Dr. Leroy Hulsey, lays all those fantasies to rest. It builds a complete finite element model of the building, including every structural member. The model could then be altered to simulate various kinds of damage to try to get it to fail as observed in real life on 9/11. The conclusions are inescapable: fire could not have caused the observed failure. This study reinforces the conclusions of other researchers, that the collapse of WTC 7 was the result of demolition by preplaced explosives.
Franklin Square & Munson Fire Commission Endorsement of Grand Jury 9/11 Investigation
The Franklin Square / Munsen Fire District meeting of July 24 passes resolution supporting the Lawyers’ Committee Grand Jury Petition and asks for a new investigation of “every crime” related to 9/11. (Watch starting at the 4:00 minute mark through approximately 9:55
The 9/11 Truth Movement’s strongest and most rigorously verified evidence-based theory is the explosive demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center.
By contrast, the Truth Movement’s most contentious and divisive issue has been the question of what happened at the Pentagon. The early study of the Pentagon was plagued by lack of information and misinformation, much of which has persisted. But even though we now have more evidence, most current theories fail to address the full range of evidence, especially that which supports large plane impact. Why? For all of us, anchoring and confirmation bias make it hard to let go of initial impressions. The scientific method requires us to challenge our biases as we seek truth.
A key word for this conference is “evidence.” Addressing all of the currently known relevant evidence is a crucial component of the scientific process – a process in which anyone can participate. The goal is to put all of the evidence on the table, not to end discussion, but to be the basis for ongoing discussion. We believe the current evidence supports large plane impact of the Pentagon. Scientific conclusions remain fluid, however, so all research remains open to critique.
The goals of this conference are to present current evidence that any viable theory must address and to put the discussion of what happened at the Pentagon on a solid scientific footing to make our movement as strong as possible. If the Truth Movement ever gets real traction in a court of law or with society at large, we will be attacked at our weakest point. Our adversaries are very powerful and have the media at their beck and call. If we are shown to be in disarray on such a major issue as the Pentagon, our good work proving demolition at the World Trade Center might well be ignored. Thus we welcome your participation in this conference and your questions as we continue in the search for truth.
The invited speakers at this event are, in alphabetical order, David Chandler, Wayne Coste, Ken Jenkins, Warren Stutt, and John D. Wyndham, all of whom have done active scientific research on the evidence at the Pentagon. We invite you to join us in Denver on May 4 and/or help us defray the costs by contributing financially through our GoFundMe account. The event will be videotaped.
We invite 9/11 Truth organizations and individuals to co-sponsor this event. Sponsorship does not imply endorsement of the particular conclusions of the various presenters, but implies support for the goals and process that are being advocated. Let us know if you or your group would like to be listed as a co-sponsor.
Presenters and their 9/11 Pentagon Evidence Research
David Chandler; BS (IPS) Physics/Engineering, Harvey Mudd College; MA Education, Claremont Graduate University; MS Mathematics, California Polytechnic University; Coordinator, Scientists for 9/11 Truth; Board, International Center for 9/11 Studies
Wayne Coste’s presentation of the 9/11 Pentagon evidence is essential homework for any who want to engage in the ongoing discussion of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. We have come a long way from the early memes of “too little debris” and “the hole is too small.” As Wayne puts it, “If you care enough to have an opinion about what happened at the Pentagon, you should care enough to know what the evidence is and what it shows.”
The Pentagon event has become the most divisive issue in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Organizations such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and other groups that have followed their lead, have set aside the question of what hit the Pentagon as “out of scope.” This policy has had the virtue of enabling them to focus their energies on the most solid evidence we have, which is the demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center.
However a side-effect of this decision has been to leave an intellectual vacuum at the Pentagon, where unscientific theories could flourish, unchallenged by any kind of scientific process. The uproar that has resulted threatens the credibility of the 9/11 Truth Movement. The situation has been described by some as “a mudfest.” If the movement ever gains real traction, it is the weakest link that will be the sole focus of public scrutiny, and it will be used to discredit all of our other work. The good work we have done at the World Trade Center will be ignored.
Scientists for 9/11 Truth has taken a different approach to this question. Rather than put the Pentagon event “off limits” our goal has been to put the discussion of the Pentagon evidence on a firm scientific footing. That is not to say only particular kinds of evidence, or particular analytic techniques are allowed, or that only “scientists” can be involved. Instead it insists that all who engage in the discussion enter into the dialectical process that is at the heart of real science.
In other words observations, analysis, and hypotheses about what happened should be presented openly to the community for critique, discussion, and correction. It is this self-correcting process, not some particular subject matter, or particular analytical techniques, or particular academic degrees that defines science. Science is characterized by its openness to public scrutiny. Promulgating private theories, encouraging a climate of us vs them, and attacking any who disagree is contrary to the nature of real science.
We welcome you to join us in doing real science, but please do the homework.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY AGREES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW REQUIRING SUBMISSION TO SPECIAL GRAND JURY OF REPORT BY LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE AND 9/11 VICTIM FAMILY MEMBERS OF YET-TO-BE-PROSECUTED 9/11 RELATED FEDERAL CRIMES
CONTACT: MICK HARRISON, ESQ., LITIGATION DIRECTOR (812) 361-6220 DAVID MEISWINKLE, ESQ., BOARD PRESIDENT (908) 420-2943
The U.S. Attorney’s letter does not spell out the steps that will be taken to comply, but 18 U.S.C. § 3332 is clear as to what these steps must be. This law states: “[a]ny such [United States] attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the [Special] grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney’s action or recommendation.” This law also states that “(a) It shall be the duty of each such [special] grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district.”
This letter from the U.S. Attorney was signed by Michael Ferrara and Ilan Graff, Chiefs, Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit. On November 24, 2018, the Lawyers’ Committee replied, thanking the U.S. Attorney and expressing support for a thorough inquiry into the crimes reported in the Lawyers’ Committee’s petitions.
The Lawyers’ Committee’s April 10th 52-page original Petition was accompanied by 57 exhibits and presented extensive evidence that explosives were used to destroy three WTC buildings. That evidence included independent scientific laboratory analysis of WTC dust samples showing the presence of high-tech explosives and/or incendiaries; numerous first-hand reports by First Responders of explosions at the WTC on 9/11; expert analysis of seismic evidence that explosions occurred at the WTC towers on 9/11 prior to the airplane impacts and prior to the building collapses; and expert analysis by architects, engineers, and scientists concluding that the rapid onset symmetrical near-free-fall acceleration collapse of three WTC high rise buildings on 9/11 exhibited the key characteristics of controlled demolition. The Lawyers’ Committee’s July 30th Amended Petition addresses several additional federal crimes beyond the federal bombing crime addressed in the original Petition. The Lawyers’ Committee concluded in the petitions that explosive and incendiary devices preplaced at the WTC were detonated causing the complete collapse of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 and increasing the tragic loss of life.
Attorney Mick Harrison
Attorney Mick Harrison, Litigation Director, stated: “The failure of our government to diligently investigate this disturbing evidence has contributed to the erosion of trust in our institutions. The Lawyers’ Committee felt it was out duty as public citizens to submit this evidence to the U.S. Attorney for submission to the Special Grand Jury.”
Attorney David Meiswinkle
Attorney David Meiswinkle, President of the Lawyers’ Committee’s Board of Directors, stated: “We have offered to assist the U.S. Attorney in the presentation of this evidence to a Special Grand Jury. We have also requested that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth provide us expert support in the hope that our organizations will be invited to make a joint presentation of relevant evidence to the Special Grand Jury.”
Attorney William Jacoby
Attorney William Jacoby, Lawyers’ Committee Board Member, stated: “We call upon the public and legal community to contact us and support our efforts to contribute to this grand jury process and to monitor and ensure compliance by the Justice Department.”
Executive Director and Actor Ed Asner
Executive Director and Actor Ed Asner stated: “The U.S. Attorney’s decision to comply with the Special Grand Jury Statute regarding our petitions is an important step towards greater transparency and accountability regarding the tragic events of 9/11.”
Note the blurb at the bottom of the video, where you would expect to find comments by whoever posted the video. This insertion into YouTube user content is apparently intended to serve as a warning to any who wander onto this page that the content fits their criteria for being “Fake News.” The insertion does not appear on embedded copies of the videos; just on the YouTube page itself. The link to Encyclopedia Britannica is supposed to guide unwary viewers to the actual truth of the matter. It is an exceptionally bland statement of the “official story” of 9/11.
When YouTube and other social media outlets banned sites by Alex Jones several weeks ago there was division in the ranks of presumably progressive commentators in the alternative media. Alex Jones was widely seen as a special case because he promoted such extreme views with a style that many found offensive. Many journalists pointed out that this was not government censorship because the social media platforms were private enterprises and could do what they liked. Some of the alternative media, however, pointed out the close relationships between the corporate giants, such as Google and Facebook, and the political establishment. Wikipedia, for example, has long been known to censor views that diverge from the interests of the political establishment. Try to find any article about 9/11 on Wikipedia that does not label the subject as unreliable conspiracy theory.
Scientists for 9/11 Truth does not promote conspiracy theories. We promote the investigation of the events of 9/11 with scientific rigor. We object to the arbitrary labeling of our research based on the fact that our conclusions differ from establishment views. Science is defined by the scientific process, not the outcomes. We do not claim absolute certainty for even our own conclusions: they are always subject to further investigation and correction. We certainly do not accept the judgment of politically motivated and manipulated investigations, such as the 9/11 Commission Report or the NIST Investigation, or the judgment of corporate entities that cite these kinds of reports as closing the books on the subject.
We view this effort by Google (owner of YouTube) to certify their view of the world as “TRUTH” as an act of propaganda that undermines legitimate dialogue and subverts the scientific process. We call on Google and the other social media corporations to reverse this decision, and we call on all who value an open society to oppose this move.
ANNOUNCEMENT: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has made the following announcement: “Today [08/21/18] we released our official Project Due Diligence video. In one hour and fifteen minutes, the video provides a comprehensive critique of the World Trade Center reports issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as well as a critique of the progressive collapse theory published by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). This video will serve as one of the main vehicles for our outreach to the civil engineering profession in the months and years ahead.”
Scientists for 9/11 Truth member Wayne Coste‘s epic analysis of the evidence at the Pentagon is now available in easily digested chapter-by-chapter form narrated by David Chandler. You can find it on David Chandler’s website here, on Wayne Coste’s Scientists’ member page here, or as a YouTube playlist here. The video, almost six hours in length, can be viewed chapter by chapter.
Coste started this project when he was on the other side of the fence, convinced that no plane hit the Pentagon. He was working on a compilation to prove that case and ended up convincing himself otherwise. This represents a massive effort and deserves careful consideration and study.
Recently Barbara Honegger, military historian and journalist, argued that the Pentagon strike was the most important piece of the 9/11 operation, from the perpetrator’s point of view, because an attack on the military turned this from a mere crime to an act of war, justifying military retaliation. Honegger’s Pentagon analysis is found in the first two hours of her three-hour presentation “Behind the Smoke Curtain” that has received wide attention in the 9/11 truth movement. See, for example, her presentation in Seattle in 2013. However, Honegger’s Pentagon analysis has been refuted in a 97 page paper by seven authors, Victoria Ashley et al, available in the link just given or on this site.
David Chandler, B.S. Physics, M.S. Mathematics
Regarding Honegger’s assertion, it does not follow that the evidence needed for proving government involvement in 9/11 is at the Pentagon. The evidence required to show government complicity is at the World Trade Center. All that needed to be done at the Pentagon was to hit it with something…anything. Ramming a plane into the Pentagon did not require any kind of fancy deception. The more blatant the act the better. If shrouding it in secrecy and false speculation helped throw those searching for the truth into disarray, all the better. What is required of the 9/11 Truth Movement is a mature assessment of the evidence…all of the evidence. There is no win in finding some spectacular deception. The “win” is in seeing the truth of the matter with clear eyes. The evidence shows that a large plane, most probably AA Flight 77, hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
Is this the official story? Not at all. The official story is that the United States was attacked by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. That is certainly false. Big planes hit the WTC, a big plane hit the Pentagon. That’s what the evidence shows, and a clear look at the evidence is what provides a path out of the wilderness of conflicting Pentagon theories for the 9/11 Truth Movement. Wayne Coste’s massive video is the latest effort in research by scientists and engineers that clearly shows that a large plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11. For other papers and videos that support this same conclusion, see Papers on this site and the website Scientific Method 9/11.
The chapter titles in Wayne Coste’s video(s) are:
Preface 1 Overview 2 Endless Pentagon Debates; How Did We Get Here 3 Size of the Opening in the Pentagon 4 Design, Construction and Destruction of E-Ring Wall 5 The Tree at Column 16 6 Review of the C-Ring Exit Hole 7 Plane Approach Path 8 Plane Impact Analysis 9 A Comprehensive Review of the Lloyd’s Accident Scene 10 Analysis of the CITGO Security Cameras 11 Pentagon Security Camera Analysis 12 Debris 13 Evidence of Explosions 14 The April Gallop Lawsuit 15 Ground Effect and Yaw Rotation 16 Porter Goss and the Sonic Boom 17 Citizen Investigation Team Interviews Submission Submission to the 9/11 Consensus Panel Challenge Peer Review Peer Review Comments
Coste’s original version in the form of a single video with his own narration, published on May 28, 2018, is also available here.
The high-rise building collapses in New York City on September 11, 2001 (9/11) are the subject of a new paper by four authors who are well known in the field of 9/11 scientific research.The authors are Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti and Ted Walter. The name of the paper is 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-rise Building Collapses. The paper was published by Europhysics News, the magazine of the European physics community with a current circulation of about 25,000 copies per issue and a much wider readership.The paper immediately attained widespread interest, with almost 350,000 views to date. See the section Paper Arouses Controversy below.
The paper’s focus is on the World Trade Center Twin Towers (WTC1, WTC2) and Building 7 (WTC7). The paper begins by pointing out that the failure, supposedly from fire, of these three steel-framed buildings was unprecedented, nor has any such failure due to fire in a steel-framed building been repeated since 9/11. A growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by the government’s explanation as presented by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Prior to 9/11 and since then, the only known way to completely collapse such buildings is through a procedure known as controlled demolition, whereby a building is wired with explosives designed to bring it down.
The paper discusses ways to prevent high-rise failures and the techniques of controlled demolition. It presents separate case studies for WTC7 and for the Twin Towers, and includes a discussion of theoretical papers by civil engineering professor Zdeněk Bažant and others. In a final section, the paper presents physical evidence ignored and unexplained by NIST, such as the “midair pulverization of most of the towers’ concrete, the near-total dismemberment of their steel frames,” and “the ejection of those materials up to 150 meters in all directions.” Also noted is the unexplained presence of molten metal prior to collapse and in the debris, and the presence of unreacted nano-thermitic material in multiple independent WTC dust samples. The paper concludes that the evidence points overwhelmingly to controlled demolition as the real cause of the building destructions.
Paper Arouses Controversy
Peter Michael Ketcham Former NIST Employee
The paper immediately attained a wide readership numbering almost 350,000 views to date. For the current number of views, see METRICS. In an editorial note published with the paper, the Editors gave their opinion that the paper contained “some speculation” and that the article content was “the responsibility of the authors.” The next issue of Europhysics News following publication of the paper contained four letters, including an unexpected and stunning letter to the editor by a former employee of NIST, Peter Michael Ketcham, who worked at NIST from 1997 until 2011.
Ketcham, who did not contribute to NIST’s World Trade Center investigation, recently began reading the NIST WTC reports and watching documentaries challenging NIST’s findings. In his letter, Ketcham states that the more he read, “the more it became apparent that NIST had reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring, dismissing, and denying the evidence.” He ends his letter by calling upon NIST to “blow the whistle on itself now” before awareness of the “disconnect between the NIST WTC reports and logical reasoning” grows exponentially.Ketcham elaborates on his awakening in an interview available as part of a Youtube video.
Three other letters in this issue of Europhysics News also address the paper. A letter by José Zorrilla, a structural engineer in Uruguay, supports the NIST findings but never mentions any of the evidence ignored by NIST. For example, in the case of the Twin Towers, NIST ignored all visual and other evidence that appeared after the Towers began to collapse, an unconscionable breach of the scientific method and in itself a compelling indication of fraud. In the case of WTC7, NIST never explained the period of free fall shown by physicist David Chandler, a member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth. Previously, NIST had stated publicly that, for a collapse under gravity as NIST had proposed, free fall would violate the laws of physics.
The Editors themselves wrote a letter that indicates a sudden loss of editorial transparency or integrity in the process. No doubt the editors will have come under considerable fire from those governments and institutions opposed to an honest investigation of 9/11. The Editors admit their prior awareness of the “controversial conclusion” of the paper, namely, that the three buildings were brought down by some form of controlled demolition. The Editors state that they “considered that the correct scientific way to settle this debate was to publish the manuscript and possibly trigger an open discussion leading to an undisputable truth based on solid arguments.” After triggering such a debate, the Editors now appear to be withdrawing from this high standard of scientific inquiry by stating: “It is shocking that the published article is being used to support conspiracy theories related to the attacks on the WTC buildings. The Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views.” This is a most regrettable act and development on the Editors’ part. This withdrawal from their former high ethical stance may have been triggered by the fourth letter, a letter from NIST that the Editors themselves solicited.
In a fourth letter to the Editors, Michael E. Newman, Senior Communications Officer of NIST, stands by the NIST investigations and recounts NIST’s well-known findings that the collapses were primarily due to fire. Newman also gives an account of some of the building code changes resulting from the NIST investigations. Newman never mentions the evidence ignored by NIST, evidence that is now widely acknowledged and increasingly familiar to independent professionals and the public.
It is to be hoped that this paper with its widespread readership and the debate that it has now ignited, will continue to spread its message “exponentially” as predicted by former NIST employee, Peter Michael Ketcham.
Ted Walter is the director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a nonprofit organization representing more than 2,500 architects and engineers, and many thousands of other signers of their petition for a new investigation of 9/11.
In 2009 and then again in 2014, Ted Walter acted as executive director of two ballot initiatives in New York City for a referendum that, if passed, would demand that the city Department of Buildings investigate the collapse of WTC7. The 2014 initiate, called the High-Rise Safety Initiative gathered 53,000 signatures, nearly double the required number. In both cases, the courts denied the initiatives which never appeared on the ballot.