9/11 Pseudo-Science: A US Foreign Policy Built on Fraud

World Trade Center 7 collapsed symmetrically on the afternoon of 9/11 with a sudden onset of free-fall acceleration.

World Trade Center 7 collapsed symmetrically on the afternoon of 9/11 with a sudden onset of free-fall acceleration.

Most US citizens would like to believe that their government’s foreign policies are based on sound reasoning and conscientious considerations. But is that really the case?

US foreign policy was shaped dramatically following the horrific events on September 11, 2001. Over the following years many scientific problems have arisen with the official US government version of what happened on that day. The fall of the Twin Towers was the defining event of 9/11. However, the scientific problems are easiest to understand by looking solely at the official explanation as to how the World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7 also known as the Solomon Brothers Building ) fell that day. WTC 7 is a doorway to coming to terms with the official 9/11 myth.

The official explanation from The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on how WTC 7 fell states that fires alone brought down this building.[1] Now, in science, all explanations must be backed up with valid scientific observations. These observations can be readily observable facts or the results of verified and replicated experiments. If there are no supporting observations for an explanation, that explanation is based purely on faith, not science. Attempting to portray such pseudo-science as science is fraud.

To support the official hypothesis that fire brought down WTC 7, NIST spent $22 million to develop a computer model they hoped would model the collapse and support their hypothesis. In fact, this computer model is the sole piece of evidence they have to support their hypothesis. Computer modelling is a valid form of scientific experiment provided that the simulation replicates the actual event it is supposed to model and the simulation can be independently verified.[2] If, however, you create a computer simulation of a phenomenon in order to explain something about that phenomena but your model looks little like what you are supposed to be modelling, you have a big problem. Your model is not reproducing reality and therefore any additional information the model uncovers cannot reliably be attributed to the actual phenomena.

Consider the following example. Suppose a computer model of a plane crash is constructed that shows the plane flying straight down instead of corkscrewing as it did in reality. Because this model does not model an important characteristic of the event, the model constitutes a failed or non-replicated experiment, and thus any other information gleaned from the model would not constitute valid scientific evidence to support an explanation as to how that plane actually fell.

Likewise, NIST’s WTC 7 model shows a longer fall time, no eight-story period of free fall, and massive deformations that are not seen in the actual video footage of the WTC 7 fall.[3] So NIST’s model does not replicate reality and is therefore not a valid scientific experiment. Because the model is not a valid experiment, none of its results count as supporting evidence. So NIST, contrary to their pronouncements, has no scientific evidence at all to support their hypothesis as to how WTC 7 came down. Claiming to have scientific supporting evidence when none actually exists is misrepresentation. It is outright fraud.

To make matters worse, the data their WTC 7 computer model is based on is unavailable to independent researchers. It is unavailable because NIST refuses to release it. NIST has stated that releasing the data “might jeopardize public safety”.[4] The NIST experiment therefore cannot be independently verified or validated. So NIST’s only evidence for their hypothesis, their computer model, violates both scientific principles for computer modelling and is therefore scientifically irrelevant. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the official hypothesis for WTC 7’s fall.

For the Twin Towers, NIST’s entire analysis is strangely limited only to collapse initiation.[5] So for WTC 1 and WTC 2, they did not even attempt to provide any evidence at all that the collapses were due to fire. Even if their evidence for collapse initiation was valid, they have absolutely no scientific evidence that those initial events led to global collapse of the buildings. Any pompous pseudo-skeptics who claim that the NIST report contains evidence that fire brought down the towers then commit the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc logical fallacy.[6] This argument states that simply because one event preceded the other, the first event caused the second event. You can’t say a preceding event caused another event unless you rule out all other possible factors that might have caused the event. NIST’s hypothesis that fire brought the twin towers down then is also based wholly on faith and illogic, not science.

Is there evidence that supports an alternative hypothesis to the official story of the WTC falls? There is actually considerable evidence supporting the hypothesis that all three buildings came down due to controlled demolition. All we need, though, is one piece of evidence to best the official story. The rapid fall times of all three buildings currently are only explainable by the use of some form of controlled demolition. As noted above, there is absolutely no evidence available that fire alone can cause the near-simultaneous damage required to cause such rapid falls. The largely symmetrical descents are also currently only explainable by controlled demolition. No valid experiments have ever been conducted to show that buildings can fall due to the effects of such office fires while exhibiting such rapid symmetrical descents. The entire history of observations resulting from controlled demolition of large buildings however, supports the idea that the WTC buildings could have come down by controlled demolition.

NIST and every large mainstream self-proclaimed “skeptic” organization, including The James Randi Foundation,[7] Skeptic Magazine,[8] Skeptical Inquirer Magazine, CSICOP[9] and CFI[10] unquestioningly support the official 9/11 story. This support includes support for the official story of the WTC 7 fall and the fall of the Twin Towers. When “skeptic” organizations, organizations claiming to support science and critical thinking, support an explanation, it implies that they regard this explanation as valid and science-based. However, as shown above, the official story of all three building falls in fact has no scientific evidence whatsoever to support it. When organizations claiming to support science and critical thinking reject outright the only available scientific explanation and instead champion a wholly unscientific explanation supported only by bad science, they are guilty of gross misrepresentation. They are guilty of fraud.

Notes

1 NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report of the Collapse of Building 7 http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

2 Hoover, S.V and Perry, R.F., 1989. Simulation. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 696 pp.

3 http://rememberbuilding7.org/nist-collapse-model/

4 http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-12/nist-denies-access-wtc-collapse-data

5 NIST NCSTAR 1 http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017

6 http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html

7 http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

8 http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/

9 http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/you_cant_handle_the_truthiness_a_night_out_with_the_9_11_truth_community/

10 http://www.cficanada.ca/ontario/events/9_11_truth_debate_and_discussion/

Michael Fullerton

Homepage
Michael Fullerton has a BSc in Computer Science and Psychology from the University of Calgary. He works as a software designer. He is a member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice. Fullerton began studying scientific problems with the official 9/11 story in 2006 and has written several articles on the subject. Visit his website at www.skeptopathy.com. 

7 Responses to "9/11 Pseudo-Science: A US Foreign Policy Built on Fraud"

  1. BARKLEY PONTREE  September 11, 2012 at 4:28 am

    Wrong. You do not need just one piece of evidence to reject the null hypothesis and replace it with your alternative. You have to prove the alternative to 95% certainty or greater to reject the null.

    Since we have no real world example of a demolition of a 100+ story building, and since any demolition movies you have will show the based sections being blown first and what you don’t have in NY is the pictures or any evidence of the base being blown first, you got squat.

    However, your analysis of the problem with computer simulations is dead on. Also, paying attention to variables that are important and since there is no way possible to understand all the variables in a building that had a large section of it’s side impacted by destructive materials and a day long fire fed by pressurized fuel from underneath the building, a computer model really wouldn’t do much and is too easily manipulatable to come to a predetermined conclusion.

    barkleypontree.blogspot.com

    Reply
    • Jeremy R. Hammond
      Jeremy R. Hammond  September 11, 2012 at 7:32 am

      Barkley, apply your own standard to your own view. Prove that fire brought down WTC 7 to 95% certainty.

      NIST’s fire-induced collapse hypothesis is a fraud. Their report is scientific fraud from start to finish.

      Reply
    • Michael Fullerton  September 11, 2012 at 11:04 am

      Barkley you seem to be a bit confused regarding the concept of the null hypothesis. The official hypothesis is not the controlled demolition null hypothesis. For the official hypothesis the null hypothesis is that “fire did not cause the building collapses”. For the CD hypothesis the null hypothesis is that “controlled demolition did not cause the buildings to fall”. 100% of the available scientific data supports the official null hypothesis and 100% of the data contradicts the CD null hypothesis. So once again the CD hypothesis stands alone as the only available scientific hypothesis while the official hypothesis rots in pseudo-science oblivion.

      We don’t need to have an example of a 110 story building demolition to apply what we know about controlled demolition. Building CD also does not require blowing the base columns first. See the verinage technique for just one example. Here’s another:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

      At any rate, the WTC 7 collapse shows a kink in the middle which is a tell tale sign that the base core columns were blown first.

      Reply
  2. aussie  September 11, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    Barkley – unfortunately you have some of your facts completely wrong.

    (a) your write about “a building that had a large section of it’s side impacted by destructive materials”. It was a chunk that was a smallish percentage of the overall size of the building. And WTC Buildings 3,4,5 and 6 were all impacted by debris and some were subjected to far worse fires than Building 7 – yet not one of them underwent rapid global implosion.

    (b) you talk about ‘fire fed by pressurised fuel from beneath the building’.
    Hogwash.
    S Shyam Sunder of NIST himself discounted any notion of ‘fuel-fed’ fire in WTC 7.

    and a day long fire fed by pressurized fuel from underneath the building

    Reply
  3. Free Bird  September 13, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    Uh Barkley, the computer model was for building 7.

    Building 7 was 47 stories high and all of the footage we have indicates the base was blown first.

    Maybe you would like to examine the evidence get on topic and try again?

    Reply
  4. psikeyhackr  September 17, 2012 at 8:59 am

    Now this is funny. An economics professor at the University of Calgary called me a “loony” because of this:

    http://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html

    But another PhD economist said I was correct and that the textbooks are wrong. How is it that double-entry accounting could be invented in Europe 700 years ago and yet economists and educators cannot suggest that it be mandatory in their schools? Is it mandatory in any Western country?

    9/11 is now a bigger issue than American foreign policy. This is about physics education and whether or not the average person is supposed to know enough to recognize simple lies about Grade School Physics WORLD WIDE. Is Physics supposed to be a Religion and only people with PhDs in the subject are supposed to truly understand what Newton figured out 300 years ago? I have had someone tell me that Einsteinian Physics has superseded and the Newtonian version does not matter. It is as though people can talk any BS about physics to defend the official story.

    The airliner that hit the south tower was not doing anywhere near 1% of light speed. LOL At 1% of light speed the Tau Factor is less than 1/100th of 1%. Are skyscrapers designed with that degree of precision? Are the equations from Einsteinian Physics used to design airliners and skyscrapers?

    9/11 is a global educational and psychological problem. Are psychologists and psychiatrists who cannot understand 300 year old Newtonian Physics actually sane? Are they incapable of figuring out when their thinking is out of touch with reality?

    Are psychologists who cannot do grade school physics saying that “conspiracy theorists” who can do physics are neurotic or insane? Physics is not going to change in the next 1000 years so the 9/11 Affair will be more significant than the Galileo Affair for centuries to come. Even if physicists universally concede that airliners could not have destroyed buildings 2000+ times their own mass, they can never blot out the fact that they did not do it for more than a decade.

    Fiziks is Fundamental, Resistance is Futile

    Reply
  5. dee  September 29, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    Barkley, in one of the videos, we measured a slab – presumably one of the floors and it appears about the size of a double tennis court (measured on a frozen frame against the buildings alongside).
    This double tennis court – CONCRETE SLAB – was projected laterally, then fell with gravity in an arch of over 200 – 240 feet from the building. There were either explosives – or gravity went sideways – twice – for 10 seconds on that day.

    Reply

Join the Discussion