9/11: The Scientific Fraud of the Century

Twelve years ago, on September 11, 2001, an event happened that forever traumatized the American people. Two planes flew into the Twin Towers and something struck the Pentagon. Before that time, Americans saw their country as the most powerful country in the world virtually immune from any such attacks. The fact that such attacks took place on such iconic American landmarks would have been exceptionally traumatic. The fact that their great nation’s defenses seemed to be almost non-existent that day would have been extremely embarrassing. Very quickly those feelings of shock and humiliation turned to fear and hatred.

Shock, awe, humiliation, fear, and anger; these are all powerful emotions, but they don’t constitute critical thinking and are most certainly not science. When a powerful nation’s foreign policy is based not on evidence, science, and reason, but on emotion, you have a recipe for a holocaust, not justice. When the official story of 9/11 is pried apart further, the haunting reality only gets bleaker.

The key event of 9/11 was the fall of the Twin Towers. That event resulted in by far the most deaths and was the most visual reminder of what happened. But try asking a member of any mainstream “skeptic” organization or any pseudo-scientist who claims to support the official story for any evidence as to how the towers came down. You’ll get anything but. They might simply scoff at the very question. They might commit a logical fallacy such as stating that the planes obviously hit the buildings and set them on fire. But that’s only evidence that the buildings sustained damage from jets and fire not that the damage actually resulted in the buildings coming down. In other words, they commit the false cause fallacy. They might point to the 9/11 Commission report.[1] But that report contains absolutely no technical details of the collapses. They might point to the NIST study of the Tower falls.[2] But this study deals only with the events preceding the falls. What they will never ever do however is produce evidence. They won’t produce evidence because there is no evidence whatsoever to support the official story of how the Twin Towers came down. There is only faith maniacally championed by the rabid cult of pseudo-skepticism. There are only lies spread by corporate pseudo-journalism.

There is evidence that supports the explanation that the Twin Towers were controlled demolitions. The rapid highly symmetric falls of all three buildings currently are only explainable by the use of some form of controlled demolition. If thermitics were used to weaken the building’s structural steel there would be tell-tale evidence. Thermitic reactions produce molten iron as a by-product. They also produce countless iron-rich micro-spheres. The USGS found such iron-rich spheres[3] as did a set of reports prepared for Deutshe Bank by the RJ Lee Group[4]. Several highly credible eyewitnesses report seeing pools of molten metal[5]. Eutectic formations causing intergranular melting were found on WTC 7 steel.[6] Unreacted nano-thermite chips have also been found in the WTC dust[7].

In the Bizarro World of the pseudo-skeptics, the explanation with scientific supporting evidence is rejected and ridiculed by all mainstream skeptic groups including the James Randi Foundation, CSI and CFI. The explanation with no supporting evidence at all is championed by these same groups as the only available scientific option. “Cranks” like Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, David Chandler, Kevin Ryan, Jonathan Cole and Frank Legge follow the scientific method and conduct experiments to support their conclusions. “Critical thinkers” like Michael Shermer and James Randi reject evidence that conflicts with their beliefs and support these beliefs with logical fallacies. The “fair and balanced” mainstream media reports only on information that supports the official story and ignores or minimizes information that does not. 9/11 is an extreme example of people being misrepresented as what they are not. Truly 9/11 is the scientific fraud of the century.


1. 9/11 Commission Report, http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

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

3. Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust (pubs.USGS.gov 2005) http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html

4 Signature Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property (RJ LeeGroup, Inc. 2003) http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf

5.Steven E. Jones, “Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 3 (September 2006) http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

6. Barnett, J. R., Biederman, R.R. and R.D. Sisson, Jr., “An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7”, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:18 (2001).

7. Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen. “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” The Open Chemical Physics Journal. (2009) Available from: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Join Liberty Classroom today and get 3 FREE books!

Michael Fullerton

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. 

Comments are encouraged, but please respect the rules. Click here for terms of use.

  • Knut

    Exact about ‘Skeptics’, more they should be called ‘apologists’

    Have you seen this presentation by

    B. Honneger ? It’s remarkable: http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2013/08/behind-smoke-curtain-911-pentagon.htm

    • Michael Fullerton

      The link doesn’t work for me Knut. I’m guessing this is what you mean:

      I haven’t watched it and don’t plan to as it’s irrelevant to my work. Here’s Frank Legge’s critique though:


      Personally I recommend everyone stay away from the Pentagon (and all other minor issues) and concentrate on the main event, the three tower falls. We want to unite on the main common points and not divide into chaos. That’s what the PTB want.

  • Marv Carper

    Can you believe some “Skeptics” say that the fact that David Petraus couldn’t keep his affair secret points out that a much larger government conspiracy would be impossible to cover up? I look forward to the smoking gun evidence uncovered by Edward Snowden in all that classified surveillance information. That’ll show those pseudo skeptics.

    • Michael Fullerton

      That’s a good example of them using the proof by example fallacy Marv.

  • MileHighMadness

    The Truther Movement is dead…
    Long live logic and reason!