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.


1 NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report of the Collapse of Building 7

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