9/11, NIST, and “Bush Science”: A New Standard for Absurdity

By Arabesque

Revision: July 6, 2007. Article and references revised.

Abstract:

In 2005, NIST released the results of their three year investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11.  I will show that the report uses deceptive and unscientific reasoning to reach untenable conclusions.  To prove this, I will use NIST’s own statements and evidence to show their deceptive practices, and that their conclusions are unscientific and contradicted by all or most of the relevant facts.[1]

The NIST report is used to claim that the 9/11 official story is true.  However, in order to judge whether something is true, we must examine its credibility.

Individuals and organizations possess credibility—but so do ideas and theories.  I have previously made two arguments:

·        The Bush administration lacks scientific credibility[2]

·        The 9/11 NIST report lacks scientific credibility[3]

I offered evidence to support the first argument, which is independent from the second.[4] I concluded that the NIST report uses the political method:

·        Political Method:  Start with a thesis[5] and then examine only the facts that confirm the argument.

The focus of this essay is to examine the NIST report further.  In doing so, it becomes clear that my previous analysis was actually too polite—the NIST report is an outrageous theory. What is an outrageous theory?  David Ray Griffin explains this concept clearly:

“What distinguishes an outrageous theory from a non-outrageous one? …scientists and philosophers of science ask which theory is better and why. The mark of a good theory is that it can explain, in a coherent way, all or at least most of the relevant facts [i.e. like the scientific method] and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts [i.e. like the political method].  An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.”[6]

9/11 whistleblower Kevin Ryan calls the NIST report “Bush science”.[7]  I propose the following definition:

·        Bush science: an argument that employs the political method with almost no evidence to support it—a predetermined conclusion containing fabricated and practically non-existent evidence—or even contradictory evidence.  It can be used to invent a new “scientific reality”[8] where known laws of physics are inconvenient and therefore ignored.  An outrageous theory—a theory contradicted by all or most of the relevant facts.

Bush science possesses next to zero credibility.[9] Indeed, it defies common sense.  Bush science is so deceptive that it can only be considered a deliberate and intentional lie.  It can consist of most or all of the following:

Predetermined Conclusion

Fabricated Evidence

Relevant Evidence Ignored

Contradictory Evidence Ignored

Laws of Physics Contradicted

Deceptive Experiments

Conclusions Contradicted by All or Most of the Evidence

The NIST report consists of all of the above; therefore, it is Bush science. Consequently, it is not credible and should be rejected as a false explanation for why the WTC towers were completely destroyed.  I will examine NIST’s own statements and “scientific” evidence to demonstrate this. 

NIST’s official theory:

NIST’s three year, 20 million dollar study concluded that:

“The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, floors, and perimeter columns. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires.”[10]

According to NIST, the plane damage was mainly significant because of the “dislodged fireproofing”.  Their theory consists of 7 points:

1. The aircraft severed “a number of columns”
2. Loads were redistributed (from -20% to +25%)
3. Insulation fireproofing was widely dislodged
4. High temperatures softened columns and floors
5. Some floors began to sag
6. Sagging floors pulled exterior columns inward causing them to buckle
7. Instability spread around entire building[11]   

NIST consistently uses “Bush science” to compromise all of their arguments.

Predetermined Conclusion

To make a predetermined conclusion is to accept a theory without examining all of the relevant evidence.  I, like most had a predetermined conclusion about the destruction of the World Trade Centers on 9/11; fires and damage from the planes caused the WTC towers to collapse.  Many were convinced that this was the most obvious explanation.  Unfortunately, not all of the evidence was known, therefore our conclusions were based on an incomplete examination of the evidence.[12]    

Scientists are trained to think differently.[13]  They prefer to look at all of the relevant evidence before coming to a conclusion to avoid unnecessary speculation.  This approach results from using the Scientific Method.  The NIST scientists did not behave like normal scientists.  Just days after 9/11, NIST scientists had already come to a predetermined conclusion without examining any of the physical evidence:

·        “Already, there is near consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center.”[14]

·        “I knew once the jets hit the building that the WTC would collapse as it did, I just didn’t know when it was going to happen.”[15]

·        “We all know what caused the collapse.”[16]

How could these NIST scientists confidently know exactly what caused the buildings to collapse just days after 9/11? These statements indicate that NIST scientists reached a predetermined conclusion before looking at any of the physical evidence.  Was there another possible explanation for why the towers collapsed?

Not everyone agreed with the predetermined conclusion of NIST.  Even NIST contributor Ronald Hamburger’s first impression was that “[explosive] charges had been placed in the building.” [17]

News anchors[18] and other credible people had thought of this possibility too, so why wasn’t this theory examined in the NIST report?

Peter Jennings[19] of ABC News said: “anyone who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under-infrastructure of the building to bring it down”

Dan Rather[20] of CBS News said that the “collapse was reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen [when]a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down”

Structural Engineer Van Romero’s first impression was: “My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse”[21]

The buildings were designed to survive plane crashes and jet fuel fires thus contradicting NIST’s predetermined theory.[22] Building designer John Skilling states that “our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from a plane impact] would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there.”[23]

NIST was aware of this statement and ignored it—outrageously claiming that it was an anonymous view![24]

Credible individuals thought that controlled demolition was a reasonable hypothesis and that the building should have survived a plane crash and its jet fuel fires; among them the building designers[25]—so why weren’t alternative hypothesis such as controlled demolition examined as part of the NIST study as even a remote possibility?[26]  Why was NIST so confident of their conclusions when the building designers stated that the buildings would survive exactly this kind of an event?[27]  NIST ignored the controlled demolition hypothesis and the claims of the building designers.[28] The evidence indicates that NIST started with a predetermined conclusion, and did not consider alternative hypotheses.

Fabricated Evidence

Fabricating evidence is defined as inventing fake evidence; therefore it is not legitimate evidence to prove a theory.[29]  As an example, NIST uses a computer model to show that fire caused the WTC towers to fall—but we can’t see it.  Can we trust this evidence?  A computer simulation is not evidence if we can’t see it; therefore, it is a kind of fabricated evidence:

“World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.”[30]

What data did NIST use for these computer models?  We don’t know exactly, but they did reveal:

“The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases… were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events.”[31]

Clearly, NIST ignores contradictory evidence.  Since their original model did not prove their predetermined conclusion they had to fix their data until they get the desired result—building collapse:

“The more severe case… was used for the global analysis of each tower... To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance… the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted...”[32]

NIST’s theory couldn’t be proved with the original data, so they changed the data, which was different from the eyewitness reports and photographic evidence.  Does this “evidence” prove anything besides the fact computer simulations are fun to play around with?

NIST also revealed:

“The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.”[33]

Is it not logical to assume that NIST would show us all the proof that supports their theory?  Kevin Ryan argues that the NIST theory is largely based on this “evidence”.[34]  Evidence that no one can see is no evidence at all.  

Relevant Evidence Ignored

Unbelievably, NIST states [audaciously in a footnote!]:

“The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although [the investigation] does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.”[35]

In other words: the report does not explain what happens after the “collapse” began.  This shows that the NIST report essentially a “pre-collapse” theory.[36]  One would hope that the 20 million dollars used to fund the NIST study would be enough to attempt to answer how the 110 floor twin towers completely collapsed to the ground.  The fact that NIST couldn’t find the room to provide a theory[37] in a 43 volume, 10,000[38] page study is fatally suspect.  This shows the unparalleled absurdity of the NIST report.   The most fundamental question about 9/11 is why were the WTC towers completely destroyed and NIST does not attempt to answer it.[39]  And yet this fact is only referenced in a footnote as if it were not an essential point of the investigation?

The NIST report is irrelevant if it can’t explain the “structural behavior of the tower” after the collapse began.  Absurdly, the only focus of the report is to prove that the collapse started, not explain what happened after it started, and why the collapse was total and complete.  More outrageously, NIST can’t even prove convincingly why the collapse began. 

How can this report get published and accepted as the truth if it doesn’t even attempt to answer the most fundamental question about 9/11?  Ignoring the most important questions leaves the most important evidence relating to those questions unexamined.  As we shall see below, this fundamental flaw of the NIST report is incredibly significant because it allows the report to ignore evidence that is devastating to its hypothesis; the unbreakable law of physics known as conservation of momentum.

Having established that the study is essentially worthless as it evades the most central question about 9/11, NIST proceeds to ignore stunning evidence which reveals what actually happened. 

Molten pools of steel are seen in the rubble of the WTC buildings, including WTC 7.[40] Jet fuel and normal fires are incapable of melting steel.[41] Indeed, NIST claims that “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the [jet fuel] fires.”[42] Therefore, logic dictates that something else melted the steel.

I’m not a structural engineer, but if the steel supporting a building melts[43] wouldn’t you think that it is worth mentioning somewhere in a 10,000[44] page, 43 volume, 20 million dollar investigation?[45]  NIST doesn’t think so—they call molten steel “irrelevant to the investigation!”[46] Bush science ignores relevant evidence of which this an outrageous example.

Further evidence that the NIST report is absurd is shown by the fact that a 10,000 page report can’t find the space to mention things found in other reports—even the New York Times reported that:

“Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened… ‘Fire and the structural damage… would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated.’”[47]

What could cause this?  Not jet fuel fires![48] Normal fires can’t even melt steel and evaporated steel requires temperatures almost twice as high as is needed to melt them.[49] Of course, NIST doesn’t offer an explanation for this.[50]

Destroying evidence is a way to ignore evidence.  It’s worse than ignoring evidence—it’s a crime.  NIST investigator Richard Tomasetti approved the decision to recycle the steel.[51] We are forced to assume that they believed that this evidence was also “irrelevant” to the investigation.

What can explain all this evidence that NIST fails to mention?[52] NIST obviously doesn’t answer these questions, so we should look elsewhere for the answers.[53]

It appears that some of the NIST structural engineers have a history of using Bush science in response to a “terrorist” attack.  In an interesting coincidence, four of the NIST structural engineers co-wrote a report that was used to explain what happened in another event; they claimed a single truck bomb from a terrorist did this in 1995.[54]

Contradictory Evidence Ignored

As well, NIST’s scientific data contradicted their own theory:  This is not science; it’s Bush science!

·        Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) “despite pre-collapse exposure to fire”[55]

·        Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)[56]

·        Lab tests showed: Minimal floor sagging[57]

·        NIST found that there was no floor collapse[58]

·        “The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th.”[59]

NIST claims that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the steel, yet their own tests showed that it was not.  This evidence strongly indicates that the WTC towers should have remained standing, and is supported by the claims of the building designers.

NIST examines column loss from the planes as part of their theory.[60] However, Kevin Ryan explains that “[NIST] admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. This is nowhere near the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem.”[61]

Buildings are designed to redistribute loads; this was even more so in the WTC towers: “NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.”[62]

All of this evidence strongly indicates that the WTC towers should not have collapsed, yet NIST refuses to even consider alternative hypotheses.  Science demands rejecting a theory if the evidence contradicts it; Bush science ignores contradictory evidence.

Laws of Physics Contradicted

The NIST fire and structural damage hypothesis contradicts a laws of physics.  From NIST’s FAQ:

“How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?”[63]

NIST responds:

“…the momentum… of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass [Note: this claim contradicts a basic law of physics].  The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.”[64]

According to NIST a building which supported its own weight for 30 years can’t resist the momentum from the collapse even a little.  NIST claims a small portion of the building is enough to result in crushing the rest the building at free fall speed—as if the bottom portion of the building provided no more resistance than the air in the sky. This is called creating your own “scientific reality.”[65]  You can’t ignore fundamental laws of physics simply because they are inconvenient to your theory!  Normally, (although not in Bush science) you are supposed to abandon your theory when it is this easily disproved.

Jim Hoffman, who is critical[66] of the NIST study states:

“NIST's assertion that the Tower's intact structure was “unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass” is absurd. It:

·        Requires us to believe that the massive steel frames of the towers provided no more resistance to falling rubble than air.

·        Ignores the fact that the majority of rubble fell outside the towers' footprints, and hence could not contribute to crushing.

·        Is unsupported by any calculation or logical argument.”[67]

Physicist Steven Jones, who has written over 40 peer reviewed scientific papers, agrees:

“Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded [i.e. slowed down] by the impacted mass.”[68]

It is clear that NIST didn’t even attempt to explain how the towers completely collapsed[69] because they couldn't—they would have to make reference to conservation of momentum, which would completely disprove their entire theory.  This is a perfect example for why the NIST report is unscientific and is completely worthless.  Breaking the laws of physics is a characteristic of Bush science. 

Deceptive Experiments

Deceptive experiments can be used to invent fabricated evidence.  NIST used this technique several times to “prove” their theory.[70]  One example of this is the computer simulation “evidence” already mentioned.[71]  Another computer simulation exaggerated data such as temperatures, fire durations (longer than the buildings stood on 9/11), and completely removed fireproofing just to show that this would cause “inward bowing from fire”—one of their main arguments.[72] Another computer simulation pretended that damaged structural steel was the same as no steel at all.[73]  So much deception to prove so little.

NIST claims that fire-proofing was widely dislodged by the planes.  This is a central argument of the NIST study.  How did they prove this? They fired multiple shot-gun blasts at fireproofing samples.  Kevin Ryan shows it actually disproved their theory:

“It took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation… there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been… [like] thousands of shotgun blasts [to cover] the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel.”[74]

NIST’s own photographs clearly show that the shotgun blasts only removed the fireproofing where the bullets had hit.[75] This deceptive experiment actually leads to evidence which contradicts one of the primary arguments of their theory![76] Unfortunately for NIST, there are no classes taught in Bush science.[77]  This example shows that on occasion, NIST can’t even prove their own theory with fake and misleading experiments!

Deceptive experiments usually lead to fabricated evidence, which is yet another characteristic of Bush science.

Conclusions Contradicted by All or Most of the Evidence

The NIST report in summary:

Predetermined conclusion contradicted by building designer claims, unreleased computer simulations, exaggerated computer data, contradictory steel testing results, contradicted laws of physics, contradicting fireproofing tests, contradictory eye-witness testimony and photographs ignored, deceptive experiments, relevant evidence ignored, destruction of relevant evidence, fabricated evidence, and the essential point of the investigation left unanswered—why did the World Trade Center towers completely collapse?

Does the NIST study prove anything besides the fact that there was fire and relatively minor structural damage in the WTC twin towers?[78]

NIST’s theory is an outrageous theory—it is contradicted by all or most of the relevant facts. 

NIST doesn’t try to explain what happened after the towers began to collapse and it can’t even explain how the buildings started to collapse. WTC7 must have been even beyond NIST’s ability to use Bush science as they are not seemingly brave enough to tackle it.[79] To this day they have not given us a clear explanation for what clearly looks like a controlled demolition. 

It goes without saying that a new investigation should take place as well as a criminal investigation against the individuals responsible for releasing this report.  Who gave the final authorization for this report to be published? 

As a consequence of this report, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, and 9/11 Family members filed a request for correction to the NIST report.[80] The flaws mentioned in this paper are clearly not the only ones.  Rather than answering the important questions about the World Trade Center destruction on 9/11, the NIST report serves in Jim Hoffman’s words as a “$20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century.”[81]

---

[1] This article is indebted to the critiques of the NIST report made by Kevin Ryan and Jim Hoffman.  Read the following excellent articles on the NIST report:

Jim Hoffman, Review of 'A New Standard for Deception: The NIST WTC Report', a Presentation by Kevin Ryan

Jim Hoffman, Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century

[2] Arabesque, Political Method Versus Scientific Method: The US administration and its Interpretation of the Events of 9/11, http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/

[3] NIST is a government agency: http://www.nist.gov/.  See NIST’s report on the WTC here: http://wtc.nist.gov/, http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm.   

[4] Arabesque, Political Method Versus Scientific Method 

[5] NIST’s theory is that fire is the main reason that the towers completely collapsed.  Plane damage is cited in the NIST report as a minor factor for collapse in the study.  Professor Astaneh-Asl of University of California said after examining some of the steel from the World Trade Center that “‘The [plane] impact did nothing to this building,’ he said with admiration.” CNN News, Oct 5, 2001. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/05/inv.attacks.steel/index.html 

The plane is mostly significant in NIST’s theory because fireproofing was “widely dislodged” by the impact of the plane. The fires caused the steel to weaken. http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#labtests see NIST’s official Theory section in this essay.

[6] David Ray Griffin, The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True, http://911review.com/

[7] A New Standard for Deception by Kevin Ryan: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032

[8]  See the concept of “creating our own reality” and how I linked this concept with the Political Method in my paper Political Method Versus Scientific Method 

[9] See my definition of credibility in my paper Political Method Versus Scientific Method 

[10]  NIST: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers, page 4.

[11]  See NIST report and Kevin Ryan’s analysis of their theory.

[12] See Eyewitness Evidence Statements: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html and Physical Evidence: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html Jet fuel fire is incapable of melting steel; therefore it can not explain this molten steel.
Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:

“The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel. In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a premixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.” from:

Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation”, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:8-11 (2001).

[13] See “Scientific Method”

[14]  This statement by NIST investigator Shankar Nair was made in an editorial in the Chicago Tribune: Chicago Tribune September 19, 2001. Commentary: By Shankar Nair “A humbling experience for skyscraper professionals In most dangerous situations, I still would rather be in a well- designed tall building.” Page 31.

[15] NIST investigator Gene Corely: Engineer: Impact showed World Trade Center's strength, St. Petersburg Times, 9/14/01 An incredible statement considering that the fire fighters didn’t expect this to happen.  Also amazing considering that no steel framed buildings had ever collapsed due to fire in history according to the New York Times:

Glanz, James, and Lipton, Eric (2002). “Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says,” Fri March 29, 2002, New York Times.

[16] Comment by NIST investigator Charles Thornton in the book: “Men of Steel: The Story of the Family That Built The World Trade Center” http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781400049509

[17] NIST contributor Ronald Hamburger said he had the first impression that it looked like explosive “charges” had been placed in the WTC buildings.  See: The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 19, 2001.

[18]  News anchors know exactly what controlled demolition looks like—see footnote #20

[19] See here for more: http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/jennings.html

[20] “Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.” CBS News anchor Dan Rather commenting on the collapse of Building 7 - September 11, 2001 at approx 5:30pm EST.

[21] For reference and debate on this quote see here: http://www.911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html#_edn41

[22] Arabesque, The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate that the Towers should have remained standing on 9/11, http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/

[23] Ibid. This is according to building designer John Skilling.  See:  Nalder, Eric. (1993)  Twin Towers Engineered to Withstand Jet Collision.  Saturday, February 27, 1993, Seattle Times.

[24]  According to Kevin Ryan: “The real question here is, since the WTC tower’s design engineer, John Skilling, said that he took airliner crashes and jet fuel fires in to account and then stated clearly that “the building structure would still be there”, why was NIST so sure from the start that fires brought down the buildings?  Then, when NIST started to use Mr. Skilling’s words in their later presentations, why did they suggest this was only an anonymous view?” 

[25] See here for more News evidence of explosions on 9/11: http://911proof.com/11.html. See also:

Arabesque, The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate that the Towers should have remained standing on 9/11,  

[26]  Jim Hoffman describes the report as: “NIST’s 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century”.

[27]  Arabesque, The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate that the Towers should have remained standing on 9/11

[28] NIST’s FAQ attempts to mildly answer criticism to this problem: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html

[29]  Fabricate: I define in this essay as “to concoct in order to deceive: fabricated an excuse.”

[30] Parker, Dave. "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.

[31]  NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.

[32]  Ibid.

[33]   Parker, Dave. "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.

[34]  Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth: Reclaiming our future conference.  June 4, 2006. Google Video.

[35]  NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.

[36]  Steven Jones called the NIST study a “pre-collapse theory” in his essay: Why indeed did the WTC towers collapse? page 27.

[37]  This has to be the most embarrassing feature of the NIST report.  It is indefensible on this point alone.

[38]  Why is the NIST report 10,000 pages?  Jim Hoffman explains: “NIST fills hundreds of pages with amazingly realistic plane crash simulations, tedious details about fire tests and simulations, and long lists of recommendations for improving building safety.” Kevin Ryan’s amusing suspicion about the length of the report: “They’ll never read all this”.  See footnote #44.

[39]  Jim Hoffman: “Yet the Report makes no attempt to explain how the buildings totally collapsed, despite the lack of a single historical precedent for a steel-framed skyscraper totally collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition. And, in contrast to the Report's voluminous detail about the plane crashes, fires, and loss of life, it makes no attempt to characterize -- let alone explain -- the demolition-like features of the collapses, such as their explosiveness and nearly free-fall rapidity.”

[40]  See here for multiple sources with evidence: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html and Journal of 9/11 Studies: http://www.journalof911studies.com/

[41] See footnote #12 relating to Dr. Eagar’s comments on fire temperatures and steel.

[42] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[43]  See here for pictures and comments from FEMA’s report mentioning the steel:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html.  As Jim Hoffman indicates:

“Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform ‘limited metallurgical examination’ of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.¹  The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused ‘intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.’ The New York Times described this as ‘perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.’² WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.”

“The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.”

[44]  Kevin Ryan calls the NIST report a “kitchen sink” or “TNRAT” [i.e. “tin rat”] theory: “They’ll Never Read All of This.” See Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth, 19:29. 

[45] This molten steel was mentioned in other reports as documented, so how come the NIST report doesn’t mention it? http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

[46] See Jim Hoffman’s reply to this “irrelevant” statement.

[47]  Glanz, James (2001). “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” New York Times, November 29. 2001.

[48]  As Steven Jones explains: “The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel.” Why indeed did the WTC towers collapse? page 23.

[49] As Eagar explained in footnote #12, you need 1500oC to melt steel.  Steel evaporates at almost twice this at 2860oC. 

[50] Steven Jones explains [Why indeed did the WTC towers collapse?]: “thermite variants, RDX and other commonly-used incendiaries or explosives (i.e., cutter-charges) can readily slice through steel, thus cutting the support columns in a controlled demolition, and reach the required temperatures [to cause evaporated steel]. This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.” Page 23

[51] See Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth, 9:42 and http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=department_of_design_and_construction_1

[52] See Journal of 9/11 Studies: http://www.journalof911studies.com/

[53]  Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice: http://www.stj911.org/  and 9/11 research: http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html. 

[54]  This report appears to have used Bush science to explain the impossible.  See here: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html

The engineers involved in both the 9/11 attacks and the Oklahoma City bombing: Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, Paul Mlakar, Mete Sozen.  This seems like an amazing coincidence as Kevin Ryan indicates: “The Murrah Building bombing has a number of parallels to the 9/11/01 attack. One is that the same engineers created reports supporting the official government explanation of the attack as the work of outsiders attacking the buildings from without. 9/11 whistleblower and researcher Kevin Ryan documents commonalities of the investigations in A New Standard For Deception.” See here for more information on the Oklahoma bombing: http://911research.wtc7.net/non911/oklahoma/index.html

[55]  See here http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#steelanalysis and NIST report http://wtc.nist.gov/

[56] Ibid.

[57] See here: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#labtests and NIST report http://wtc.nist.gov/

[58]  Ibid.

[59] Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032, 34:00. Also read official NIST report.

[60]  See here for this information: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf page 22.

[61]  http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#nisttheory

[62]  Kevin Ryan: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#nisttheory for original source on building design claims:

 "How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings," Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: 48-49.

[63] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm 

[64]  http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm 

[65] See my essay that links the political method with “creating our own reality”.

[66] http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index_0.98.html

[67] http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html#6

[68] Steven Jones, Why indeed did the WTC towers collapse? page 27-28.

[69] See the first point in the section of this essay: “Ignoring Evidence”

[70] See Kevin Ryan’s presentation: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032

[71] See section in this essay dealing with “Fabricated Evidence”.

[72]  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032. See 47:00 and forward and NIST report.

[73]  NIST states: “The two Tower models included the core columns, the floor beams, and the concrete slabs from the impact and fire zones to the highest floor below the hat truss structure: from the 89th floor to the 106th floor for WTC 1 and from the 73rd floor to the 106th floor for WTC 2. Within these floors, aircraft-damaged structural components were removed.” (NIST page 98/152) see also here: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index_0.98.html#enhancing Jim Hoffman explains: “Apparently, any structural component estimated to have been damaged to any degree was removed from the model -- as if it contributed nothing to the structure. In other words, if NIST's crash simulation predicted that a column had lost 10% of its load-bearing capacity, it was treated as if it had lost 100% of its capacity.”

[74] http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#dislodged See also:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032 at 36:06 and the NIST study with photos of the shotgun blast tests.

[75] Ibid.

[76]  NIST: “Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers”  page 4.

[77] However, I’m confident that NIST could offer courses in this subject.  This report could be submitted as a doctoral thesis in Bush science.

[78] See NIST’s Official Theory section in this paper. More comments by Kevin Ryan here: http://www.gatago.com/misc/emerg-services/27902058.html   

[79]  The FEMA report comically explains that:  “the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. [i.e. we can’t explain why, but we can come up with an outrageous “conspiracy theory”.] Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.” FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.  We are still waiting 5 years later.

[80] Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Scholars and Family Members Submit Request for Correction to 9/11 NIST Report

[81] Jim Hoffman, Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century

The 9/11 B. S. Movement: Blatant Insanity = Intentional DIS-information

John Doraemi on his blog Crimes of the State has written a hard hitting and angry piece on 9/11 Disinformation that makes reference to my own work.

According to John, his blog was blocked from being published on 911blogger.com. It appears that the site administrators--after the recent the retiring of dz, may have felt that his piece was too controversial, and would have led to heated discussion over "wedge" issues. Nevertheless, it is a good piece, and I respect John’s writing. Here are a few excerpts:

The 9/11 B. S. Movement
Blatant Insanity = Intentional DIS-information

Crimes of the State Blog

By John Doraemi

[…]

“A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association."
-- Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184”

[…]

If millions and millions of people could be so easily redirected, so easily discredited by their own words, their own deeds, the perps at the top had learned a valuable lesson. The weaknesses of the "9/11 Truth Movement" were that it was vulnerable to distractions, to infiltration, to bogus evidence, and even to nonsensical arguments.

[…]

Meet the Masters of Disinfoland

The "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" group has a history that casual observers might not realize. Originally formed to legitimize the study of September 11th anomalies (or was it?) by PhD's and other academics in the related fields, the organization was of course vulnerable to infiltration.

James H. Fetzer PhD. "wrote the book" on disinformation [6]. In Fetzer's study of the ways of twisting the truth and delegitimizing your opponent, he revealed many of the disengenuous techniques that he himself later used against his fellow scholars in the 9/11 Truth Movement [7].

Fetzer's control of the Scholars group/website led to its eventual breakup. The "Scholars" website suddenly started entertaining nonsense theories, under the guise of legitimate scientific inquiry. The group imploded in December 2006 with the promotion of the "directed energy beam" hypothesis by Judy Wood PhD., and the subsequent retirement of Dr. Steven Jones PhD. from the group.

Steven Jones went on to start up a second group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth AND JUSTICE. Jones smartly retained editorial control of the Journal of 9/11 Studies (much to Fetzer's dismay) which publishes related papers.

[…]

Your smile may very well turn to a frown when you see the gusto and prolific nature of these shills, who like cockroaches are swarming the message boards of reasoned debate, and transforming them into wastelands, garbage dumps of idiotic drivel.

They are a movement unto themselves, the 9/11 Disinformation Movement, a parasite clinging onto the legitimate "truth movement", the one that seeks new independent investigations of the attacks, and full disclosure.

In other words, the enemies of truth and justice, not to be confused with bonafide investigators who make sense, have impeccable sources, and are unsatisfied with the "official" 9/11 narrative.

Journal of 9/11 Studies Letter: Correspondence from James Bennett to Laurie Manwell with Responses

Journal of 9/11 Studies Letter:

Correspondence from James Bennett to Laurie Manwell with Responses

(06/17/07 to 06/17/07):

James Bennett [of “screw loose change”]:

I was reading your paper published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and I was wondering why you misrepresented the Angus-Reid poll on page 16:

“An Angus-Reid poll comparing responses from 2002 and 2006 found similar results, and that in 2006, only 16% of Americans believed that the government is telling the truth about the events of 9/11[16].”

If you go to the poll, which you footnote, you find that that question does not even ask people whether they believe "the government is lying about the events of 9/11":

“81. When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?”

On the contrary, it very specifically asks people whether they believe that government was lying about warnings of terrorist attacks, not the attacks themselves. This becomes even more obvious when you read the previous two poll questions, which ask whether they believe the Clinton and Bush administrations paid enough attention to terrorism. So I have to ask, why did you entirely change the premise of the question for your paper, and are you going to issue a correction?

Laurie Manwell:

I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation. I did state in my paper that it was regarding the "events of 9/11" which, in fact, includes prior knowledge of the attacks. I would also argue that this fact itself, foreknowledge of the attacks, is the single most important fact, because if properly dealt with, all of the events of 9/11 could have been prevented.

Moreover, it speaks to the fact that the majority of people believe that George W. Bush is lying about many things and consider such behavior to be above the law. Below are some of the other questions that I also considered in making my statement. Misrepresentation of the events of 9/11 – both before, during and after – have been well documented and many people are becoming more and more aware that the official account of the events of 9/11 is full of lies.

Considering that I cite the actual poll for people to review for themselves, I stand behind what I said and do not intend to print a retraction. I hope this answers your question satisfactorily. If not, and you are genuinely interested in discussing the paper, I would invite you to continue correspondence. I do appreciate that you took the time to read the entire paper and consider the main overarching message before rushing to judgment based on one poll. Part II should be out in July which may also help answer any questions you may have.

James Bennett:

Thanks for the response, but I think you are being somewhat disingenuous. No honest person is going to think that "what they knew prior to 9/11" and the "events of 9/11" are synonymous. In fact even you indicate that you think they are two different issues when you state that with prior knowledge of the attacks "all of the events of 9/11 could have been prevented." If you actually regarded these as interchangeable, that statement would be illogical.

Incidentally that logic is also based on the assumption that the attacks were carried out by a third party, not by the US government, as one does not receives "warnings" from oneself, which seems to contradict your main thesis.

Laurie Manwell:

It seems that you have an agenda here rather than open discussion of the topic of my paper. Nowhere do I say that the US government "did it" and nor is my main thesis that. All research is subject to interpretation and I include all of my sources for verification. If you strongly disagree I would encourage you to write a letter or article for submission to the Journal of 9/11 Studies where we can debate this issue within an academic - rather than personal - domain, as I am not sure what your point is other than to attack me personally by calling me disingenuous.

If you wish to discuss the research professionally that is fine but I am not interested in responding to questions regarding my character, especially since we do not even know each other.

James Bennett:

Actually I would argue that you have a personal agenda, otherwise you would not have changed the wording from "what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001," to "the events of 9/11". There is no reason to do that except to advance an agenda.

I have already had letters posted on the Journal. I have no interest in having any articles posted to what is essentially a crackpot echo chamber without academic or intellectual standards. Why don't you submit your paper to an actual established psychology journal, I know there are plenty out there?

Laurie Manwell:

Again, I must respectfully disagree.

In the second paragraph I explicitly state the purposes of my article and repeat them in the final paragraph. I state that "we need to find ways to encourage awareness of all of the events related to 9/11, along with open discussion and debate."

Having an "agenda" usually refers to motives which one tries to hide. I state right from the beginning what mine are and provide documentation for independent verification and objective analysis for anyone who either disagrees or is interested in further evaluation. This is the true spirit of scientific debate.

I am honestly quite interested in your view point and would be more than willing to listen to your perspective if you would be so kind as to share it with me. I did read your letter to Steven Jones and have visited your website. I'm not sure I understand your views but would be open to hearing them.

As for your suggestion about submitting the article to a mainstream psychology journal that is the intention once Part II is completed. Unfortunately, time is always a moderating factor as I do have 2 papers currently submitted for peer review and publication. As soon as they are accepted and this one is finished I will be following suit with it as well.

James Bennett:

Then I have to ask once again, why did you change the wording of the poll question from "what they knew prior to 9/11" to the "events of 9/11", if it were not to insert your viewpoint?

Laurie Manwell:

I was discussing evidence pertaining to the fact that many people believe the government is lying - period.

According to the American constitution that's wrong, no? It is only one poll used as a source out of over 100 other sources I also cited, not including the hundreds of other sources I have also investigated.

What about the rest of the paper? What about finding and prosecuting the perpetrators? Is that something we can agree upon?

From your website [http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/] I get the impression, which you can correct me if I'm wrong, that 9/11 was a horrible event and that you feel strongly about people who would exploit it for publicity or personal gain. Yes, that upsets me very much also. And yes, there are people who would do so.

But does that include everyone who would ask questions that have as of yet been largely unanswered?

What if we could all put personal bias aside and work together to bring the criminals to justice, in a court of law, and for a jury to decide.

What are your thoughts James? Could that be a possibility at least?

James Bennett:

You are ducking the question. You were not referring to your general impression of people's opinions of 9/11, you were referring specifically to that poll (84%). That poll did not ask people about their impression on 9/11 events in general, it was very specific.

Tell me this, if I am writing a paper on how people distrust politicians, and I come across a poll that states that "80% of US voters distrust Hillary Clinton", is it honest for me to then footnote that poll and say that "polls show that 80% of US voters distrust politicians"?

Laurie Manwell:

I have forwarded your concerns and my responses to Prof. Jones.

As such, I would ask you to kindly direct any further questions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies as I do believe that I have tried to answer your question and it does not appear that you are satisfied.

ADDENDUM:

At this point, I would like to make a request to all psychologists who have read my paper and find it credible to contact me in regards to further peer-review and letters of support for submission for publication in a mainstream psychology journal.

Thank you, Laurie Manwell.

Journal of 9/11 Studies Letter: Steven Jones Replies to James Fetzer

Steven Jones Replies to James Fetzer

June 4, 2007 (with more recent Addendum in this letter below)

[Dr. Jones writes] On June 2, 2007, James Fetzer wrote to me as posted publicly at http://www.911blogger.com/, and I respond, in ITALICS.

[Jim Fetzer:] Steve,

Just for the record, why do you continue to make statements about the journal you co-edit that are inaccurate and miseading [sic]? It was created as a part of Scholars, not as an independent entity, where Judy Wood was your original co-editor and I managinag [sic] editor. Please cease making these historically false and legally disputable claims.

It is a fact that the idea for the Journal of 9/11 Studies was independently mine, and I never intended the Journal to be part of “Jim Fetzer’s Scholars” group. I personally belong to a number of organizations and I have always maintained that the Journal I created is independent of any group or society.

It is true that J. Fetzer asked to be “managing editor” of the Journal during spring 2006 and I accepted that – but he himself withdrew from this position before the Los Angeles 9/11 meeting (organized by Alex Jones) and likewise Judy Wood withdrew on her own initiative. I emphasized that I would talk about the new Journal at that conference – which I did – over the objections of Fetzer and Wood. The Journal has been going strong – independently – for just over a year now and contains over sixty peer-reviewed papers.

Fetzer: You attack other scholars for not responding to pieces that appear in the letters section of the journal,

J. Fetzer is invited to provide quotes and references to support this accusation. Incidentally, Judy Wood has submitted two letters for the Journal at my invitation and they were published (without peer review per her request), so Fetzer’s charge appears unfounded.

Fetzer: but you have ignored far more serious publications raising questions about your research on thermite. "The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis", for example, was published by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds on 14 December 2006: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/JonesScientificMethod.html [note by Arabesque: replies to this article are available in the letters section of the Journal of 9/11 Studies]

I have objected to the ad hominems (quoted below) in the non-peer-reviewed papers by Wood and Reynolds and have asked them for an explanation or apology, following which I will further respond to them. For example, in an email dated March 27, 2007, I wrote to Wood and Reynolds – copy to Jim Fetzer – the following:

Morgan [Reynolds]…

I would never say of a colleague [as you did of me]

"Jones gives experimentalists a bad name."

"Can a Ph.D. physicist be this retarded?"

"We wonder if his college and university approve of his behavior."

"Given Jones's enormous popularity in the 9/11 arena, we must undertake the unpleasant task of social analysis."

"At the end of our paper, it is true that our section titled "Vote for Jones" addressed his campaign to be the only 9/11 scientist in town. [Which is total nonsense. I frequently refer to papers by David Griscom, Kevin Ryan, Frank Legge, Kenneth Kuttler and others -- SJ]

"We regret having to consider the politics of the Jones' phenomenon, but we in good conscience had to address it since his rise in the 9/11 movement rests largely on prestige and pandering, not on good science."

"Since he is no video expert, the clueless professor might ask himself if the Newtonian laws of motion still prevailed on 9/11."

"Jones has this 'baby face' that - and 'soft personality' – that seems to 'sell' his positions."

"Jones huffs and puffs, "The argument must be to the DATA, not to the source (ad hominem)."

The above statements are published ("_Reynolds and Wood try to help Steven E. Jones_", and Reynolds and Wood, _Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate?_ ) under the joint authorship (and concomitant responsibility) of Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood and I demand of you both an apology and retraction.

Thank you,

Steven Jones

-----

There has been no response to my email challenging the Wood/Reynolds ad hominem attacks which they published on their websites.

Fetzer: You have many loyal fans who have no idea at all when research is "scientific".

What an insult to so many – and such nonsense. In my discussions with members of the 9/11 community (I do not call them “fans”), I find that they understand when research is fact-based and empirical, when the research is scientific. But, let Fetzer support this broad and categorical derogation if he can.

Fetzer: Given your qualifications about your own research in your latest paper—where you claim only that your iron-in-dust samples are "consistent with" but not therefore caused by and might have had other sources than thermite--isn't it time for you to respond to these questions?

In fact, the term “consistent with” nowhere appears in my paper! I have responded and continue to respond to questions. Anyone reading the Journal of 9/11 Studies will see detailed responses by myself – and others.

Fetzer: I do not mean by your usual technique of citing other papers and presentations. You have encouraged the 9/11 truth movement to place faith in your findings. But this is science, not religion. If you are unable to respond, point by point, to a substantial set of questions about the research you claim to have done, why should anyone trust it?

There is nothing wrong with citing other papers – indeed, this is common practice in the scientific community and shows courtesy and respect for others’ work. I ask that people look at the scientific evidence, critically – not on “faith.” And I am endeavoring to respond point by point here as the reader can judge.

Fetzer: In your latest paper, you imply that Truth and Justice came up with the idea of The National 9/11 Debate, when it was the inspiration of Ed Haas of THE MUCKRAKER REPORT, who advanced it before that society even existed! You know better. I was the captain and had invited you to join the team. Why are you perpetating [sic] a fraud here? That is neither truthful nor just.

Unfair – since this was immediately corrected in the paper with an erratum noted – and notice of this correction was sent to J. Fetzer long ago. The original read: “We extended an invitation to NIST to sit down with them and debate, we had a certain time and place. They declined. And we said…”

I agree that the “we” in the transcript (before the break-up of the scholars into two groups) was not clear. So I noted an erratum in the paper the next day (errata appear on the last page of the paper), and the paper now reads: “A group (including me) extended an invitation to NIST to sit down with them and debate, we had a certain time and place. They declined. And we said…”

Furthermore, the following day, I notified Jim Fetzer by direct email to him personally

-- here is what I wrote directly to J. Fetzer about this:

An errata has been added to my paper, on the last page, as follows:

Errata:

This paper was based in the first instance on a transcript of a talk given by Dr. Jones at the University of California at Berkeley, and some errors as well as typos occurred and of course will be corrected as they are found. [clip two other errata]

p. 65 "A group (including me)" was inserted to avoid apparent confusion; the point seemed clear in the original talk. (S. Jones email to J. Fetzer, May 16, 2007)

Yet Fetzer still points to a claim that “Truth and Justice” is given credit for the challenge to NIST -- as if this was never clarified and he was not notified! Why is this? Does he agree that a correction has been made and an erratum noted?

BTW, having a set of errata for a paper is common practice in the technical peer-reviewed literature.

Fetzer: A recent press release from Truth and Justice announcing the filing of a Request for Correction with NIST, distorts the content of the prior filings by Ed Haas, Morgan Reynolds, and Judy Wood and falsely asserts that I have filed, which is neither true nor just. They and Jerry Leaphart deserve the credit, not I. You have to know better. It comes from your own site: http://www.stj911.com/press_releases/NIST.html

Earlier on the same day as this post by J. Fetzer (he even refers to my earlier post), I had already explained to “Killtown” that the stj911 (“Truth and Justice”) site is NOT my site, as follows:

"His site" meaning my site is not correct as I am not even on the steering committee of this group-- I belong to a few 9/11 groups, and I'm just a member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. That's all.

I was unaware of these two "evidences" you mention and will have to look into it. Along with other members, I have input into what goes on the group's site. But no veto power (at all).

Further, the Journal of 9/11 Studies is independent of any group, although it is linked-to by a number of groups and we welcome that (the editors and Advisory Board).”

So why does Fetzer call this “your own site” when it is not my site and I had just explained this two posts before his? Bizarre.

Fetzer: Moreover, such filings are archived at an official government site, where the public can find them. Having visited that site many times, I have been struck that the document you signed and Truth and Justice claims has been filed is not there. Can you explain this oddity? Here is the official site, where you can verify for yourself that your petition is not on pubic [sic] record: http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_00261

We received from NIST an acknowledgment of our Request for Correction as follows:

This is to acknowledge receipt of your information request dated April 12, 2007. Pursuant to our guidelines we usually respond with a decision or a status of the request within 60 days of receiving the request. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via e-mail at [contact information redacted].

Fetzer: I might not be so concerned but for the discovery that an announcement concerning the San Diego People's Grand Jury's verdict from Ron Paul pubished [sic] by Truth and Justice has been contradicted by members of the Grand Jury, who assert they were never even given the opportunity to DELIBERATE! You testified and must know what's going on. Tell us the truth!

Truth is, I did not testify personally at this Grand Jury and only heard about it peripherally – I have heard they showed a video of one of my talks. I do not know what opportunities were given to the “Grand Jury” and since I am not involved in this I have no comment on this matter except to respond that Fetzer’s attempt to smear me on this issue is ill-founded and unfair.

Fetzer: You make historically inaccurate and legally disputable claims about the journal; you ignore serious publications raising questions about your research; you claim credit for ideas that did not originate with you; your society makes false and misleading claims about fiings [sic]; a filing you signed is AWOL; and now this Grand Jury verdict appears to be a hoax and a fraud! Is this your idea of truth and justice?

Jim

James H. Fetzer

Founder

Scholars for 9/11 Truth Submitted by Jim Fetzer on Sat, 06/02/2007 - 11:54am

I have responded to your fallacious/misleading charges and smears and now invite you (James Fetzer) to respond, in writing, for publication of our exchange in the Journal of 9/11 Studies – Letters section. This same courtesy I have extended on more than one occasion to Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds and others, even those who seem to delight in attacks on other 9/1-truth researchers, rather than focusing on those who perpetrated or profited from the 9/11 attacks. I do NOT seek to stifle research on various hypotheses, but I do object strongly to unsubstantiated/false charges and to ad hominem attacks on co-researchers.

– Steven Jones, June 4, 2007.

Addendum [by Dr. Jones]

In an article dated May 17, 2007, James Fetzer severely criticized Alex Jones, Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman, Jack Blood as well as Loose Change and 911bloggers. He publicly stated:

“As critical thinkers, members of the 9/11 community weren’t taken in, but they aren’t so sophisticated in scientific reasoning, now to be taken in by narrow channeling within the 9/11 research community. And that narrow channeling is being enforced by 911blogger, by Loose Change (I’m sorry to say), by Jack Blood’s forum, but especially by Steve Jones, Alex Jones, Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman.” [James Fetzer’s remarks are available on Judy Wood’s site, here: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/manipulation.html]

[Jones:] I think the 9/11 community is quite capable of seeing in the Letters section of the Journal of 9/11 Studies that various points of view are welcomed and that there is in fact no basis for the accusation of “narrow channeling” or censorship. I have repeatedly invited James Fetzer, Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds and others to submit their Letters to the Journal to substantiate their ideas – and Judy Wood has published two letters in the Journal in fact. So where is the “narrow channeling”? (She requested publication without peer review and that request was honored.)

I believe that people when presented with empirical facts and logic can make their own judgments. Thus, the rapidly increasing readership of the Journal of 9/11 Studies is encouraging, and the rapid growth in publications in the Journal. Just one year after initiation (by me), the Journal makes available over sixty peer-reviewed technical papers by authors such as:

Prof. David Ray Griffin, Dr. Cate Jenkins, Prof. David Griscom, Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Greg Jenkins, Dr. Frank Greening, Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Frank Legge, Gordon Ross, Kevin Ryan, Tony Szamboti, Gregg Jenkins and Profs. Ken Kuttler and Terry Morrone.

Now I write in support of those researchers critiqued by J. Fetzer.

Alex Jones is a well-known 9/11 researcher and extremely effective radio-show host. He told me that Fetzer had phoned him and verbally attacked with profanities. Fetzer has done the same with me and I was obliged to ask that he cease from using profanities while talking to me. (Our conversation soon came to an end.)

Like Alex, Jack Blood is an effective and energetic radio show host and strong proponent for 9/11 truth.

Kevin Ryan is a chemist who spoke “truth to power” when he pointed out results from fire-endurance tests of WTC-floor assemblies and challenged certain conclusions being made by NIST. He lost his job for being thus outspoken. He continues to speak out and write -- including work in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, for which Kevin and I serve as co-editors.

The Loose Change crew has been singularly successful in spreading the word about 9/11, they have made adjustments in some statements (as we all have to do), and they are coming out with a Loose Change release which will be shown in major theaters later this year. They are doing great!

Jim Hoffman and his team have put together one of the most influential and highly-visited sites in the 9/11 community: http://911research.wtc7.net/. This site was the main source for my own initial studies regarding 9/11 facts in early 2005 and can be reached simply by typing: http://www.wtc7.net/.

http://www.911blogger.com/ allows anyone to post – and J. Fetzer has posted there himself. It appears to me that this is an open forum, welcoming input.

Hence, I defend my co-9/11-researchers versus the derogatory barbs hurled against them by James Fetzer. And I propose that he save his venom for those who support the war-provoking “official story of 9/11” promoted by the Bush/Cheney administration.

------

Final Word by Arabesque:

Inappropriate phone calls, ad-hominems and misleading claims? Par for the course for Jim Fetzer:

9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples

Praise for Arabesque: 9/11 Truth

Praise for Arabesque: 9/11 Truth

“Arabesque is the best writer in the movement, bar none. Arabesque writes with great clarity on all areas of the 9-11 cover-up, meticulously documenting each point through the use of extensive endnotes. Arabesque has also proven that he isn’t afraid to take on the disinformation specialists who would serve to discredit legitimate questions, research, and evidence which would directly contradict the 'official conspiracy theory' about the events of September 11th, 2001. This, I believe, is one of the most important issues facing the 9-11 movement today.” — Michael Wolsey, Visibility 9-11

"I just want to read a quote from my colleague Arabesque, who is a brilliant researcher and great writer, very meticulous, and also in possession of what my friend Scott Nobel calls 'superhuman civility'. He says: “The official story of 9/11 is disinformation, which means that the subject of disinformation is a vital and essential topic of 9/11 discussion. The opinion that disinformation is ‘extraordinarily low’ in this movement misses the mark by a long-shot since the very purpose of our movement is to expose the disinformation of the official story of 9/11. We cannot avoid the subject of disinformation.” I think Arabesque says it very well right there." — Cosmos, 9/11 truth activist, and founder of the Eleventh Day of Every Month Campaign and TruthAction.org

"Your 9/11 blog is amazing! Allow me to give you a belated and barely adequate compliment on the mass of information you have collected and presented so discerningly and attractively on your blog! I have been to your site a few times before tonight, but it just hadn't sunk until now what a great job you've done. I think on my earlier visits, I must have been very focused on some writing/research task (the charitable interpretation) or just got overwhelmed by everything that there is to look at there (the more likely interpretation)." — Gregg Roberts, 9/11 Research Associate Editor, from an email message sent to Arabesque, October 20, 2007

“Arabesque: Talented 9/11 truth blogger - in a massive and thoroughly detailed critical review of the PentaCon, my favorite passage so far is: ‘Even more significant is that the structural damage inside of the Pentagon aligns perfectly with the flight path as suggested by the light pole damage and generator as shown above. The filmmakers even acknowledge this point when they claim that the plane could not have caused the structural damage inside of the Pentagon if it approached from north of the CITGO gas station. This is very strong evidence that the PentaCon eyewitnesses are wrong.’ Exactly!” — Caustic Logic: The Frustrating Fraud

“I would like to take a moment to mention and thank some researchers and activists who have made careful, unique and meaningful contributions to the effort to expose the role of mis- and disinformation in the 9/11 community… Arabesque [has] contributed numerous unique and comprehensive analytical essays and addresses the key logical errors and fallacies surrounding techniques often associated with the false claims.” Victoria Ashley, 9/11 Research

“This discerning site has substantial analysis on the Pentagon attack and misinformation surrounding it. It provides evidence not commonly referenced in the ‘9/11 truth’ literature, such as: 9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Witnesses Described.” — Jim Hoffman, 9/11 Research

"Arabesque [is] a thoughtful, painstaking researcher" — Jim Hoffman, 9/11 Research

"You do great work!!" — Janice Matthews, Executive Director of 911truth.org, from an email message sent to Arabesque in response to the article, "Explosive and Revealing Quotations about 9/11 Completely Ignored by the Mainstream Media", November 23, 2007

"Dear Arabesque... I’ve [been] studying 9/11 for only six or seven months now and I’ve encountered things like CoIntelPro, disinfo or the “big tent” maybe three months ago, so this is all relatively new to me and I still have to develop my exact stances on many points... I... want to take this opportunity and thank you for all your fantastic work! When I started reading about 9/11, it was very hard for me to separate the wheat from the chaff and a few times I mistook chaff for wheat just like so many others have done. But people like Jim Hoffman, Mike Ruppert, Paul Thompson and [Arabesque] helped me a great deal with getting to the right points and ignoring the bad ones. I’m definitely not the first to tell you this, but you indeed are one of the most reasonable and reliable researchers among us! Your extremely informative blog as well as your always thoughtful and inspiring comments on these forums identify you as one of the sharpest and clearest minds in the movement. Your careful documentations of information and disinformation are invaluable for everyone seriously researching and they are really setting the standards for all of us... I’m currently working on a German paper in which I’m trying to address all the important points in a readable and perfectly sourced manner – I have just finished the chapter about the 9/11 promotions and there was no better single source for that than your respective article “Cui bono?”, so thank you for having saved me a lot of time with this brillant piece of work! Sincerely, John Schröder." 9/11 activist and writer, June 9, 2008 in a message to Arabesque

“My thoughts and support go out to the great Cindy Sheehan, my friends Jon Gold and Michael Wolsey, the fine writer Arabesque, and those others who were unfairly treated in this incident.” Kevin Ryan, 9/11 Whistle Blower

“I was not the only one to take on this extremely important topic in an attempt to educate ALL activists on the reality of, and the history of COINTELPRO in the United States. Below is a short list of some who have taken the lead in educating YOU on the destruction occurring within our [9/11 Truth] movement.

Jim Hoffman
Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice
Truthmove.org
Arabesque” — Michael Wolsey, Visibility 9/11

"Arabesque has completed an interesting expose’ on the CIT crowd." "I really like the thoroughness of your work" 9/11 Researcher, John Farmer, from his blog and email respectively in November 2007, Statistical Process Control Engineering Consultant and author of 911files.info

“Arabesque... You are a talented researcher.” — Jon Gold, Prominant 9/11 activist and family member/first-responder advocate

“More helpful info for us from Arabesque's fine blog.” — 911truth.org

“Arabesque is one of the best bloggers out there.” — 911blogger, art V

“Proving once again that the 9-11 Deniers are capable of solid work when debunking theories that they don't agree with, Arabesque does a masterful job of demolishing the PentaCon movie.” — Screw Loose Change

“Arabesque... You're doing a great job fighting for 9/11 Truth... Once again, we all here in Wisconsin and the entire Barrett Campaign appreciates your great work for the Truth." Rolf Lindgren, Kevin Barrett’s PR representative

Disdain for Arabesque: 9/11 Truth

“Another person who has been active in these slander operations is somebody called Arabesque. Arabesque has a blog devoted to discussing 9/11 news research and disinformation, and I think the disinformation department is absolutely admirable. He seems to have all the disinformation you could want. He's pushing it and peddling it on this sleazy, smelly website… arabesque911.blogspot.com.” — Webster Tarpley, Author of 9/11: Synthetic Terror, and the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy