Change in Venue or Date will not Alter Decision
July 3, 2006 –
As a direct result of the government scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) producing and
providing for public consumption, an unsustainable theory of how the World Trade Center North Tower and South Tower
each collapsed at freefall speed on September 11, 2001, tens of millions of Americans, and millions more people abroad, now
rightly question whether the U.S. government’s account of what happened on 9/11 is the truth. Confronted with the overwhelming amount of independent research conducted and compiled since 9/11 that
clearly and fairly challenges the validity of the government’s “pancake theory” of collapse, the Muckraker
Report decided to host a National 9/11 Debate with the hope that the U.S. government would take this opportunity to answer many
of the unanswered questions pertaining to 9/11. The fact is that the gap between
what the government has told the mainstream media parrots regarding September 11, 2001, and what independent researchers and
real journalists have uncovered, is too large and obnoxious to be left unchecked.
For example, Dr.
Judy Wood, professor of Mechanical Engineering has offered research titled, A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory. In her research, Dr. Judy Wood addresses
the simplicity of the science that clearly dismisses the government’s current theory of collapse as a false statement. Why the mainstream media news editors are unwilling or unable to wrap their minds
around the fact that if a billiard ball were to be dropped from 1,362 feet (height of the South Tower) in a vacuum, meaning
no air resistance to slow the ball’s dissent, according to Professor Woods and easily validated by any mechanical engineer
or physics professor, the billiard ball would require 9.22 seconds to hit the ground.
How then did the towers collapse in 10 seconds and 11.4 seconds, and why has not one member of the mainstream media
insisted on honest answers from the government in this regard?
The fact is
that the government’s account of how the twin towers collapsed has already been proven false. The laws of gravity alone dictate that for the twin towers to have collapsed according to the NIST “pancake
theory” required at least a 30 second collapse cycle. The North Tower collapsed
11.4 seconds. The South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. The actual collapse time of each tower disproves the government’s theory. As much as the hysterical neo con mouthpieces want to label those of us not confused by the
facts as conspiracy theorists, the scientific evidence remains that the twin towers could not have collapsed as the
of what you want to believe about the events of September 11, 2001, believing the government’s “pancake theory”
is to believe a completely false statement. In the final scientific analysis
– the “pancake theory” fails. As desperate as the mainstream
media is to not allow Internet news sources to prove how the U.S. government played the editors at ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC,
Associated Press, Reuters, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, etc. like big time fools regarding 9/11 events,
the scientific facts dictate that the time is fast approaching when the editors at these media outlets will have to realize,
research, and reconcile the fact that the government has yet to produce a theory on the collapse sequence of the twin towers
or the phantom collapse of World Trade Center Building Seven that can be scientifically-validated through the peer evaluation
The fact is
that scientists outside the government’s control have been conducting peer evaluation of the NIST scientists and their
“pancake theory” for years now, and the government theory has failed to pass the test. Its failure to pass the test means that the government has yet to provide a sustainable explanation of
how the twin towers collapsed.
This is not
unusual in the scientific community; the process of working hypothesis, research, presenting a theory, subjecting the theory
to peer evaluation, and then if failing peer evaluation, returning to the research and even the hypothesis. What is different in this instance though is the stakes; and they couldn’t be higher because
so much of what the U.S. government has done since 9/11 is contingent on the majority of the public believing that those twin
towers collapsed as the result of the airplane impacts. With an estimated 42%
of the American public now skeptical of the 9/11 Commission Report as well as the NIST “pancake theory”; the government
knows it is losing the information war on 9/11, and has recently began to mount its predictable counter-offensive.
explain why the mainstream media is starting to invite professors that disagree with the government scientists onto its wide
variety of canned news shows and into its newspaper pages – not to give these heroic Americans a fair, non-hostile
venue to present their findings – but to smear their credibility and
label them as conspiracy nuts! Who then, I ask you, is the conspiracy
nut? Those that display contempt prior to investigation, those that blindly believe
a government account that defies the laws of physics and gravity, or those that point out that the elapsed collapse times
of the North Tower and South Tower completely eliminate the possibility that the government’s “pancake theory”
has any merit whatsoever.
When faced with
the challenge of a National 9/11 Debate, the Muckraker Report turned to the well-respected work of Professor Jones and Professor
Fetzer at Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The Muckraker Report contacted Professor
Fetzer and asked if he could assemble a highly qualified seven-member civilian debate team that would be willing to debate
a seven-member government debate team regarding the government’s account of 9/11 events.
Professor Fetzer had a team assembled in two weeks. With the civilian
debate team in place, the Muckraker Report identified twenty-nine potential government debate team members to include the
ten members of the 9/11 Commission and the thirteen NIST scientists responsible for the government’s “pancake
theory” of collapse. Each of these potential government debate team members
was mailed numerous invitations. Five of the 9/11 Commissioners had staffers
contact the Muckraker Report via telephone to decline invitation due to “prior commitments”. However, the thirteen NIST scientists remained silent.
separate mailings of hard copy invitations to the NIST scientists, on June 8, 2006 the Muckraker Report received e-mail from
NIST that said, “The project leaders of the NIST World Trade Center investigation team respectfully decline your invitations
to participate in the National 9/11 Debate on September 16, 2006.” Not
to be deterred, on June 20, 2006 the Muckraker Report e-mailed Michael E. Newman, NIST Director of Media Relations, and asked
if there was a better date, time, and location for NIST to participate in the National 9/11 Debate.
On June 25, 2006,
NIST Director of Media Relations, Michael E. Newman responded:
of the NIST WTC Investigation Team has [sic] respectfully declined your invitation to participate in the National 9/11 Debate. A change in venue or date will not alter that decision.
of venue or date will not alter that decision. Fascinating! What Newman is telling the world is that the public servants at NIST, the people paid by the U.S. taxpayers,
will never, ever publicly debate their peers regarding the “pancake theory” of collapse of WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7. Taxpayers should be outraged! The public
needs to demand accountability. Apparently, the Gang of 13 at NIST does
not believe they are accountable to the people. That needs to change, pronto! Newman has repeatedly told the Muckraker Report that NIST “stands solidly
behind the collapse mechanisms for each tower and the sequences of events (from aircraft impact to collapse) as described
in the report.” The truth is that NIST is hiding behind its unsustainable
theory and dares not publicly debate the merits of its report.
When it comes to
alternative hypotheses, NIST had none. When challenged on the work of BYU Professor Steven Jones and the preliminary analysis of steel debris from ground zero indicating incendiary
devices, with the release of the conclusive evidence imminent, Newman said, “NIST respects the opinions of others
who do not agree with the findings in its report on the collapses of WTC-1 and WTC-2.”
To translate this government rhetoric: Even if Jesus Christ descended from heaven, walked into NIST headquarters
holding a piece of molten steel from ground zero along with unequivocal evidence of incendiary device compounds and chemicals
found on the steel, substances such as Thermate, Newman and the Neo Cons, (That would be a great name for a punk rock band!)
would respect the opinion of the Lord, but it wouldn’t change their report.
And make no mistake about it – the NIST report on probable collapse sequence of the twin towers is a blind and
baseless opinion, a complete waste of taxpayer dollars, and one of the most atrocious lies every told to the American people!
Report asked Newman if NIST tested any of the steel from the twin towers for trace evidence of common controlled demolition
compounds. NIST refuses to answer this question directly. Even when challenged for a simple “yes” or “no” answer to a simple “yes”
or “no” question, Newman instead offered this response.
no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition
using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.
Well, no kidding
Newman! If NIST didn’t look for corroborating evidence of controlled
demolition, no doubt NIST didn’t find any. The question is, “Did
NIST test for controlled demolition evidence?” The answer is NO
it did not - yet another reason to dismiss the entire NIST report as pure government propaganda. Did NIST test for what BYU Professor Steven Jones is now testing for and finding, and what will NIST do
with solid scientific evidence that proves that controlled demolition compounds were part of the collapse sequence of the
twin towers? Unless the public demands otherwise, NIST will continue to hide
solidly behind its work!
This is one
lie that cannot be allowed to stand. It must be broken. The truth must prevail.
Too much privacy and liberty, and too many lives have already been lost because of this lie.
The stakes simply could not be any higher at this time. Lives are
at risk – to include yours and mine. Never give up!