Appendix D

Some responses I’ve gotten over the years

I’ve spoken to many people since I did my first physics analysis of the WTC1 collapse in 2007. Here are examples of common responses I’ve gotten over the years.

I attended the 25th anniversary of the Ethan Allen Institute and happened to sit by a fellow with whom conversation wound around through “Climate Change” to 9/11. He is a bright businessman from Boston who happened to be in Burlington to see a client. I told him about the physics modeling I’d done and the results. He said he had no way to engage the physics and moved immediately into offering some of the flimsy arguments of appearances that bolster his insistence on the formal explanation. His reaction is common. All such arguments are based on the force the speaker has to bring to the argument which depends on his level of commitment that supports the belief. But it’s always a belief with no proof behind it. He didn’t believe anyone could talk 19 young Saudis into flying the aircraft involved. He believes that there would be no way to keep the actual collapse method, if different from the NIST version, a secret, etc.

I asked a friend who is a physics teacher to look over an argument similar to the one I present here and he said he would. Time passed and I asked how he was doing. He told me that he’d begun it and then “just couldn’t continue.” Something about the project had frightened him and he backed away from it.

One physics teacher (at Middlebury College) said he simply would not look at 9/11 and would not say why. Another physics teacher at Middlebury wrote in an e-mail simply that she didn’t see why anyone would question the NIST presentation of 9/11.

Another physicist, a friend, has helped me with this project but in such a way that he cannot be associated with it. His work is presented in Appendix C. It contains four Excel runs of a building collapse similar to the WTC1 collapse but does not include the lost mass component.

9/11 in the Dominican Republic: I went to the Dominican Republic as a Peace Corps volunteer (2011 – 2014) and asked members of the elite—sons of wealthy parents who had been sent abroad, sometimes to Europe, to study—what they thought and was told, “Oh, we just thought it was the US government screwing around.” I couldn’t get a conversation going about 9/11, not because they were appalled or stunned by the event and couldn’t deal with it or because they felt that anyone bringing up the subject was a “conspiracy theorist” about 9/11, but because they had no doubt it was done by the US government. They didn’t have the background to reproduce my analysis and I’ll bet they didn’t have the knowledge and resources to stand up to a true questioning about it, but, as it stands, they don’t believe the formal explanation offered by the NIST.

From this I’ve derived a little theory about belief in the 911 events: it’s that the farther away from the event you were when it happened, the more likely you are to question the formal explanation of the events. To an extent this makes sense. Those living close to the buildings are more likely to have known someone or to know someone who knew someone who died in the events and are more likely to have a strong emotional association with the events that gets in the way of an objective approach to studying them. What is also interesting is that folks living off-shore seem to be less likely to believe in the formal explanation of the NYC WTC events. It’s as though the spectacle was for domestic consumption.