Recent Articles and Letters
Written by Our Members
July 6, 2011
Book Review: "Among the Truthers" by William Willers
May 10, 2011
Responses to questions regarding thermite, nanothermite and
conventional explosives used in the WTC destruction by Steven Jones, 911Blogger.com.
January 19, 2011
Released April 15, 2011
Letters to John P. Holdren,
the Department of Commerce,
the Union of Concerned Scientists,
and the National Science Foundation by members of Scientists. Note:
In these copies, the sender's address has been replaced by Scientists' PO Box address.
March 19, 2011
An Open Letter to Bill Moyers by William Willers and others. The letter was in response to a
by Bill Moyers at the History Makers 2011 convention on January 27, 2011, in New York City.
March 07, 2011
A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse by Michael Fullerton, Foreign Policy Journal.
February 22, 2011
Letter to the Canadian Minister of Public Safety by Kip Warner. Responses to this letter by officials and
others can also be seen at this location.
November 18, 2010
Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11 by Kevin Ryan, Foreign Policy Journal.
September 15, 2010
Letter to the Department of Commerce by Timothy E. Eastman.
Welcome to our website and Home page. If you are new to the findings of independent, scientific research on the events of September 11, 2001
(9/11), please begin by clicking Introduction.
August 5, 2013 Film: "9/11 in the Academic Community"
9/11 In Academia
December 7, 2013
The Official Story of 9/11
It is common knowledge that since 9/11 the mainstream media in the Western world has adhered to the official government
story of 9/11 that was formulated on that day and the days that followed. This story has 19 Arab hijackers taking over
the controls of four commercial aircraft and flying them unchallenged into iconic buildings, namely the World Trade Center
(WTC) Towers and the Pentagon. A third skyscraper in New York at the WTC, Building 7 (WTC7), is said to have caught some
small fires and then completely “collapsed” from the effects. A fourth plane is said to have crashed in a field in
Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to take control of the plane. In lockstep with the media, the academic community
has also largely accepted this official story.
Conclusions from Independent Scientists and Researchers
Since 9/11, independent investigators including scientists, engineers, architects and other scholars have
conclusively shown that the official story is largely false. Here is a brief summary of what independent researchers
think happened on that day:
- There is no strong evidence that any of the so-called hijackers were on board the planes on that day.
It is thought that the planes may have been guided to their targets by remote control. Many of the "hijackers" named in the
reports were later discovered to be still alive.
- The damage and fires caused by the two planes that hit the Twin Towers did NOT cause those buildings to “collapse.”
Instead, the evidence shows that the Twin Towers were brought down by some form of controlled demolition.
This evidence includes studies of the acceleration at which the towers fell, high-velocity ejections of massive steel beams,
the presence of unexploded nanothermite in the dust, and the presence of the products of the nanothermite reaction,
namely iron spherules, in the dust. There are many additional items of evidence that point to controlled demolition.
See Summary of Evidence for the Twin Towers.
- Despite the claims of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) by means of a computer model
whose details NIST will not reveal, WTC7 did not “collapse” as the result of small fires. A period of free fall
of about 1.25 seconds (105 feet) can only be explained if eight stories of the 47-storey building were suddenly
removed by well-place explosives. Barry Jennings and Michael Hess witnessed pre-demolition explosions in WTC7
before WTC7 was said to have caught fire and before the Towers “collapsed”. The destruction of WTC7 has all the
features of a standard controlled demolition including fore-knowledge and even an overheard “count-down.”
- Regarding the Pentagon, independent researchers all agree that “hijacker” Hani Hanjour, an inexperienced pilot,
would have found it very difficult to fly the observed final stage of the flight of the Boeing 757 into the Pentagon West wall.
While many theories
have been put forward as to what
caused the damage and debris at the Pentagon, a series of recent papers by scientists show that the evidence is
strongly in favor of a Boe757 hitting the Pentagon, as witnessed and recorded by the overwhelming majority of
eyewitnesses. However, the additional use of pre-planted explosives has not been ruled out at this time.
These recent papers have been collected at Scientific Method 9/11 for study and discussion.
- For Flight 93 that is said to have crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, the official story of passengers wresting control
from the “hijackers” and then crashing the plane due to lack of skill is seen as false. The physical evidence indicates
that the plane was shot down and the debris scattered over a wide area.
Academics Begin to Weigh In
Apart from a few lone academics, still active in their universities at the time, who have publicly voiced their
opposition to the official story, academia has
largely gone along with the official story with little questioning. Those who early expressed opposition include
Steven Earl Jones who was placed on leave and elevated to Emeritus status in Physics at Brigham Young University;
John McMurtry, professor of philosophy at the University of Guelph, Canada who was attacked by colleagues and
faculty alike but retained his position; and William Woodward of the University of New Hampshire, who was similarly
attacked by colleagues and state officials but was defended and retained by the university as coming under the
banner of academic freedom.
Other academics working within their universities have successfully hosted both hearings of the evidence and
seminars on selected 9/11 topics. For example, Hearings sponsored by the International Center for 9/11 Studies
took place at Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada during September 8 – 11, 2011
(see the Toronto Hearings).
While these hearings were not
sponsored by the University itself, faculty members at the College of Arts and Sciences in the University of
Indiana in Fall 2011 did present university-sponsored 9/11 topics under the Fall Themester banner of
“Making War, Making Peace.” Some universities have informally organized groups
that discuss and research 9/11, an example being the
University of Waterloo 9/11 Research Group.
Film, Announced August 5, 2013: “9/11 In The Academic Community”
A recent film directed and produced by Adnan Zuberi with the help of departments in the University of Toronto sets
out to capture the mood regarding 9/11 in the academic community 12 years after the event. The film is titled
“9/11 In The Academic Community” and is 75 minutes in length. In keeping with its own theme, that the academic
community has yet to engage with 9/11 as a topic for full and active research, the film tends to be low-key,
preferring peripheral stories about the inconsistencies of 9/11 rather than developing a clear, basic narrative. The
film can be purchased from the website, 9/11 In The Academic
Community, for $15 including shipping and handling.
The following academics are featured in the film and the words following their names are paraphrases of their statements:
Graeme MacQueen, McMaster University
The official story is forbidden for examination, it is taboo and untouchable and unmentionable, it sullies you to bring it up.
Professors are overworked, but also show timidity and laziness where 9/11 is concerned. We need to know what happened on
9/11and who did it!
David M. McGregor, Western University
Universities are normally thought of as places for open discussion – but is 9/11 taboo?
The university will not criticize the official story – it has blind spots, and tends to think in terms of structures where
individual actions have no effect.
Richard P. Lee, University of Toronto
There is no taboo, but the subject matter is confusing. In 2004 I taught a course at
the University of Toronto centered around David Ray Griffin’s “The New Pearl Harbor.” In 2008 an upper level course in
logic, also centered on Griffin’s book, was taught at McMaster University. Result: The official narrative cannot
withstand rational scrutiny.
Michael Truscello, Mount Royal University
There is a spiral of silence in which literature, such as the many books on 9/11
written by David Ray Griffin, remains unexamined by the larger academic community. There is “an intention to avoid”
these books. The 9/11 Commission Report begins with a history of Al Qaeda in the mid 1990s and portrays it as a
highly organized world-wide organization, whereas Buzzy Krongard reveals Al Qaeda as a “loose amalgamation of
people” who hate the West and are similarly often at war with each other. Fully 25% of the Report’s footnotes
are based on tortured testimony, the Commission members were not allowed to meet with detainees or question them,
and Philip Zelikow, a consummate White House insider outlined the report before it was written and controlled every
facet of the report whilst maintaining contact with Karl Rove throughout the so-called investigation.
John McMurtry, University of Guelph
The official story is itself a conspiracy theory – so we may ask “Which conspiracy theory?”
Those who raise the issue are attacked, as was McMurtry who was vilified in the press and whose colleagues reported him
to the FBI. Operation Northwoods showed all the Joint Chiefs of Staff agreeing to a false flag attack on our own citizens
and soldiers in order to start a war with Cuba and blame it on the Cubans. Kennedy and McNamara said “No” to this plan in
the early 1960s. Why then do colleges now identify with the official story of 9/11, another false flag attack? In a
news/debate segment on TV with Thomas Donnelly, a PNAC signer, McMurtry pointedly explains that preparing for war with Iraq, without
the United Nations Security Council approval, is itself a war crime, the supreme crime that includes all others.
Walter Pitman, Ryerson University
As President of Ryerson University, Pitman was asked by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
to help identify students at risk [of being influenced by terrorists], but declined to do so.
Paul Zarembka, State University of New York at Buffalo
Zarembka spoke at length about the PUTs that were placed on the United and American
Airlines stock in the days before 9/11. Allen M. Poteshman was given information as to the exact nature of the bets
placed at the Board of Trade, bets that showed a 99% probability that insider trading using foreknowledge of the event
was in play. But the 9/11 Commission found that the individuals engaged in the betting had no connection with Al Qaeda,
so dismissed this line of inquiry! Four years later,
Poteshman’s paper has not been commented upon or discussed in any
scholarly venue, a sign that people are afraid to discuss it and would rather ignore it altogether.
Robert Korol, McMaster University
Korol in civil engineering has performed full-scale testing of what happens when a
column is crushed. He finds six times more resistance as the column is folded, compared with the three-hinged model
hastily adopted by Northwestern University professor Zdenek P. Bazant who published a highly theoretical
model of the Towers’ “collapses”
only two days after the event. Bazant’s model pays little attention to what actually happened to the Towers on 9/11.
Omar Ramahi, University of Waterloo
As pointed out by Ramahi, Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineering, not enough people are aware of the collapse of WTC7 at 5:20 pm on 9/11. Those who do see the video of
this “collapse” readily categorize it as a controlled demolition of a type already familiar to most. No steel-framed
building before or since 9/11 has ever completely collapsed from fire, but the National Institute of Standards and
Techonology keeps its computer model and explanation of the event secret out of concern for public safety!
Lynn Margulis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst
A crime was committed but the evidence was removed. A scientist’s best friend is
one who offers valid criticism that causes an hypothesis to be retained or replaced.
There are also brief segments that mention other academics and their work such as Noam Chomsky, David Ray Griffin,
Philip Zelikow, writer Philip Shennon, Allen M. Poteshman, and Zdnek Bazant. Toward the end of the film, John
McMurtry and Thomas Donnelly, a
square off in a video news segment.
© 2011-2013, Scientists for 9/11 Truth. All rights reserved. Contact: