WTC & Hutch (JJ)
Erin & Field (erin)
Billiard Balls
Qui Tam Case
Where did the building go?

Intellectual Curiosity vs. Agenda

From Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961:

"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university,
Is this what Eisenhower warned us of?
Where did the building go?
Figure 1. My intellectual integrity prevents me from calling this a collapse. This is why I have chosen to stand up. My conscience leaves me no other choice.
historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."

Text for Eisenhower's farewell address
Audio for Eisenhower's farewell address

NIST's use of the word "collapse" is deceptive

From my Request for Correction and NIST's reply to my Request for Corrections:

NIST's use of the word "collapse" is deceptive to describe what is seen in the figure above. My
Figure 2. The building dissolved into dust before it reached the ground. (9/11/01) Source
Request for Correction (RFC) stated that NIST completely failed to satisfy the first objective that it claimed to address in NCSTAR 1. NIST, or persons acting on its behalf and/or with whom it has contracted for services has caused to be disseminated false information that does not address what NIST claimed was a specific objective:
p. xxxv (p. 37): “The specific objectives were:
1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;”
Quoted text: Excerpt from NIST's NCSTAR 1 document, p. xxxv (p. 37), which I quoted in my RFC.
In NIST's response to my RFC, they acknowledged what I said and agreed that they did not satisfy their first objective, which was to determine why and how WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed. In doing so, they admitted fraud.
Your request for correction asserts that ".. .NIST completely failed to satisfy the first objective that it claimed to address in NCSTAR 1," namely to determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.

As stated in NCSTAR 1, NIST only investigated the factors leading to the initiation of the collapses of the WTC towers, not the collapses themselves.
Quoted text: Two excerpts from NIST's July 27, 2008 response to my RFC.
NCSTAR 1’s title is flawed in that the visual evidence set forth in my RFC demonstrated that the nomenclature “collapse” as contained in the title and throughout NCSTAR 1 is false, deceptive and misleading. The use of the word “collapse” does not, then, comport with, among other things, the integrity component of data quality requirements. The World Trade Center Towers did not collapse. Instead, they were quite obviously pulverized from top to bottom. While NCSTAR 1 acknowledges that “…the stories below the level of “collapse” initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.”
Figure 4. Where did the building go?
(9/11/01) Source:

NIST cannot make a statement that the World Trade Center towers came down in “free fall” on one hand, andthen indicate, on the other, that doing so is a form of collapse.

The conditions there involved are not a collapse; and, in any event, NIST acknowledges that it does not analyze that part of the sequence of events; thus, it is utterly incongruent for NIST to describe that which it acknowledges went without analysis on its part.

Use of the descriptive word “collapse” to describe a process whereby the twin towers were turned to dust without the ability to have top heavy mass interact with mass underneath the pulverized mass sufficient to satisfy the criteria of two of the laws of physics is visibly obvious. The two laws of physics that are violated to such a degree that they are ignored altogether by NIST, in complete and total derivation of the requirements of the DQA are: Law of Conservation of Momentum; and Law of Conservation of Energy.

Contact Information

NSF Whistleblower Information
Also, an archived copy is here.

National Whistleblower Center
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

Whistleblower Hotlines, House Oversight Committee
(Congressman Waxman, Chair)
"Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002,"

Jerry Leaphart

8 West Street
Suite 203
Danbury, CT 06810
Dr. Judy Wood
Former Professor of Mechanical Engineering

Clemson, SC
Dr. Morgan Reynolds
Professor emeritus at Texas A&M University

Former chief economist for the US Department of Labor during 2001–2, George W. Bush's first term.

I would like to know your thoughts on the above decision. You may leave a brief anonymous message, a contact source and/or a time/method to contact you. 500 character limit. You may also specify a particular recipient.
Send to:
Contact E-mail Optional:

 Characters Left:

Military-Industrial Complex
Origin of the term

The first public use of the term was by the Union of Democratic Control, formed by Sir Charles Trevelyan in the United Kingdom on 5 August 1914. Point Four of their pacifist manifesto declared: 4. National armaments should be limited by mutual agreement, and the pressures of the military-industrial complex regulated by the nationalisation of armaments firms and control over the arms trade.[2]

President of the United States (and former General of the Army) Dwight D. Eisenhower later used the term in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961:

"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual --is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Text for Eisenhower's farewell address
Audio for Eisenhower's farewell address
short audio clip (mp3) 312 kb
Source: Wikepedia: Military-industrial complex

NIST's use of the word "collapse" to describe
what is seen here is deceptive:

Selected Photos:

Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.

Figure 9. If dust settles so quickly
Figure 10. Why does it again rise up?

Figure 11. Where did the building go?
Figure 12. Where did the building go?

Figure 13. Not down here.
Figure 14. Location of previous photo.

Figure 15. Why is this beam shriveled up? The wrinkled beam in the front "gash" of the Bankers Trust building, which didn't have a fire. This photo is from FEMA report: (Fig6-10.) [Link(pdf)]

Figure 16. Wrinkled beams. Photo by FEMA

Figure 17. 9/15/01 Dry weather Figure 18. 9/16/01 Dry weather

If there was molten metal in the basements, wouldn't you expect more "steam" in the wet weather than in the dry weather?
see page about molten metal

Figure 19. 9/20/01 Wet weather Figure 20. 9/20/01 Wet weather

This is not what a collapse looks like!

Figure 20. Does this look like a collapse to you?

  "A time comes when silence is betrayal." 
- Martin Luther King


WTC & Hutch (JJ)
Erin & Field (erin)
Billiard Balls
Qui Tam Case
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this webpage are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This webpage has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources.

© 2006-2009 Judy Wood and the author above. All rights reserved.