Preface – Where Did the Towers Go?

Faced with intolerable ideas, or with intolerable acts, people in very large numbers have begun simply denying them, declaring them “unreal” and thus with a word striking them out of existence. …But the pattern itself of not seeing is inescapable, evident to anyone who looks.                                         —Eric Larsen, A Nation Gone Blind 1

For the record, I do not believe that our government is responsible for executing the events of 9/11/01 – nor do I believe that our government is not responsible for executing the events of 9/11/01. This is not a case of belief. This is a crime that should be solved by a forensic study of the evidence. Before it can be determined who did it, it must first be determined what was done and how it was done.

The order of crime solving is to determine

  1. WHAT happened, then
  2. HOW it happened (e.g., by what weapon), then
  3. WHO  did it. And only then can we address
  4. WHY  they did it (i.e. motive).

Let us remember what is required to convict someone of a crime. You cannot convict someone of a crime based on belief. You cannot convict someone of a crime if you don’t even know what crime to charge them with. If you accuse someone of murder using a gun, you’d better be sure the body has a bullet hole in it.

And yet before noon on 9/11/01, we were told who had done it and how it had been done, this before any investigation had even been conducted to determine what had been done. As of this publication only one person2—myself, Dr. Judy Wood3— has conducted a comprehensive investigation to determine what happened to the World Trade Center (WTC) complex, a question that is part of a federal case I filed4. It might be surprising for readers to learn that The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) did not analyze what happened to the WTC, the very first step in any scientific forensics investigation. That is, NIST did not analyze the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, despite the fact their report is entitled, NIST NCSTAR 1—Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. NIST’s mandate from

Congress was to

  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.5

Yet two pages later, in a footnote, the NIST report says that

The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instance 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 it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.6

The NIST report,7 that is, merely offered a probable [hypothetical] ‘collapse sequence’ purporting to explain the sequence of events leading up to the ‘collapse’ of the WTC towers. Yet NIST did not “determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 ‘collapsed’ following the initial impacts of the aircraft,” which was their mandate. Had NIST determined “why and how” the towers were destroyed, they would have first determined what happened by dealing with phenomena that are empirically confirmed to have occurred. As is glaringly evident, they did not do this.

I challenged NIST8 on their scientifically-flawed report,9 noting that the images presented in their report, as well as their “probable [hypothetical] ‘collapse’ sequence” violated the laws of physics. In their written reply to me they openly acknowledged that they had not analyzed the collapse.10

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.10

That is, the NIST personnel admitted their report to be a fraud. Their position is that if they did not analyze the “collapse,” they need not address why their “probable [hypothetical] ‘collapse’ sequence” in fact violates the laws of physics. They are willing to accept responsibility only for saying that the building obeyed the laws of physics before it was destroyed. This document, in which NIST states that it did not analyze the “collapse,” is part of my legal case and is available in documents posted on my website.11

A large portion of the sub-report, NCSTAR1-6, contains information that appears to be the product of a detailed analysis of what happened after the building’s destruction was initiated. But in response to my informing them that their apparent analysis violated the laws of physics, NIST, as said, stated that they had not analyzed the collapse, despite thousands of pages giving the appearance of an analysis. It is incongruent for NIST to report on something that they acknowledge they did not analyze. The entire NIST report, including its title (NIST NCSTAR 1—Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers), is a deception.

Dr. Morgan Reynolds, in the case he filed,11 addressed how this crime was not committed with airplanes. Remember, to convict someone of a crime, you need to prove how the crime was committed. It may surprise you to learn that there is no actual, verifiable evidence confirming that airplanes crashed at any of the four locations on 9/11/01. However, as Dr. Reynolds shows, there is an abundance of evidence to the contrary.11 That does not mean there were no airplanes. It only means that no evidence of the alleged airplanes was found at the crime scenes. It also does not mean that eyewitnesses were dishonest or did not see what they believed were airplanes. But what this does mean is that there is a significant contradiction between the physical evidence and the story we were given. You cannot legally convict someone of murder using a gun if the body has no bullet holes in it, no matter how many people thought they saw the accused shoot the gun. Once again, you cannot convict someone of a crime based on belief. Otherwise magic tricks could be used to convict anyone of a crime, and we end up in a similar situation to the original Salem witch hunts, where people were tried and executed without there being any evidence of the accusations made against them.

Many people have speculated as to who committed the crimes of 9/11 and/ or how they did so. But without addressing what happened, speculation of this kind is nothing more than conspiracy theory, a phrase that also describes the box-cutter story we were given before noon on 9/11/01. My own research, not speculation, is a forensics investigation of what happened to the WTC complex on 9/11/01. I don’t address who did it, nor am I concerned with that question. Before issues of that kind can be addressed, we must first determine what happened, and that is the objective of my research. By definition, research that is purely empirical cannot be about and has nothing to do with conspiracy theory of any kind. The fact that others (in the mainstream media, the alternative media, and the so-called “9/11 truth movement”) promote various theories about 9/11 is irrelevant to my research. On the other hand, to determine what happened, we must address all of the available evidence. Anyone declaring who did what or how they did it before they have determined what was done is merely promoting either speculation or propaganda. The popular chant, “9/11 was an inside job,” is, scientifically speaking, no different from the chant that “19 bad guys with box cutters did it.” Neither one is the result of a scientific investigation supported by evidence that would be admissible in court. Neither identifies what crime was committed or how it was committed.

So let us consider the body of empirical evidence that must be explained in order to determine what happened.12 What is presented here is not a theory and it is not speculation. It is evidence. Here, then, is the evidence of what happened on 9/11/01.

===

1         Eric Larsen, A Nation Gone Blind: America in an Age of Simplification and Deceit, http://www.ericlarsen.net/ nation.excerpt.html

2         Only non-classified documents in the public domain are considered.

3         B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering), M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics, 1983), and Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, http:

//drjudywood.com/articles/a/bio/Wood_Bio.html

4         United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Docket Number: (07-cv-3314), United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Docket Number: (08-3799-cv), Supreme Court Docket

Number: (09-548), http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-548.htm. But this case presents a dilemma for the courts as it involves someone’s classified technology, no matter whose classified technology it was. A civil case involving classified technology cannot be held behind closed doors without publicly acknowledging this fact. Perhaps this is why the United States Court of Appeals, in their written decision, respectfully acknowledged that the law (FERA) applied to this case, but “for the ease of” dismissing the case, they were ignoring this law. See: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml

5         NIST NCSTAR 1 – Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, September 2005, E.1

Genesis of this investigation, p. xxxv (p. 37), http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

6         NIST NCSTAR 1 – Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, September 2005, E.2

Approach, p. xxxvii (p. 39) footnote[!], http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

7         NIST NCSTAR 1 – Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, September 2005, http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

8         http://ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619

9         To my amazement, I was the first person to challenge NIST on their report’s absence of an analysis to “determine why and how the WTC ‘collapsed,’” which qualified me to file a qui tam case for science fraud. http://ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619

10       Response to Request for Correction from Dr. Judy Wood, dated March 16, 2007, http://ocio.os.doc.gov/ ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/ssLINK/PROD01_004161, http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html

11       http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html

12       http://drjudywood.com/wtc/index.html#index

  •  
  •  
  •  
  • 1
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    1
    Share