New 9/11 Study Has Direct Links To Government, Pentagon Black Ops

Thank to Chris for sending this in, please see the original article for all supporting hyperlinks

New 9/11 Study Has Direct Links To Government, Pentagon Black Ops
"Independent" study financed by Feds

Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, June 22, 2007

A newly released Purdue University animation showing how fire caused the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11 claims to be independent but in reality has been federally funded and was conducted by individuals with direct links to the Pentagon and the White House.

Earlier this week we covered the news that the new study roughly correlates with the findings of the 2005 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report and supports the official line that the airplanes stripped away crucial fireproofing material and that the weakened towers collapsed under their own weight.

While the New York Times today lauds the study as "a counterpoint to the conspiracy theories promulgated by such outspoken figures as Rosie O’Donnell", has actually done some research into the origins of the study.

In addition to the inerrant flaws and conflicts we pointed out in our previous article, it has now come to light that the so called "independent" structural engineers behind the study are anything but.

The Study was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), a federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…".

The board of the NSF was appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate. Its director, Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr, has worked for the Department of defense, where he was under secretary for research and engineering, and DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), which is responsible for the development of new technology for use by the military and famed for its black op projects and offshoot offices.

Last year the Bush Administration doubled the NSF's budget to $6.02 billion.

At the time Arden L. Bement, Jr. stated:

"This is a great day for NSF, and that means it's a great day for the nation, there has been a lot of rhetoric about doubling the NSF budget, but now the Administration is behind it. The FY 2007 Budget Request is the first installment. We are grateful to the Administration for its recognition and leadership,"

In addition it turns out that structural engineer Mete Sozen, the lead investigator in the Purdue study, was also on the American Society of Civil Engineers research team that confirmed the government's story about the OKC bombing in 1995, despite the huge amounts of inconsistencies and conflicting testimony.


From the ASCE web site

Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E.
Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University
Specialty: Behavior of reinforced-concrete structures

Dr. Sozen is currently the Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. Prior to joining Purdue in 1994, Dr. Sozen was a professor of civil engineering at the University of Illinois for over 35 years. Dr. Sozen also served on the ASCE team that studied the Murrah Federal Office Building collapse.

So while it claims to be independent the study was in fact funded by the government and carried out by long time government hired hands. The study clearly set out not to attempt to discover anything new but to prove the preconceived official fire theory.

Again this underscores the fact that a truly independent investigation into 9/11 is the only way the mountains of evidence pointing towards a controlled demolition will even be considered.

Good for a laugh

An acquaintance of mine who is a structural engineering graduate student wrote an email to Mete Sozen about a year ago and questioned him about Purdue's original analysis and Pentagon impact simulation. Here are the two emails. Enjoy a good laugh!

Hi Prof. Sozen,

I have some questions regarding the research conducted at Purdue University in regards to the crash at the Pentagon on September 11th.

My main questions evolve around the aircraft simulation that was shown during the report's presentation and broadcast on national media.

1) In the simulation the outer limestone wall of the Pentagon is not shown (just the building columns). I assume the wall was made out of some limestone (dense) material (maybe 18 inches thick?) and would offer additional structural resistance.

2) The aircraft in the simulation has no engines. The engines on a 757 are quite large (about 9 ft in diameter) and extend below the fuselage of the aircraft (correct?). The plane was presumed to crash into the lower floor of the building yet left no impact markings on the outer lawn (according to photographs and video taken at the scene).

3) Finally, right before the simulation ends, it shows the vertical stabilizer of the aircraft (tail section) entering into the building. I've looked at a couple photographs and videos of the wall of the Pentagon before it collapsed and there is clearly no indication of a tail section entering in or even impacting the 2nd and 3rd stories of the building. There is also no tail section debris found outside the building.

I have no idea how specific the simulation video was made. Perhaps I am taking it too literal. In your research of the situation I am sure you accounted for the above mentioned phenomena. If you did, I am curious as to how you did it. Were you able to see video of the impact?

I believe the ASCE report also states that the plane took out 50 support columns. How was this value determined? Was it concluded before the outer ring collapsed or after?

I do not mean to criticize the ASCE report, but after recently watching the simulation video and then looking at pictures of the impact damage, I saw what appeared to be inconsistencies.

Prof. Sozen, thank you for your help and understanding -- it is much appreciated!


(name withheld)

(University of Cincinnati College of Engineering Graduate School)


Dear Mr (name ,withheld):

Thank you for your interest in our study of the Pentagon event.

Our focus was on the response of the spirally reinforced concrete columns to impact delivered by, essentially, a fluid traveling at high speed.

We were informed by eyewitnesses that the engines had dropped before impacting the building.

There are so many questions about the transfer of energy from the aircraft to the Pentagon structure that the presence/absence of the Indiana limestone facade walls makes relatively little difference.

I thought there was evidence of the tail striking the building.

In any case, our "simulation" refers to approx 1/4 sec. after the impact. In that short duration it is defensible. Unfortunately, the animation is much more impressive than the simulation and suggests a perfect simulation. It is not so.

Since 2001, we have been focusing on the problem of a fuel-loaded wing impacting a solid. We have a lot to learn.

You may also have noticed that the simulation did not go into the conflagration.

The ASCE team did study the damage. They were in the building. I believe the column count is correct.

But I do not want you to discourage from questioning what we have been told about the tragic event. I would not use our simulation as evidence confirming the existence of an impacting aircraft. Strictly, it is Mickey Mouse. But there is hard evidence confirming the impact by an aircraft.


--Mete Sozen

So, Mr. Sozen was informed that the engines fell off before impact? Don't you think a photo journalist would have taken a photo of such an amazing site? I do. What a crock!

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow

Prof Sez is missing a few Screws

What a lame response from the professor. If the study was to show the impact potential of fast moving fluid why didn't just exclude the plan all together. Plus, the planes were not fully loaded with fuel. Planes only fill up on enough fuel for their trip and a bit more, it conserves weight and adds to fuel efficiency. A 3000 mile flight usually means a little more than 1/4 full.

It was probably closer to a little over 40% full

The 767-200ER aircraft which hit the twin towers had 10,000 gallons of fuel on board and their capacity was 23,980 gallons. That is about 42%.

How much of that fuel

was used up for taking off?


My uncle had a look at this simulation. He has recently concluded a long stint as head of one of the world's leading Civil Engineering schools. He had this to say:

"I know Mete Sozen. He was at UI Urbana for many years before moving to Purdue. He has a solid reputation in structural engineering, but as far as i know, he is a reinforced concrete, not a structural steel, guy. The statements on "steel melting" are a bit speculative in my opinion. As I watched the video, it struck me that the severing of the core columns by the airplane wings would be a greater threat than fire. However, I asked myself, which would have more resistance - the columns or the wings. The former is more plausible.

I have watched these videos over and over. Perhaps what intrigues me most is the footage of the plane exiting the tower. I have seen what appears to be the exact geometry of the impacting plane exiting the tower - it is as if a plasma field of the plane persisted for a very brief period of time (maybe 2 seconds after exiting) carrying with it an exact "image" of the plane. Not sure what to make of this.

But if the core columns were indeed severed by the wings 20 floors below the top, could the impact induce free fall collapse of the remaining floors? I doubt that it could, but my field of expertise is not structural steel.

All models are wrong, some are useful."

As a graduate student in mechanical engineering (combustion research) I share his sentiments. I work with models (not the female kind) on a regular basis, in computational fluid dynamics, and what he says about models are absolutely bang on. Something to think about when the IPCC says its models "prove" global warming is our fault.

I look forward to constructive input. My personal view is that there would be insufficient oxygen to sustain a combustion reaction that could have any appreciable effects on the structural integrity of the whole building. You'd need an air flow rate of several hundred cubic metres per second, I would guess.

It is sad the assumptions that went into this expensive model are the ones trumpeted by the MSM. Use the real ones! :)

Is your uncle talking about the nose cone exiting?

Does he actually think such a thing is possible? Do you?


It looks like that is what he is watching over and over. That is too bad because it is disinfo and probably photoshopped. How could a plane go into a building, travel through everything within the building and come out the other end in exactly the same shape. More disinfo to make us look foolish. I'm glad he is interested. Maybe he will join !!

this question should be answerable

Is the "exiting nose" present in the original footage or was it added in at some point? If added... who added it?

For the record, I don't think it's possible that a real airplane nose could go through a WTC tower and emerge in anything remotely resembling its original shape. Admittedly, I have no expertise in such things, so that is purely a layman's hunch.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

He wasn't talking about a

He wasn't talking about a physical plane exiting the building, but the shape of a plane exiting (watch the flame).

The video with the 'nose cone'

coming out the other side is most like photoshopped.

Here's a close up of the exit corner and most of the steel columns are still in place. Certainly, the hole isn't big enough for the nose cone of a Boeing 767.

BTW: This corner, which is on the NE side of the 81st floor of WTC 2, is one of the key corners, that needed to be taken out in order to cause the top of the building to fail and to fall toward the Plaza. According to the NIST report this is where the building failed first. The 81st floor was important because it had heavier steel columns and beams then the floors below because this is where they housed the dozen 24 ton elevator hoists. They must have caused a lot of damage going down, when the legs were pulled out from under them.

I'm sooo shocked

heres the original stories

Steve Wtason edited his

Steve Wtason edited his article and gave credit to the source material,bravo Steve your a good man!

Negative votes?

Why the negative votes for the above post? Steve Watson was accused of plagarizing this article, see comments section (now 70 comments there). I think the few Infowars/PP members altogether are doing a sensational job.
Here's Steve's answer:


"Hello everyone - google the following "The board of the NSF was appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate. Its director, Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr, has worked for the Department of defense, where he was under secretary for research and engineering, and DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), which is responsible for the development of new technology for use by the military and famed for its black op projects and offshoot offices."

See how many entries come up. You cannot accuse someone of "taking your research" when you just took it from somewhere else in the first place.

Nevertheless I admit Swenson and Reeves should have been credited and it was something I overlooked due to the fact I was gathering info from various sources as i always do.

I'm not trying to make excuses but people seem to think prisonplanet is a huge operation run by teams of people. No currently I am running the entire thing on my own, I am pulling 16hr days, and sometimes things are overlooked.

The most important thing however is getting the information out and in that sense we are a huge team, you are all part of the Prisonplanet team and you all do invaluable work without which we would not have progressed to where we are.

I will credit S & R in the article.
thanks, thats all,
Steve Watson | 06.23.07 - 9:50 am | # "

Looks like it's served to FORWARD the debate

turning it into an actual debate, and it offers no rebuttal in terms of the near free fall "global collapse" at all, which is the crux of OUR argument.
On the 11th day, of every month.

Arden L. Bement Jr - NFS - NIST - Bush

I just wanted to add that Arden L. Bement Jr., NFS director, "joined NSF from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), where he had been Director since December 7, 2001." Meaning Bush obviously appointed him to this job as well, shortly after 9/11.


""When the developers of the World Trade Center first designed the complex, they did take into account of an accidental plane crash," said Christoph Hoffman, one of the study's lead researchers. "The only thing they didn't anticipate is the fire.[...]""

Thats a lie. If one visit a Seattle Times article from February 27, 1993 one might find:

"Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there.""

September 11 Revisited Extended Version 2 Now on DVD.

September 11 Revisited Extended Version 2 Now on DVD.

The "New, and Improved" version of Dustin Mugford's September 11 Revisited on DVD is now available for
purchase and is shipping NOW.

September 11 Revisited Extended Version 2 is far better than 911 Mysteries (and we know how great Mysteries is) at convincing people that the WTC 1, 2, and 7 were demolished by explosives.

View it online and purchase it here:

Then BUY it In quantity. Get this out there.

Bush Redux

This link was on Rosie's blog.

It is going hot and she loves it.

I did not know where to put it so I choose this blog.

It is growing and Rosie said she is trying to contact the videographer.

Last night it was a bit over 3000 views this morning it is over 10,900 views.


Just ordered!

Transaction ID: 0XC630077G310332E

Total with shipping=$9.95


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Spread the word! Many hands make light work! EMA: educate, motivate, activate.
Improve your activist toolkit and get your free RCFPs here

Not surprising..

Thanks to all who uncover these little details.

Show "NSF doesn't equal Corruption" by slim

It's Called Conflict of Interest, of Which Is Corruption

Hi, slim. The practice at work here with these so-called "independent" investigations is called conflict of interest, since they are in no sense independent and indeed are little more than organs of the U.S. government.

If a judge on a case is business partners or a friend of the plaintiff, then it doesn't matter how "fair" or "objective" in the case he or anyone else thinks he was. The very fact that he sat on the case is corrupt.

"Terrorism is the health of the State."--James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," June 1, 2006