Open Letter to Official Theory Supporting Scientists
I just sent this as a private letter to Dr. Thomas Eagar at MIT. Upon reflection, it would be good to post here as an "open letter" to not just him but all official theory-supporting scientists. I'll be interested to see if he responds.
Though this blog version is an open letter to not just Eagar, but also Bazant and others, I'll keep the text as I originally wrote it (in which I address Dr. Eagar directly, in the second person).
Dear Dr. Eagar,
Over the past couple years I have studied very closely the research community known as the 9/11 truth movement. I have an observation and a question.
My observation: When Steven Jones published his essay in favor of the demolition hypothesis, you said that "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion." This quote of yours is featured on Wikipedia in refutation to the demolition hypothesis.
However, this is precisely what many people believe to be true of not only your work but all scientific papers supporting the official story. See, we all saw the planes crash live on TV, so we all assumed the plane crashes were the causes of the collapses. I'm sure scientists were not immune to this conclusive thinking. If that isn't a textbook example of starting with a conclusion, what is? Your colleague, Dr. Bazant, published his preliminary paper on 9/13/01, only two days after the event and certainly Dr. Bazant had not physically analyzed any evidence like Dr. Jones later did.
As I'm sure you'd agree, the real scientific method requires analysis first, followed by an inference (conclusion). This would seem to be the case with the WTC demolition hypothesis, as there are roughly a dozen or so characteristics of the collapses standard to controlled demolition (and WTC7 was a very "standard" demolition). See, Steven Jones, a Republican, believed the official story until 2005; he actually voted for Bush BOTH times. For those first four years he had blindly accepted the planes + fires scenario as the only possibility. Then he said, "Wait a second. There has never been a historical precedent for structural damage and fires causing this type of collapse, but these features are standard with controlled demolition." He painstakingly documents this in his paper. That's taking the available data and making an inference.
David Ray Griffin points out that NIST, in examining the WTC collapse, took the unscientific approach of "We assumed A was the cause of X. We then found a way that A might have caused X. We were satisfied with this, so we didn't consider hypothesis B, which many other people had suggested."
My question: Could you explain, in layman terms, why Jones' work is "naive and unscientific," given that fires and structural damage have never caused this type of collapse, but that this type of collapse is easily explained by way of demolition?
Please give me an original, personable answer, not a PDF reference to Brent Blanchard, yourself, or Drs. Bazant/Zhou.