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.

Most sincerely,

MP3 Audio Clip - Richard Gage NIST Statement (1 Meg)

Wednesday December 19, 2007
Richard Gage AIA Comments As Part Of NIST NCST Committee Meeting On WTC7 Report

* source =

Wednesday October 24, 2007
Richard Gage AIA, Founder of Architects For 911 Truth, Talks Truth on Drive Time Radio About Vaporizing Steel Framed Buildings

* source =

Saturday August 25, 2007
Air America Host Richard Greene Speaks With David Ray Griffin

* source =

More MP3 Audio Clips >

The Killer Question

Next time a member of the 9/11 truth movement is interviewed by the Corporate Media, I suggest he/she asks just one question:

In what way did the collapse of WTC 7 DIFFER from a controlled demolition?

Often, the most effective weapon in verbal polemics is to ask the right question and insist on an answer.

Yes, that is a good question.

I rememer when I was watching the History Channel's "911 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction" they were interviewing James Meigs regarding the collapse of WTC7. This was his actual response:

"When you watch the collapse on the video often you'll hear conspiracy theories say look at this doesn't this look like a controlled demolition. Well, it turns out this is what buildings look like when they fall down. If you destroy the important structural elements that hold up the building from the inside...the building is going to collapse in a manner that is not that different visually from a controlled demolition."

Really, so what other buildings look just like a controlled demolition, but were not brought down via cutter charges? James Meigs did not provide a single example of another building where the collapse resembled a controlled demolition, but wasn't one.

They would likely say:

"Such a question is beyond our purview to examine and was therefore never applied to the NIST investigation."

Good letter. ;)

EDIT 01-06-08:

Opps! I didn't read your comment correctly. Don't know why I got NIST confused with the corporate media. Sorry.

Excellent letter Kameelyun

Please keep us updated in the event that you get a response to your questions.

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


very well written article Sir!

No response yet. It's only

No response yet. It's only been a few hours and he's busy I'm sure; however, if I never hear back I won't be surprised. If I do I'll let everyone know.

double post

double post

Brilliant Approach

Wouldn't it be good to get Steven Jones, Richard Gage, and all the world scientists, architects and engineers you can to co-sign this letter, and then send it out to such experts worldwide, as well as media, university faculty, graduate students, etc. in those fields?


I agree, we should try to do this. I'll get onto it.

It is important to sign one's real name

If I were Dr. Eagar, I would definitely not answer a letter signed, "Kameelyun."

I recommend that everyone who wants the truth, sign their real name. Failure to do this just convinces those who would intimidate, that they are being successful.

If we want America to be "land of the free and home of the brave," we are going to have to act like the free and the brave.

It is my personal opinion that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were all controlled demolitions. I do not believe the official story with regard to the Pentagon or Shanksville. I hope that stating those opinions does not get me exterminated.

My name is Selwyn Silberblatt. I am not particularly brave. In fact, I am not brave at all. Actually, I think I have a better chance of staying out of a concentration camp, by publically going on record with my opinions, as my opinions are peaceful and non-violent expressions.

I think it extrememly unlikely that Dr. Eagar is going to reply to "Kameelyun."

No worries there...

When I sent Dr. Eagar my original letter, it was with my real name. ;-)

Still no reply from him yet as of 6:20 p.m.

I do plan on merging my real name with my screen name at some point relatively soon; perhaps as soon as I get my homepage going.

Actually I agree with your assessment there. If, theoretically, they were rounding up truthers and shipping them off to Guantanamo... there would be an outcry if suddenly a recognizable person like Les Jameson disappeared in the middle of the night. But if that happens to me... who knows who I am in real life. No outcry. As far as everyone else is concerned, "kameelyun" disappeared 'cause he simply got bored with activism and moved on.

Yes, very good point indeed.

I contacted Richard Gage and Steven Jones

...Eagerly awaiting their response. I suggested they post my letter on their sites. I gave them permission to use my real name, Adam Syed. :-)

Good work, Adam... Note

Good work, Adam...
Note however, that I did not vote for Bush "both times"... I objected to several of the Bush/Cheney policies even before I learned about 9/11 facts.

In a news article in the Deseret News, Eagar was quoted as saying he wrote a list of responses to the thirteen points I raised in my paper... but he only talked about one of those (regarding puffs of air and debris). I asked the reporter (Tad Walch) if he had actually seen Dr. Eagar's supposed list... he said no. I questioned if there was any evidence that such a list actually existed, or if it did, if it was technically accurate. It's easy for Eagar to SAY that a list like that exists, but to publish in a major newspaper such a statement WITHOUT ANY VERIFICATION was very poor journalism IMO. It might be worthwhile to ask Eagar to produce the list.

Adam, as to "my site" --

Adam, as to "my site" -- perhaps you are referring to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, which I co-edit? If you get a response from Dr. Eagar, we would be happy to receive your letter with his response as a contribution to the Letters section. (Would need to pass peer-review, of course.)

Hi Dr. Jones,

Hi Dr. Jones,

First off, nice to meet you. Second, my bad on the "voted for Bush twice."

I was actually referring to the site. That was the site to which I sent the letter. It's been several days now and I don't have a response from Dr. Eagar. Perhaps that in and of itself is very telling. Obviously, there is no doubt that someone (Bazant) who wrote a paper 2 days after 9/11, with only news video to go on, started with a conclusion. (According to a pro-official story poster on Amazon, Dr. Eagar does rather quickly reply to supporters of the official story.)

Since I haven't heard from him, perhaps my next step should be to e-mail Dr. Bazant.

Thanks for the comments. :)


PS Future versions of this letter should simply say: "Dr. Jones, traditionally identifying himself as a conservative, supported Bush in the beginning, and believed the official story until 2005.

(It was 2005, right? Or did you already start doubting in 2004?)