http://youtu.be/FyVNfMIDx_M

A decade after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Ground Zero has been swept
clean, a memorial has been established, and new towers are rising
where the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings once stood.

Something else is rising: the voices of scientists, architects and
engineers who say the official story of the destruction of the World
Trade Center does not fit with eye witness testimony and the laws of
physics. They contend the government agency in charge of the
investigation ignored critical, explosive evidence found at the crime
scene.

A new film, The Science of September 11, encapsulates their arguments
and highlights shocking evidence that is officially unexplained.

The trailer and film are available on You Tube.

The editors say over 1500 architects and engineers are putting their
credibility on the line by confronting the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) and demanding an independent
investigation.

The documentary is a compilation of previously released videos
highlighting work from members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth (AE911Truth.org), a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization of
licensed professionals started by architect Richard Gage, AIA.
AE911Truth members have published peer-reviewed studies, using the
scientific method to determine why the collapses occurred.

The film contends that the public was mislead to believe the
government performed a thorough investigation of the Twin Tower
collapse, but points out the NIST analysis stops at the moment the
towers began coming down. NIST only considered the impact of the
planes and the office fires. Their report states: “This sequence…
includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after
the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse
became inevitable”.

Physics teacher David Chandler contends NIST’s assertion the Twin
Towers’ top floors functioned like pile drivers, completely
pulverizing everything beneath them, is not sound science. The videos
show the top sections crumbled before pushing down on anything. And
independent scientists have shown the potential energy in a
gravitational collapse was insufficient to pulverize all the concrete,
steel and glass into the fine dust that completely blanketed
Manhattan.

The film shows girders being flung upward and outward at up to 60
miles per hour in a way that can only occur if explosive energy is
propelling them. As Jody Gibbs remarks in the film, "Gravity works
vertically, not laterally.” Gibbs is an architect who was educated at
Yale and Harvard, and taught at MIT.

The Science of September 11 illustrates that the NIST acknowledged
free fall drop of World Trade Center Building 7 could only have
happened if the steel and concrete supports had been suddenly removed
with explosives.

Explosive Evidence:

Independent scientists uncovered evidence in the WTC dust that the
NIST report completely disregards. Every sample the team analyzed
contained unreacted thermite - a substance that can be used to destroy
steel structures. The dust also contained previously molten iron
droplets caused by very high temperatures that could not have been
caused by jet fuel or office fires.

The findings, published in the April 2009 edition of the Open Chemical
Physics Journal, have never been challenged. “This stands as an
indictment of the official story of 9/11,” says Dr. Steven E. Jones,
professor emeritus of physics from Brigham Young University.

AE911 experts note that burning jet fuel (kerosene) doesn’t produce
enough heat to melt steel - yet metal was seen flowing like lava, and
weeks after the attack was still burning in molten pools below ground
level

A paper in The Environmentalist by lead author and engineer Kevin Ryan
reports the fires under the WTC rubble could not be extinguished for
months, even though millions of gallons of water and a chemical fire
suppressant were sprayed onto the debris pile. The paper points out
the characteristics of un-extinguishable fires are not explained by
jet fuel or normal structural fires, but are consistent with materials
which provide their own fuel, such as thermite.

Another peer reviewed paper showed steel melted, thinned and vaporized
to look like swiss cheese by a thermo-chemical reaction. The NIST
investigation also ignored this evidence.

“NIST twisted their explanation like a pretzel” to avoid considering
evidence supporting the presence of explosives, says the film's
producer Matt Hine, “and this inspired the launch of Firefighters for
9/11 Truth.” These firefighters object that NIST ignored
investigative protocols established by the National Fire Protection
Association.

As David Chandler explains in the documentary, NIST refused to
consider explosives in the case of the destruction of Building 7
because it said there was no audio evidence of explosions powerful
enough to bring the building down. However The Science of September
11 documents bystanders and first responders reporting very
significant explosions as the buildings collapsed.

NIST and the Scientific Method:

“In the scientific method, we start with the data and determine what
conclusions are supported by that data. But in the political method,
they start with a conclusion, and then ask what data can be found (or
fabricated) to support that conclusion”, notes Dr. Steven Jones.
“This documentary shows that NIST’s reports are not scientific. They
failed to fulfill their congressional mandate: to protect public
safety by performing a legitimate analysis of why the WTC buildings
fell”, said Hine.

While the protocol of science involves peer review and
reproducibility, NIST has refused to release the computer modeling
data it used, preventing independent engineers from checking their
calculations and conclusions. NIST claims releasing the data would
endanger public safety, an assertion that AE911Truth members find
outrageous. They contend NIST is blocking independent verification.