NIST's Evasion, Infiltration, and another Mainstream Publication

I was recently interviewed on a public access TV show called "Vermont Today" (for 90 minutes). We discuss an exchange of letters between four concerned citizens (including myself) and NIST. Credit for the revealing NIST correspondence goes especially to Wayne Coste of AE911Truth for drafting our letters for us, and to Jerry Carpenter for taking initiative locally.

The discussion may seem to start off a bit slow, as we were trying to get some legal analysis from a local prosecutor who is now running for Mayor of Burlington. He takes a very diplomatic position, and then excuses himself. In the later parts of the interview we discuss Cass Sunstein's paper and my critique of it, as well as "foiled terrorist plots" led by informants. Near the end I also discuss Barry Jennings. The most significant part--the only part where really new information is presented--is the discussion of NIST's response to our letters (which starts around minute 25). It is the particulars of NIST's evasions that I think are very telling.

I was also interviewed in may 2009 for the same show. This is a presentation of the scientific evidence that was relatively new at that time.

In addition, my review of David Ray Griffin's book, Cognitive Infiltration, published in an online philosophy journal, Florida Philosophical Review, is now available at:

Hagen Kranichfeld

Educational and important

Thank you Prof. Hagen for explaining this important subject so clearly. I look forward to reading your paper in the Florida Philosophical Review. I hope you continue to publish your academic findings related to 9/11. You may find the following recently published article of interest:

The Response of Cultural Studies to 9/11 Skepticism in American Popular Culture
Michael Truscello


This article examines the response to 9/11 skepticism by scholars in the field of cultural studies. A survey of recent books on 9/11 in American popular culture shows little consideration of 9/11 conspiracy theories in popular culture, and no consideration of legitimate forms of skepticism. In addition, cultural studies critics such as Claire Birchall, Jack Bratich, Mark Fenster, and Jodi Dean have theorized the discourse of 9/11 conspiracy theories with an emphasis on how the conspiracies are articulated but not whether there are legitimate forms of skepticism. To address this absence in the scholarship, this article considers some of the omissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission Report. It concludes by citing recent articles in mainstream academic journals that strongly indict the official narrative of 9/11, and suggests the potential value of 9/11 skepticism to an anarchist cultural studies.

Good to see this

Good to see this. I only wish that '9/11 conspiracy theories' would not be used interchangeably with '9/11 skepticism,' as this only plays into the hands of official story propagandists, in that it applies the term only to those conpsiracy theories that aren't the official one. 'Alternative 9/11 conspiracy theories' is more like I would like to see, since the official story most certainly concerns a conspiracy of some kind. And we should also remember that much of '9/11 skepticism' does not include 'theorizing' at all! Pointing out flaws and fallacies in the official account, while it inevitably invites people to ask, 'What really happened?,' does not necessarily lead to a definite alternative theory of what happened.

My sense of the field of cultural studies is that it tends to have a bias towards psychological or non-rational explanations for why people believe what they do, while seldom venturing to consider the external reality which these people are trying to understand, and how well (or not) those beliefs correspond with that reality. I even recall reading a cultural historial who wrote that 'all experience is construed experience.' Hard to argue against that statement in and of itself; but in its focus on the act of construing at the expense of that which is being construed, it seems to place no value on the question of whether there is an actual external reality, subject to testing and verification. I may be mistaken, but I wonder whether the approach of this article is tackling not only an unjustified rejection of 9/11 skepticism, but some fundamental predispositions of cultural studies as well.


Thanks for your support, and thanks for the reference as well. I have another paper that will be out soon and I will post the details and highlights as soon as it is officially out.


Professor Hagen, have you considered writing a 9/11 book? I can imagine you could do that quite well. You're level-headed, but open-minded, and you have a good command of language as well as a technical background. Based on what I see in the video, I like your approach.


Thanks for your support, it does make a difference. I have thought about it, and I have some general long-term projects that include, but are not focused specifically on, 9/11. Unfortunately, a number of commitments make progress on that front very slow at this time. I will try to do the best I can manage.

Latest WTC 7 Propaganda

Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire

By Meghan Keneally

Last updated at 3:59 PM on 1st November 2011

Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell triggered a decade of conspiracy theories.

Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims.

here are the highest rated comments at Daily Mail

there are 464 comments at this time

This is sthe stupidest article of dis-information that I've ever seen. Stop trying to revise history with murky "rare angles" of the building. The fact remains that the buildings fell at free fall speed meanin they fell completely un obstructed by anything below it... We can talk about jet fuel all day but all three fell at free fall speed meaning the level below was cleared out before the one above it fell on it. With sandwiching it hits, dislodges, hits, dislodges slowing the rate of falling. Buildings that have controlled demolitions fall in that manner. Not buildings suffering from structural failure. The ALSO tend to lean as the metal distorts which prohibits straight down collapse and would have made them top heavy pulling to whichever side the great damage would have been on. My guess would be the site of impact. Say what you want but the physics and pure mathematics don't lie. It was demolished. Not to mention jet fuel doesn't cut base supports in a straight line with thermite.

- Tony, San Diego, ca, USA, 1/11/2011 23:52
Click to rate Rating 825

Report abuse

There are many, many experts in their chosen fields who see this as a con job, highly distinguished physicists, engineers, avionics, professers, high ranking military personal, plus many more, are they cranks too ?

- Jay, Liverpool, 1/11/2011 22:40
Click to rate Rating 705

Report abuse

That took a long time to find.!

- Alan, Sutton Coldfield, 2/11/2011 1:11
Click to rate Rating 618

Report abuse

Notwithstanding that it took over ten years to 'find' this footage, all it shows is that they torched the command centre before blowing up the whole building.

- Try this at home, London, 2/11/2011 1:29
Click to rate Rating 455

Report abuse

Ms. Keneally would have been well served to have consulted with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of over 1600 architects and engineers who are calling for new investigations of the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers. 50 of them are structural engineers, 40 are high-rise architects, and 42 are PhD engineers. They could have assured Ms. Keneally that fire-induced distortions of aluminum window frames are of no structural consequence. The official investigators tell us that office fires burn only 20 minutes in one place before all the fuel is consumed. New York City Building Code required fire resistance of 3 hours for columns and 2 hours for floors.

- Brian Good, California, 2/11/2011 1:14
Click to rate Rating 446

Report abuse

Haven't read all the comments yet, so apologies if anyone else has mentioned this: At approx 5 pm - 20 minutes before Building 7 collapsed - a BBC newsperson, live to camera, announced that: 'We've just heard that Building number 7 in the World Trade Complex has collapsed.' The problem was that the building was clearly in view behind her shoulder. This announcement makes it obvious that a press release was issued in advance of the collapse - meaning of course that those who issued the PR were aware that it was going to collapse - demolition in other words. The trouble was the the BBC were too quick in their broadcast.

- Hilary Paipeti, Corfu, Greece, 2/11/2011 2:11
Click to rate Rating 411

Report abuse

Read more: