Open Letter to Editors of Scientific American

A letter to the editor in Scientific American (April 2015) questioned Michael Shermer's derogatory use of the term "conspiracy theory" with regards to people questioning the official story of 9/11.  It pointed out that there are at least two 9/11 conspiracy theories and Dr. Shermer espouses one of them.  In the Letters section of the magazine Shermer has the last word, saying in effect that he has debunked the other conspiracy theory.  Below is a response I sent to the editors( when I was auto-Logged out after submitting a comment to the Letters section.

  • "It's wonderful that SA has finally let the scientific questions that dog the official explanation of 9/11 creep into its pages (April 2015, Letters to the Editor, "Confirmed Conspiracy"), even if it is through a discussion about definitions. However, the notion that an unskeptical "skeptic" is the best SA can offer to deal with questions about how 3 steel superstructure buildings can totally collapse in ways that defy Newton's laws of motion is laughable. The question of how objects move at a human scale settled by Newton is challenged by Mr. Shermer and embarrassingly published in SA without question."

Well said, Pecosin Rat.

I wonder what conspiracy theory Shermer thinks he has debunked.

I used to be a subscriber..

You should see the note I sent them when they asked me to resubscribe.

These are facts no one has explained: the state of the steel in the FEMA BPAT Appendix C
(least of all this tool). You think he (and the rest of the establishment) cannot see what is plainly obvious to anyone (who's even remotely objective) who looks? No. It's way too obvious.

If only Shermer could actually 'deubunk' these facts. Unfortunately, there is no 'bunk' about it (that isnt disinfo). There is nothing theoretical about any part of the large body of concordant facts, from diverse sources, that prove the destruction of WTC 1 2 & 7, through the use of preplanted explosives. Period.
To touch on a few:
The FEMA 2002 Limited Metallurgical report (linked above) states the structural steel they analyzed had been 'liquefied' Not just 'softened.'
Steel softens when hot, true, it also conducts heat away and as the fire consumes whatever is burning there, it moves on in search of new fuel. The average local burn time in an office fire is about 20 minutes. Then the steel in that area cools and regains its strength. It could never 'liquefy' or 'evaporate.' It could never produce the precipitous freefall collapse exhibited by WTC7. In fact, no building, on well over 100 years of high rise steel-framed building construction has EVER come down that way and not been a controlled demolition. It is beyond absurd that anyone would look at the vide of this one and conclude, '-yeah' office fires and local damage can account for that." -Never mind the 58 perimeter columns. Had even one of them been left intact, it would have produced an asymmetrical collapse.

WTC 1:

WTC 2:


Shermer hasn't explained the 100 day fires. The complete destruction of the towers, the dismemberment of their superstructures, the pulverization of almost everything in them, but steel beams and elements,, - that also left no discernible genetic trace of over 1100 people who were inside the buildings that morning. Those people remain 'unaccounted for' to this day. Over 9000 pieces of human remains are so degraded they cannot be identified using DNA analysis and remain frozen to this day. Shermer has not explained any of this.

Nor has he (or anyone else) satisfactorily explained the iron microspheres (2 & 3) which make up nearly 6% of the dust by volume. RJ Lee's report called them a 'signature component of the WTC dust because of this. These are not just iron, but primarily elemental iron, with minute amounts of other elements including sulfur. They are the forensic fingerprint of a thermitic reaction. Sulfur was found imbedded in grains the steel remnants -Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute tested and published in the (FEMA BPAT App. C). Nor has he explained (the as yet unchallenged) scientific paper (4 & 5 Harrit 2009. ) which found nano-engineered thermitic explosives in every sample of the dust they tested. The wildly excessive temperatures (6 & 7) documented by NASA & Bechtel with thermal scans and images, -to mention but a few of the facts that cannot be explained without explosives having been present. All of this mutually supportive evidence,, is but a fraction of what Shermer wants us to pretend, along with him, isn't real or significant. That he can look at all of this data and still deny the obvious, (and still manages to sleep at night) is to his unending disgrace. Like the rest of these criminals(1) (John Gross, Shyam Sunder, Van Romero, Thomas Eager, Zdenek Bazant, Yong Zhou, to mention but a few), he will not be able to hide his complicity (or remove the stigma and shame from his descendants) because the overwhelming and incontrovertible truth is there for all the world to see.

1: ANOTHER NINETEEN: Investigating Legitimate 911 Suspects by Kevin Ryan
2: RJ Lee
3: USGS:

Good visual reference and links:



Great Summary

Thank you, atavisms! Love this summary.

Pursue this line of inquiry?

If you want to pursue the steel erosion further, please send an email to with ERODE in the subject line.There were others who studied the erosion after WPI did

Good job, Pecosin Rat

The psy-op aspect of the 9/11 operation is fully apparent. Bill Clinton has used personal attacks and the 'conspiracy theorist' slur as well to undermine skeptics, despite the fact that a theory is part of the scientific method and considered stronger than a hypothesis.... and despite the official story being a theory..

I don't watch much TV, but I just happened to catch Bill Clinton on Rachel Ray's talk show about 2 months ago. At one point he talked about ISIS and terrorists and when "Al Qaeda blew up the World Trade Center on 9/11." This got my attention because he was now admitting that the towers were BLOWN UP and blaming that on Al Qaeda, as if the planes' impact immediately blew up the towers from exploding jet fuel. This is very slick.

Letter to Clinton

RL, it doesn't surprise me that Clinton is helping with the cover up. He quietly visited our area not too long back. I happened to see him arrive at his hotel while I was out walking the dog. No one else was there. I returned home (three blocks away) and printed up a letter asking for his support for a new investigation for 9/11. On the outside of the envelope I invited him to come by the house for a beer to discuss the matter. I took it back to the hotel and left it with a startled front desk staff member asking for it to be delivered to the former President. About 45 minutes later there was a knock at the front door by two Secret Service agents. They told me that they were worried about my safety due to the crowds of protesters around the hotel. Further, they said the local police were very paranoid (and less than professional) about the protesters and they didn't want me to get hurt by coming to the hotel again. Since I'd just been there and since no one knew Clinton was staying there, I understood that the protester thing was...well, less than truthful. Further, the local police are some of the best trained in the nation. I told the agents I just went to the hotel to deliver the letter and had no reason to return. I then asked them to make certain that the President got the letter, something they promised to do.

Other than sending his Secret Service body guards to frighten me, there was never any response. It is really quiet surprising that public figures who make big efforts to ensure a positive place in history can't see the risk they take by supporting the cover-up of a monstrous and obvious crime against humanity. The former President's latest "spin" (you reported above) will not prevent the obvious conclusion that he is involved in actively aiding the cover up of the crime of 9/11, though why he would do such a thing is entirely beyond my understanding.


I think the reason that he is involved is because Clinton is intimately involved with the Bush family, George W. and Poppy Bush and the CIA. He has quite a bit of dirty laundry that makes keeping secrets of vital importance.

Not so hard to understand

I don't see what's hard to understand. He's made a career out of pleasing the powerful (interests that wish to maintain the military and police-state benefits that continue to be yielded by the 9/11 official story), has been rewarded for it, and isn't about to break ranks.

He's in deep

Prior to 9/11, the worst domestic terror attack on US soil was OKC. With so many people now connecting the dots between these and many other "terrorist" crimes, Clinton has to keep the coverups going lest the dominos start falling. It also helps to keep the fear-o-meter cranked high. I used to think it was inevitable that a tipping point would be reached and these monsters would be exposed. Turns out they were exposed, but we still can't stop them. I wonder what special treats Jeb and Hillary (or rather their masters) have in store for us. God help us.