Scientific Method versus Political Method: The US administration and its interpretation of the events of 9/11.
Scientific Method versus Political Method: The US administration and its interpretation of the events of 9/11.
Updated: 05/02/07 Minor revisions and "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" replaced with "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice"
9/11 was a terrorist attack—or was it?
The US administration released several documents that claim that 9/11 was a terrorist attack. The NIST report, 9/11 commission report, FEMA report and the EPA report on air quality were made by government scientists and high ranking government officials. Excluding the EPA report, all of these reports are used to claim that the official story about 9/11 is true.
Many assume that the reports are accurate and tell the full story of the events of 9/11. Unfortunately, an examination of the track record of the government in relation to science raises serious questions about their credibility.
The most reliable form of credibility is based on the scientific method. The least reliable form is established through repeated or “pathological” lying. If we know someone to be a frequent liar, we will refuse to accept anything they say. Indeed, we will ignore them. This is therefore the most damning blow to an individuals’ credibility.
Is the US administration credible in their scientific reports?
Before answering this question accurately we should first define science. What is the difference between the Scientific method and the Political method?
Scientific Method: Start with the facts and then use them to reach an argument or thesis.
Political Method: Start with a thesis and then examine only the facts that confirm the argument.
The Scientific method is significantly more credible as it does not ignore evidence—it must consider every detail. If evidence contradicts the thesis it must be rejected in favor of a new thesis that follows all of the given evidence. In contrast, the political method often attempts to preserve its thesis even in the face of contradicting evidence.
The US administration has occasionally made reference to “creating our own reality”:
''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Although our perception of reality may be subjective—reality itself is not; it consists of scientific laws that are observed to be true. “Creating our own reality” entails using facts that support an imaginary “reality” and ignoring facts that do not. This is the very definition of the political method.
But is this policy limited only to political thought? In 2004, “a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates” declared:
“The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad… Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke in the conference call, said the administration had ‘engaged in practices that are in conflict with the spirit of science and the scientific method.’”
It also found:
· There is a well established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being.
· There is strong documentation of a wide-ranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda.
· There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about "sensitive" topics.
· There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the abuse of science by the Bush administration are unprecedented.
According to these prominent scientists, the US administration is also creating its own “scientific reality”. As defined, this is not science—it is the political method. It is another form of “creating our own reality”. Therefore we must conclude that the credibility of the US administration is lacking if it will distort science to support “policy goals”. This statement by prominent scientists is a damning blow to the scientific credibility of the US administration if it considers policy goals more important than objective scientific results. If the US government is censoring scientists, then we simply can not trust any single report that they release. Censorship of science is a way to ignore evidence and is therefore no longer science by definition. This is the political method in action.
A perfect and credibility crushing example of this practice is shown by the EPA shortly after the 9/11 attacks took place:
“On September 18, 2001, as fires still smoldered at the trade center, [Christine Todd] Whitman said the air in Lower Manhattan was ‘safe to breathe.’ She continued to reassure New Yorkers in the days and weeks that followed.”
This has to be one of the most blatant examples of “creating our own [scientific] reality”. This report was completely false and has resulted in a lawsuit:
“US District Court Judge Deborah Batts called Whitman's statements "misleading” and "conscience-shocking." She did not grant Whitman immunity from the lawsuit. Residents, students and workers in Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn sued in 2004, saying the actions of Whitman and the EPA endangered their health.”
The report was not only false; it was known to be false!
“Two devastating memos, written by the U.S. and local governments, show they knew. They knew the toxic soup created at Ground Zero was a deadly health hazard. Yet they sent workers into the pit and people back into their homes.”
According to the New York Times, Condoleezza Rice gave “final approval to those infamous EPA press releases days after 9/11.” Therefore, the Government is directly responsible and accountable for this false report that has made several thousands of rescue workers severely ill and disabled from the toxic dust. People are dying and will continue to die because of this report.
Lying is defined as “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.” As indicated, the most devastating blow to credibility occurs when lying is involved. It is quite evident from this shocking example that the US government has a track record that lacks scientific credibility, and therefore should never be completely trusted until they earn that credibility back.
If the government has been historically shown to lack scientific credibility, undermine the results of science, and deliberately lie in “scientific” reports, then it begs the question:
Are the reports released about the 9/11 attacks true? Can we trust them based on their past history of distorting science?
The answer sadly, is no. We can not trust them. Independent scientists with actual credibility are challenging these reports. If a source lacks credibility it is the responsibility and duty of the Media to evaluate other sources that posses more credibility.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is one such group that should be considered more credible than the government. Hundreds of scientists and scholars supporting one basic viewpoint have major credibility. If they lacked as much scientific credibility as the current US administration it is obvious that they would have been fired a long time ago for criminal incompetence, and would not be in a position of authority to have serious questions about the facts of 9/11.
One of the fundamental questions about 9/11 is the WTC tower collapses. The 20 million dollar NIST report is considered the definitive report on the subject of the collapse of the Towers.
By the definition of science the NIST report is not scientific. Analysis proves it uses the political method—not the scientific method. NIST deliberately ignores evidence that contradicts its stated thesis. Apparently, a 20 million dollar study does not buy much these days—NIST does not attempt to explain a fundamental question (i.e. ignoring evidence) about the full behavior of the structural collapse:
“[The report] does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.”
It seems like a good idea that the NIST report did not try to explain this (at least, from their point of view)—as doing so would have to account for a fundamental law of physics known as conservation of momentum, which would completely disprove their hypothesis that fire and jet damage were the main reasons the buildings completely collapsed.
Indeed, the NIST collapse hypothesis that fire and damage caused the towers to completely collapse is easily disproved. According to seismic data, the buildings fell in approximately 10 seconds, which is about the rate of free fall speed. In order to fall at free fall speed there would have to be no resistance from material below the collapsing area. Fire and damage alone are inadequate to explain this fact. This is related in a paper entitled “Why Indeed did the WTC towers completely collapse” by physicist Steven E. Jones:
“The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several engineers/scientists (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). The roof of WTC 7 … falls to earth in (6.5 +- 0.2) seconds, while an object dropped from the roof (in a vacuum) would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded [i.e. slowed down] by the impacted mass.”
When an object hits another object, it must slow down. Everyone intuitively understands that you can not walk through walls as if they were not there for the reason that a physical resistance will impede you. The towers and WTC7 fell at free fall speed. This fact alone proves the official report is inadequate to explain what truly happened. When evidence is ignored, it is not science. It is “creating our own reality”—the political method.
It can not be emphasized enough: science by definition considers all of the available evidence; it does not ignore evidence. Another stunning example of ignoring evidence is seen in the molten metal found in the towers which is not discussed in the NIST report. NIST claims:
“In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires."
If this is the case, then why is there molten steel in the basements of the twin towers and WTC7 for more than four weeks after the disaster? Where do the molten pools of steel come from and what process created this reaction? Why does NIST ignore this question? Ignoring this question is not scientific. Analyzing the steel is a central issue and is fundamental to understanding why the towers collapsed because steel is used as structural support for modern buildings. Indeed, this issue is central to what actually caused the collapse. If fires did not cause this—NIST has stated on the record that fire did not cause steel to melt; something else must have. It is a fact that normal fires are incapable of melting steel.
If fire can not melt steel, what can? Jones argues that:
“these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. [See Grimmer, 2004] Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron.”
Placing explosives in buildings—is this far-fetched? The answer is no; if it is scientifically provable, then no, it is not impossible. On an issue this serious, science must determine our conclusions—not gut feelings or emotions. We must accept this as fact if the evidence supports this claim. Interestingly, some have argued that the US government was responsible for placing bombs in the Oklahoma City Building in1995—this example suggests that planting bombs has been done in the past.
Here is yet another example of NIST “science” in action: computer models are used to “prove” that fire caused collapse:
“World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.”
Is proof scientific if no one can see it? To believe that we can trust NIST on this “evidence” is absurd. Science is not a state secret!
9/11 whistleblower Kevin Ryan, formerly a manager at UL who was peripherally involved in some of the NIST tests, has a laundry list of points that continue to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the NIST study is not scientific and therefore should not be considered credible:
Steel framed buildings have never completely collapsed due to fire in history. The scientific method looks for real-life examples to provide a hypothesis.
Ryan argues that they started with this pre-determined conclusion—despite the fact that this hypothesis has never been documented before in history as mentioned above.
Destroying evidence is a crime and is not scientific. It is a way to ignore evidence. NIST investigator Richard Tomasetti approved the decision to recycle the steel.
The buildings were designed to survive plane crashes thus contradicting the pre-determined hypothesis: "[Building designer John Skilling states that] our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there."
· Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire"
· Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)
· No floor collapse
· "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."
Ryan summarizes the NIST investigation methods:
· Documents needed just happened to be missing
· Eyewitnesses to demolition characteristics were ignored
· Physical tests that disproved pre-determined conclusions were downplayed or ignored
· Entire theory is built on fudged, inaccessible computer simulations. 
In summary: NIST does not explain what happened after the collapse began, does not explain the massive pools of molten steel, scientific data contradicts theory, contradictory evidence is ignored, eyewitness testimony is ignored, and the entire theory is based on a computer simulation that no one can see. Ignoring evidence is the very basis of the political method, not the scientific method. Can any unbiased person call the NIST report science?
Unbelievably, there are even more examples that prove the NIST study is not scientific. I believe the above evidence has sufficiently proven this argument. Because the NIST report is not scientific it lacks any credibility. I agree with Kevin Ryan that the NIST report is not science. Indeed, the NIST study is an extremely blatant and scandalous example of the political method at its worst.
Unlike the US government, Steven Jones and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice have credibility and a much more convincing explanation for why the WTC towers collapsed. “No building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition has never not been a controlled demolition.”
Science accounts for all of the evidence.
The 9/11 commission report is also problematic and is yet another example of the political method. Instead of discussing the issues here, I point you towards David Ray Griffin’s book “The 9/11 Commission Report: omissions and distortions” which concludes that the official report is a “571 page lie”. Again, lying is the most damaging blow to credibility.
In conclusion, the US administration overwhelmingly lacks any scientific credibility. The fact that civil liberties are being destroyed and the constitution is being flagrantly subverted should be disturbing enough in itself. The Media has done a very poor job of evaluating the credibility of the US government and must start to question and be skeptical of any and all reports that are being released until a trace of credibility has been restored. Credibility is established through repeated believability—the US administration has been shown to lack this. In my opinion their credibility on Iraq is even worse than their credibility on 9/11. When are we going to demand some accountability? When are heads going to roll for the continuous stream of lies and unscientific “science” we are fed and told to accept as the truth? Enough is enough.
Resources for research:
David Ray Griffin: The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions
Webster Griffin Tarpley: 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA
Progressive Press announced that its "9/11 Synthetic Terror" has just been cited as the best non-fiction book ever by Amazon's top non-fiction book reviewer, intelligence professional Robert Steele, in a 5-star review at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0930852370.
Progressive specializes in books that contend 9/11 was an "inside job." Publisher John Leonard says "it's a coup to have Steele with us on this. Here you have a level-headed, respected insider, lifelong Republican, veteran spy, and he's breaking the taboos. It's a great tribute and a vindication of the work we put into 9/11 Synthetic Terror.
"Steele's statement that 9/11 was a "US-based conspiracy" may be a first coming from a senior US intelligence community figure. He came to this conclusion "with great sadness" after reading "9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA," which he praises as "without question, the most important modern reference on state-sponsored terrorism."
Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice:
Journal of 9/11 studies:
9/11 statement signed by 100 prominent Americans
More than 50 prominent government officials who question the 9/11 commission report:
Whistle Blower Kevin Ryan (discussing the NIST report): A new standard for Deception:
9/11 Press for Truth:
 A government or a person develops credibility through the process of publishing or expressing views that are supported by the evidence to be true. This is also accumulated through repeated accuracy. The more frequently a source is shown to be accurate, the more that source is held as authoritative. If a source is shown to be repeatedly incorrect, we therefore doubt this source, and without hesitation question the validity of this source.
 Credibility. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=credibility (accessed: October 27, 2006).
 Read the full report here: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/reports-scientific-integrity-in-policy-making.html
 http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/56773 You can read the official EPA release here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b1ab9f485b098972852562e7004dc686/d7ada9cf2d39c0a185256acc007c097f?OpenDocument
 Lying. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1), Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Lying(accessed: October 27, 2006).
 (NIST report, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12)
 Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6
 Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:
"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel. In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a premixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C." from:
Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation”, Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:8-11 (2001).
 Why Indeed did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse, page 6.
 See the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing: (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html). This is a documented example with evidence and eye-witness testimony that bombs were placed in an official government building. As a secure government building, is it possible that a terrorist could get access to place bombs? The odds of this are next to zero. The only individuals who would have enough access to plant bombs in a government building without detection would have to be government insiders. Investigation into this attack, like 9/11, was impeded and evidence was withheld (such as video evidence that would have shown what really happened).
 Parker, Dave. "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.
 Glanz, James, and Lipton, Eric (2002). “Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says,” Fri March 29, 2002, New York Times.
 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032 watch starting at 9:14.
 Ibid. 9:42
 Ibid. 13:59. This is according to building designer John Skilling. See also: http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227 Nalder, Eric. (1993) “Twin Towers Engineered to Withstand Jet Collision”. Saturday, February 27, 1993, Seattle Times. See also: The World Trade Center Building Designers: Claims strongly implicate that the Towers should have remained standing on 9/11
 Ibid. 29:40 for points 1-2.
 Ibid 34:00 for points 3-5. For these points also see read official NIST report.
 See evidence of eye witness testimony here: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html
 Ibid. 35:35
 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032 Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth: Reclaiming our future conference. June 4, 2006.
 Dr. David Ray Griffin: “The Destruction of the World Trade Center Towers” http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html#multipleevidence
More information about the book can be found here: http://www.interlinkbooks.com/Books_/911CommRep.html
A Google video with elements from the book can be seen here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6837001821567284154