Richard Moore

Original source URL:

By Kevin Barrett

[Note: I will be speaking with Kevin Ryan, a leading expert on the NIST 
cover-up, at the Peoria Public Library at 2 pm this Saturday, 10/20/07, 107 N.E.
Monroe St., Peoria, IL 61602]


In an amazing about-face, the National Institute for Standards and Technology 
(NIST) has implicitly admitted that its 10,000-page report on the destruction of
the Twin Towers is a fraud, and that the buildings were destroyed by controlled 

In its recent reply  to family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, scientists 
Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage and the group Scholars for 
9/11 Truth and Justice, NIST states: "We are unable to provide a full 
explanation of the total collapse."

Thus NIST euphemistically admits that its 10,000-page report on the Towers does 
not even pretend to provide any explanation whatsoever for the Towers' total 
collapse--and that indeed no such explanation is possible without invoking the 
politically-incorrect idea of controlled demolition.

NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse 
initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support. In order to dream 
up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that
virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f.  It had to claim that
somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a 
direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of
this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that 
the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns 
than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all 
the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far 
weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the 
sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST 
hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse 
initiation"--the failure of a few floors.

But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at 
free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone 
with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of 
the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly
the same time--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why 
the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part 
of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower 
part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast
as it would have fallen through thin air.

Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" 
scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly 
equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and 
landing on the moon.

Compare this to a hypothetical case in which forensic evidence proves a victim 
was shot in the head three times at the foot of a cliff, but the body was found 
at the top of the cliff. The sheriff, who has the most to gain from the man's 
death, brings in NIST to explain how the man shot himself in the head three 
times and then fell upward 200 feet to land on the top of the cliff. NIST 
produces a 10,000-page report claiming to explain the event. The 10,000-page 
report ignores all the forensic evidence that the man was murdered, offering 
endless pages of scientific gobbledygook distorting all the forensic evidence in
such a way as to show how a suicide actually could manage to squeeze off three 
head-shots, and offering a scenario explaining how "upward-fall initiation" took

After we read the whole 10,000 pages, it turns out that "upward-fall initiation"
simply means that the man lost his footing after being shot. Okay, say Steve 
Jones, Kevin Ryan and friends, then after he lost his footing, how did he fall 
upward? NIST responds: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of 

It is not surprising that NIST cannot explain a scenario that blatantly violates
the basic laws of physics. What is surprising is that every newspaper in the 
world is not printing screaming front-page headlines reading NIST IMPLICITLY 

Please Support MUJCA-NET MUJCA-NET needs your support. We are a non-profit 
organization and the scale of our activities depends entirely on your 
generosity. We would like to get copies of David Griffin's two 9/11 books (see 
above) into the hands of every religious leader in America. And we would like to
push 9/11 truth onto the front pages of every newspaper in America. But we can't
do it without your help. If you would like to donate to MUJCA-NET, click here.

Posting archives:

Escaping the Matrix website:
cyberjournal website:

How We the People can change the world:

Community Democracy Framework:

Moderator: •••@••.•••  (comments welcome)