NIST Misrepresentations of the Twin Towers Collapse Modes



I extract all comments by the NIST of the very unique and knowable collapse modes of the Twin Towers from the

NIST Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers (2005) linked here for Twin Tower collapse mode information.

This report is a masterful application of studied avoidance of the actual collapse progression modes of the Twin Towers.

How is it done? FOLLOW THE ‘THREE WORD’ RULE

Any time the subject of the collapse progressions of either of the Twin Towers is mentioned, it should be described in two or three words. Examples:

...collapse ensued.

This is all the reader needs to know to spot the largest, most extreme misrepresentation in the report. Keeping this in mind the table of contents is examined:



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part I: September 11, 2001 .

Chapter 1
New York City’s World Trade Center ...

Chapter 2
The Account of World Trade Center 1 ..

Chapter 3
The Account of World Trade Center 2 ..

Chapter 4
The Toll

Part II: Reconstructing the Disaster ...

Chapter 5
The Design and Construction of the Towers ..

Chapter 6
Reconstruction of the Collapses ...

Chapter 7
Reconstruction of Human Activity ...

Part III: The Outcome of the Investigation ..

Chapter 8
Principal Findings ..

Chapter 9
Recommendations ..



It is easy for us to see that any information on the Twin Towers collapse progression modes is in chapters 6 and 8.

I post all comments on the Twin towers collapse progression processes and the sections the comments are found in chapters 6 and 8 below:



6.14 COLLAPSE ANALYSIS OF THE TOWERS



6.14.1 Approach to Determining the Probable Collapse Sequences



6.14.2 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 1

Once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued.



6.14.3 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 2

As with WTC 1, once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued.



6.14.6 Probable WTC 1 Collapse Sequence

The downward movement of this structural block was more than the damaged structure could resist, and global collapse began.



6.14.7 Probable WTC 2 Collapse Sequence

The downward movement of this structural block was more than the damaged structure could resist, and the global collapse began.



8.2 SUMMARY

Objective 1: Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft.



8.3 FINDINGS ON THE MECHANISMS OF BUILDING COLLAPSE

8.3.1 Summary of Probable Collapse Sequences

Collapse then ensued.





The Twin Towers collapse modes are not mentioned anywhere else so this is a complete summary. It is mentioned only 5 times using a total of 5 words: collapse, ensued, began, then, global.

This is masterful use of the 3 word rule. It could be the work of a law firm as much as it could be the product of an engineer. There is absolutely no technical information offered in the yellow highlighted areas, so there is no evidence an engineer wrote it. There is no evidence that NIST engineers ever looked at the Twin Towers collapse progression modes.

Collapse then ensued” is not information in any meaningful sense. It could be seen just as well as the absence of information. It is a declaration that the author(s) refuse to disclose any more information on this subject.

To state ‘the building fell” is not to offer information. It is an effort to avoid the subject altogether.

This is all the information the leading U.S. Government investigating agency offered to its own citizens and to the rest of the world in 2005. It never offered anything more detailed since. “The buildings fell”, repeated 5 times, is all the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers had to write about the highly unique, highly distinctive, mappable, knowable (and predictable) collapse modes of the Twin Towers.

Why didn’t NIST make a single detailed comment on the Twin Towers collapse progression modes? The question is approached and avoided in a current NIST FAQ linked here:



31. Why didn't NIST fully model the collapse initiation and propagation of the WTC towers?



The first objective of the NIST WTC investigation included determining why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (see NIST NCSTAR 1). Determining the sequence of events leading up to collapse initiation was critical to fulfilling this objective. Once the collapse had begun, the propagation of the collapse was readily explained without the same complexity of modeling.



This is how the NIST explains in 2021 why they used 5 words total on the Twin Towers collapse modes in NIST Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. readily explained’ by whom? In the final NIST report NIST gives us the 5 words collapse, ensued, began, then, global mixed up and always following the ‘three word rule’.

In 2021 they explain their complete lack of attention (studious avoidance) to the collapse progression modes for 18 years by saying “propagation of the collapse was readily explained without the same complexity of modeling.”

They are claiming in 2021 that the propagation of the collapse is readily explainable. 18 years of documented, written evidence demonstrates conclusively that the NIST has never described or explained the highly unique, highly distinct mappable, knowable (and predictable) collapse modes of Twin Towers to the pubic for even one day in 18 years. The NIST cannot possibly lie about this since it is so well documented.



This is what Dr Bazant wrote about the same question from Bazant and Verdure in 2006:



Up to the moment of collapse trigger, the foregoing scenario was identified by meticulous, exhaustive, and very realistic computer simulations of unprecedented detail, conducted by S. Shyam Sunder’s team at NIST. The subsequent progressive collapse was not simulated at NIST because its inevitability, once triggered by impact after column buckling, had already been proven by Bažant and Zhou’s #2002a#comparison of kinetic energy to energy absorption capability.



The Bazant quote is from 2006 and the NIST quote is from 2021 but they both make the same false claim of computer modeling. Both comments are on limits in computer modeling when the real problem is the ‘3 word rule’ policy of the NIST on the Twin Tower collapse modes since 2002. They do not acknowledge what they are actually doing. But what Bazant is saying is even more bizzarre.

In plain english, he is saying because of the information in his 10 page paper in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics from 2002 there is no need to learn anything more specific about two of the largest collapses in history. Once inevitability is shown in 10 pages of equations there is no need for any more information on the subject.

According to the only explanations offered to the public, and included on this page, about 10 pages of scattered equations in only one variable which claim to prove a generic, formless type of ‘inevitability’ applicable to any building was an adequate substitute for detailed comprehensive knowledge of the largest collapses ever witnessed.

After writing this Dr Bazant underwent quite a sharp, quick philosophical shift and within the next year he will claim to have discovered the true, detailed collapse modes of the Twin Towers. It is more of a complete flip than a shift as will be seen later.





Anyone reading this can see the comments highlighted in yellow on this page. Anyone can see the NIST offered no information whatsoever on the collapse progressions in what certainly looks like a studious act of avoidance of the issue. There is no evidence in over 16 years that the NIST comments on the collapse modes of the Twin Towers were formulated by an engineer. The NIST collection of comments on this subject doesn’t contain a single engineering detail. The pattern shows a distinctive non-engineering (management, law firm) pattern of avoidance of the issue altogether. What it really looks like is the collapse progression modes of the Twin Towers were a taboo subject at the NIST. It was a big ‘no.no’ subject. No engineer went near it as if by instinct. It belonged to ‘another department.’

From the information given by the NIST we do not even know if there was a single working engineer in this ‘other department’. There is zero imformation that would require an engineer to formulate since nothing of technical value was offered on the progression processes at all.

These are the only explanations of why the NIST made no comment on the Twin Tower collapse progression modes found on Wikipedia. They are from 2007 to 2009:



Once the collapse was initiated, the enormous weight of the portion of the towers above the impact areas overwhelmed the load bearing capacity of the structures beneath them. This was argued in a paper in the days immediately after the attacks by Zdenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou.[15] Their analysis of global collapse allowed NIST to concentrate their efforts on the events that brought the structure to the point of global collapse, and NIST did not study the progress of the global collapse at all.[16]



While the NIST report analyzes the initial failure mechanism in detail, it does not address the subsequent total collapse of the WTC towers. An early analysis[20] explains that the kinetic energy of the upper portion of the building falling onto the story below exceeded by an order of magnitude the amount of energy that the lower story could absorb, crushing it and adding to the kinetic energy. This scenario repeated with each successive story, crushing the entire tower at an ever-increasing pace. It is the most widely held view among engineers[21].



The NIST report analyzes the failure mechanism in detail. An early analysis explains that the kinetic energy of the upper portion of the building falling onto the story below exceeded by an order of magnitude the amount of energy that the lower story could absorb,[19] crushing it and adding to the kinetic energy. This scenario repeated with each successive story, crushing the entire tower at near free-fall speed.[20]



These explanations ended in December, 2009 and Bazant’s crush up, crush down description of the Twin Towers collapse progression modes (taken literally) appeared at the same time.





Up to this point on this page, every yellow highlighted comment is a general, generic way to talk about the Twin Towers collapse progressions. Not a single comment offers a hint that the Twin Towers actually fell through a very knowable set of mappable processes that were unique to the specific architectural structure.



Here are all the yellow highlighted terms Bazant and NIST used until 2007:



All the collected Bazant and NIST quotes in yellow and Wikipedia comments are utterly generic and can be applied to any building. They hide the truth about the Twin Towers collapse modes. This means both NIST and Bazant are clearly misrepresenting the Twin Towers in these quotes. Were they doing it intentionally?















These two philosophical shifts in red are very important to see the relationship of Bazant’s comments to NIST comments. Bazant goes from being a person who only wrote of the Twin Towers collapse modes in the vaguest, most general terms to claiming there is certain knowledge of the Twin Towers collapse modes for the first time. The certain knowledge is in a series of one variable differential equations which tell us that ‘crush down, then crush up’ is the only possible true collapse mode for the Twin Towers.



In his reasoning much of the actual collapses were obscured by dust, which is why his one variable differential equations are a much better guide to determine the true collapse modes. Only the equations can tell the true story. This is completely different than what he was writing before 2007 (as can be seen in his last quote) This isn’t just a shift. It is a massive alteration to what he claimed earlier. I’ll come back to this later.



As for the NIST philosophical shift between 2002 and 2005, it is no less dramatic than the one Bazant undergoes later. As mentioned earlier this shift leads to a totally new approach:









This decision was a very strange choice. It directly contradicted their mission statement and directly contradicted what was discussed in the 2002 congressional hearing. In no sense is the decision to use the ‘three word rule’ on anything having to do with the collapse modes of the Twin Towers consistent with any known directives from outside of NIST bureaucracy .

Some element within the bureaucracy forced this decision and needed some excuse to justify it. The explanations referred to the 2001 10 page Bazant paper as the only given reason for this massive philosophical shift.







What the NIST shift meant was that the NIST was not going to comment on over 90% of all visible features of the collapse processes. The collapse progressions were massive processes with truly unique and identifiable large-scale features.



Consider a model of the NIST/Bazant relationship in which they are not being open about their true reasons for what they are doing. They are basically making one-way authoritarian decisions and masking the authoritarianism under a (paper) thin scientific veneer.









The reason they claim they are making a decision (in blue) is not the reason why they are actually making it (in green). They will give scientific sounding reasons (in blue) to the public for why they make major decisions but these are not the real reasons (which are in green).












In this case the supposed scientific reasons (in blue) barely hide a more authoritarian and secretive decision making process (in green).

From this point of view comments by NIST/Bazant are in a type of coded language. At its core it is a managerial / legal code in scientific sounding language. The scientific veneer is used to gain legitimacy. But this is not 'science' in the way that word is commonly used.

It is authoritarianism in a scientific veneer using paper-thin excuses. The obscure language can be used to give an authoritarian/managerial decision the look of a scientific conclusion.

Note the single paper-thin excuse combined with the absolute refusal to discuss it further. The general public is treated as too stupid to understand the higher significance in Bazant’s wisdom. The code is condescending. The public has been deemed unworthy of further explanation.





In 2007 Dr Bazant then claimed to discover the true collapse modes of the Twin Towers for the first time after this sequence of events:



1) The NIST and Bazant both referred to the Twin Towers collapses in only the most generic of terms

2) Between 2002 and 2005 the NIST made the philosophical shift to separate the collapse initiation from the progression modes and to focus only on initiation, effectively using the 'three word rule' for collapse progression.

3) It was claimed by Bazant they did this because BZ already proved the inevitability of total collapse. No other reason was given.

4) More than a year after the NIST report was released Bazant had a complete philosophical shift and stated for the first time the Twin Towers fell through a specific collapse mode called ‘crush down, then crush up'.






That is quite a swing with no explanation. The NIST used a 10 page paper with a set of one variable differential equations as the only reason for a massive philosophical shift.

The author of that same paper suddenly discovers the only true collapse progression modes of the Twin Towers in 2007, 2 years after the final Twin Towers NIST reports were released. He did it not through visual reconstruction of the collapse events but through another set of one variable differential equations.

He claims it is the validity of the equations that prove the ‘crush down phase’ followed by the ‘crush up phase’. You can’t see it through the visual record. You have to look at the math as your guiding star. Here is a comparison of the NIST philosophical shift and the Bazant philosophical shift and how one is directly related to another:















There are a number of interesting relationships in the graphic.

Bazant's about-face in the blue zone compared with the white zone is an extreme contrast. After describing the Twin Towers collapses only in the most extreme generalities until 2007 and repeatedly justifying the use of these generalities, he had a very interesting philosophical shift (red zone) in which he grew certain that the true collapse modes of the Twin Towers are a 'crushing down of a 'lower block' to earth, and then a 'crushing upward' the 'upper block' from the 'bottom up'.

This is not just a shift. It is an extreme and sudden reversal from his previous claims. In his eyes for the first time a distinct collapse mode could be known for the Twin Towers. It could be known with certainty. There is no doubt since the equations prove it.


There is obviously a relation between the NIST using the 'three word rule' toward the Collapse progression modes since 2002, refusing to address them in their final reports and the Bazant realization of the true collapse progression modes two years later. The NIST used the ‘three word rule’ from 2002 to 2021 while Bazant claims to have the only true answer over the same thing from 2007 to 2021. This is the sharp contrast between the NIST green zone and the Bazant Blue zone. Bazant jumped from not believing there is any reason to study collapse progressions at all because of his 10 page 2001 paper to being the premier authority on the true collapse modes of the Twin Towers in professional journals. It isn’t just a shift. It is a massive jerk.

Dr Bazant is the foremost authority on the true attributes of the Twin Towers collapses in the blue zone. In the green zone the NIST is strictly following the ‘3 word rule’ the entire time. What a massive contrast between blue and green.



Consider this sequence:

NIST decided to avoid the Twin Towers collapse modes completely around 2003. The only reason that was ever given is because a small simple paper by Dr Bazant in 2001 made it unnecessary. The same NIST goes into absolute silence about the collapse progression modes since 2002. Then, coincidentally, the same Dr Bazant, during complete silence from the NIST, discovers the first detailed, explicit collapse progression modes in 2007 that he and the NIST were silent over until then.

This sequence seems to suggest that things were done in 2002 to 2005 in preparation and in anticipation of a ‘discovery’ that is made in 2007. If NIST wasn’t silent very early (2002) Dr Bazant couldn’t have ‘discovered’ crush down, then crush up later. Both Dr Bazant and Dr Jones could do what they did because of the NISTs ‘3 word rule’.

The diagram shows that Dr Bazant and the NIST are so interconnected that it is difficult to understand what one is doing without looking at the other. I cannot understand the timing of Dr Bazant’s philosophical about turn unless I look at what the NIST was doing at the same time and since 2002. Dr Bazant’s revelation in 2007 makes more sense when one realizes it emerges two years after the final report was issued. One stays silent and issues a final report, the other claims to make the most major discovery on the same thing they both refused to discuss earlier.






































In 2005 the NIST claimed there was no need to look beyond the initiation events because equations in Bazants paper gave us all the information that we required on the collapse modes.

Dr Bazant claimed the same thing in 2006 (from Bazant and Verdure):



Up to the moment of collapse trigger, the foregoing scenario was identified by meticulous, exhaustive, and very realistic computer simulations of unprecedented detail, conducted by S. Shyam Sunder’s team at NIST. The subsequent progressive collapse was not simulated at NIST because its inevitability, once triggered by impact after column buckling, had already been proven by Bažant and Zhou’s #2002a#comparison of kinetic energy to energy absorption capability.



Then, in ‘Bazant and Verdure revisited in 2007 Bazant claimed a 'crush down phase' was followed by a 'crush up' phase of the Twin Towers collapses. He claimed his one variable equations proved it and it cannot be otherwise. That is a massive shift.





In the simplest terms this is the base logic Dr Bazant is using:
















This is the base logic in Dr Bazant's quote from 2001 to 2006. On the right is his new base logic after 2007.

He jumps from ultra-generic to ultra-specific with no explanation.

Both forms of logic are based on around 10 pages of differential equations in a single variable. Those more critical would observe that these are both extreme viewpoints. Those more critical and observant will note that the logic used to justify each extreme viewpoint is hidden in differential equations of one variable and that the underlying logic is absurd. In neither case do the equations in themselves lead to or justify such extreme conclusions.

Bazant's papers on the twin Towers from 2001 onward have this underlying logic:







Girl in a jacket








There was no explanation given for the jump from box 2 to box 3 other than that the laws of physics prove it. Apparently Dr Bazant discovered this sometime between 2006 and 2007 and was releasing this as new information. We don't really know because it was never explained by Dr Bazant. We only know when it first appeared.



It is useful to look at a full list of Bazant's publications to see how these papers fit into Bazant's publishing history. The links below give a full overview of Bazant's publishing career:

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/

By looking through Dr Bazant's list of publications one can see the Twin Tower papers are very unusual relative to what he usually publishes. He has written very complex work on his specialty, which seems to be concrete fracture. He basically wrote within his specialty for close to 4 decades. His papers on the Twin Towers are on a subject he never wrote about before, so they are quite conspicuous in his publishing history.

The consistency of the logic in these papers is almost childlike relative to his work within his specialty. He has no earlier papers on the subject of building movement like this so he cannot rely on his past expertise in one area to help him in this one. He sets out to set up and solve a one variable physics equation of motion of a falling building. He is out of his range of experience here and it shows.

When it comes to building movement or collapse modes of a building his publishing history shows he is as new to the subject as anyone else. His credentials do not help him at all here. And that is what we see. He has no skill in setting up a reasonable collapse mode scenario which is why he used the primitive and rather childish idea of columns which, while buckling, manage to collide end-to-end all the way down a building. In this attempt Bazant was clearly as clumsy as anyone else would be. It is a ridiculously generic and cartoonish idea.




The following questions must be examined critically:



1) The silence of the NIST from 2002 to 2021 set the stage for a series of professional/academic level misrepresentations in 2006-2007. Was early NIST silence intentionally setting the stage for the later misrepresentations? We know one directly contributed to the other, but was this timing just a series of accidents or was there some planning?



2) The historic record proves beyond doubt that the NIST went silent on all things related to the Twin Towers collapse progression modes in 2002. Why?

(The reason given, that the 10 page paper in only 1 dimension contained such powerful new knowledge as to make it unnecessary is so pathetic it hardly rises to the level of a joke.)



3) The NIST going silent from 2002 to 2021 on the Twin Towers collapse progression modes must be considered the single most important contributing factor in all the confusion and misrepresentations of the Twin Towers that followed. Why can’t their responsibility for the confusion which followed be perceived?



4) Why did a series of articles containing misrepresentations of the Twin Towers collapse modes appear in professional/academic and ASCE publications from 2007 to 2021 as seen here and why were they allowed to remain relatively unchallenged?



5) What is the complex role of each of these three key published sources of Twin Tower collapse mode misrepresentations in U.S. society:

2005 NIST Report on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers

2006 Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse? By Dr. Steven E. Jones

2007 Part 2: Closure to 'Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade
Center and Building Demolitions' by Zdenek P. Bazant and Mathieu Verdure

Zdenek P. Bazant and Jia-Liang Le (BL), published in 2007,



6) Why did a PhD physicist appear in U.S. society with a slick, scientific-looking paper with forged and highly misleading images and try to get people to believe his claims for 15 years? Is he connected to other similar efforts or did he just decide to do this on his own?



7) Why did a guy with a PhD in mechanical engineering try to get many people to believe that the Twin Towers ‘crushed down’, before ‘crushing up’? Is he serious or just doing this to manipulate something?



8) Why does the NIST cite Bazant in 2002 as the only reason they avoided the Twin Towers collapse modes and not comment when the same person is openly misrepresenting the Twin Towers collapses since 2007?



10) What is the role of ASCE and JEM in knowingly assisting in publishing these misrepresentations of the Twin Towers collapses?



11) A close look at the Bazant series of papers on the Twin Towers shows that both his 2002 paper (Bazant and Zhao) and his 2007 paper (Bazant and Verdure conclusion) played and continue to play very important roles in U.S. society.

a) Bazant and Zhao was the only reason given by the NIST for not looking at anything past the collapse initiation sequences of the Twin Towers from around 2004 to 2021.

b) Bazant and Verdure conclusion was the first time the Twin Towers collapse progression modes were claimed to be known in any professional publication.



In both cases, how did a 10 to 15 page paper with an argument using one variable manage to play such a pivotal role in Twin Towers research?



12) In both cases the Bazant argument takes on the same form:


















This approach in 2007 led to Dr Bazant believing that the ‘upper block’ of each tower stayed ‘intact’ while ‘crushing’ the ‘lower block’ completely and then the ‘upper block’ was destroyed from “the bottom up’ when hitting the ground.

Visual reconstructions of the actual collapses show this is silly. None of it is real.

How can a set of differential equations in one variable be expected to give real information of the actual collapse progression modes of the Twin Towers?

Is this explicit deception or does he honestly believe one can be substituted for the other?



13) It certainly appears that in each case (2001 and 2007) that the sets of equations are used as an excuse to not look at the actual collapse modes of the Twin Towers. It appears that the NIST used the 2001 paper as an excuse to completely strip their final report on the Twin Towers of all information on the collapse modes. Is this what actually happened?



14) It certainly appears as if the 2007 paper is an effort to misrepresent the actual Twin Towers collapse modes and what followed is an effort to create a written history of the Twin Towers collapse modes which is false. Is this what is actually going on?



15) The actual collapse modes of the Twin Towers were mappable and knowable by reconstructing the visual records of the collapses. The collapse modes were directly related to the unique construction of the original towers.

How is it possible that this fact was not established in any civil lawsuit (insurance, wrongful death, assignment of liability)? How can civil court cases on questions of assignment of blame all conclude with no jury or judge knowing that there was a direct relationship between the unique structural designs and the unique and distinct way the buildings actually fell?



16) Would such knowledge have changed the outcomes of civil cases involving insurance, negligence, and assignment of percentage of blame for damage, injury and death?



17) Is there any connection between the timing of cases proceeding in civil courts and the use of the ‘three word rule’ by the NIST and Dr Bazant’s misrepresentations of the collapse modes of the Twin Towers?



18) Did Dr Bazant or representatives for the NIST act as expert witnesses in some of these same civil court cases? Did they act as corroborating expert witnesses?



19) Did any NIST representatives acting as expert witnesses ever comment on the collapse modes of the Twin Towers? What did they say? Was it in contrast with public statements made the NIST on the same subject? Is it in more detail?



20) The word ‘inevitable’ can be used on any building regardless of structural design or actual collapse progression mode. So can the word ‘doomed’. So can “global collapse ensued.”

Did the concept of ‘inevitability’ introduced by Bazant and Zhao in 2001 play a role in court proceedings? Within court transcripts does it appear to substitute for any more detailed descriptions of the Twin Tower collapse modes?



21) Within civil cases, did opposing attorneys ever ask Dr Bazant or the NIST for more detailed information of the true collapse modes of the Twin Towers? Were they ever pressed for more detailed knowledge of the collapse modes? How did they respond?



22) Is the timing of Dr Bazant’s discovery of the True collapse modes of the Twin Towers through a series of one variable differential equations in 2007 have anything to do with the timing of the settlement of disputes in civil courts?



23) When the NIST maintained a strict silence regarding the Twin Towers collapse modes since 2002, Dr Bazant seemed to become the lead authority with the 2001 paper ideas of ‘inevitability’ and ‘doomed’. Did the NIST intentionally remain silent in order to allow Dr Bazant to appear as the lead authority on the Twin Towers collapses? Did they basically defer all legal opinion on the Twin Towers collapse modes to Dr Bazant? Is that what they were really doing?



24) Was this what happened during civil cases also? Was the NIST deferring all legal expert opinion on the Twin Towers collapse modes to one private individual? Was their refusal to comment directly related to Dr Bazant becoming a central ‘spokesman’ on this issue?



25) If so, did a U.S government agency, on behalf of its citizens, defer all U.S government comment on the Twin Towers collapse modes to one private individual for at least 18 years?



26) How did one private individual become the official spokesman of the U.S. Government on the collapse modes of the Twin Towers on behalf of all U.S. citizens?



27) If this is true, what is the relationship of the U.S. Government to the series of articles published along the green lines in the graphic here?



28) Do Bazant's published papers on the Twin Towers serve as an official U.S. Government opinion regarding the collapse modes of the Twin Towers?



29) Is the U.S Government officially misrepresenting the collapse modes of the Twin Towers through the Bazant papers or are those just the misrepresentations of one private individual?



30) What is the position of the NIST and the U.S. Government toward describing the Twin Towers collapses as consisting of a 'crush down phase' followed by a 'crush up phase'?



31) Who is ultimately responsible for Bazant's series of Twin Tower collapse mode misrepresentations from 2007 to the present? Just Bazant? Is there any Government responsibility in this?


32) Is this a way that the NIST does not go on record misrepresenting the Twin Towers collapse modes to the general public while a private individual was knowingly allowed to do so?



33) It is the strict silence of the NIST on the Twin Towers collapse modes combined with the Bazant misrepresentations of the same from 2007 onward that gives the clear appearance that the two parties worked together to achieve this. Was this a way that the collapse modes could be suppressed, hidden from, and misrepresented to the public without the NIST explicitly misrepresenting them? Like a legal maneuver to keep the explicit false statements away from the Government agency while allowing them to go on privately anyway?














The failure of news sources to represent the Twin Towers collapse modes accurately


Back to website