Tuesday, July 10, 2012

569 Woman who pushed man under train blamed "Muslims, Hindus and Egyptians" for 9/11

Woman who pushed man under train blamed "Muslims, Hindus and Egyptians"
for 9/11

(1) 9/11: Richard Gage 10-minute video (Dec 2012) links 9/11 to Police
State, US invasions
(2) Woman charged with Hate Crime for pushing man under train in NY;
Bloomberg downplays it (AP 6.16pm)
(3) Woman who pushed man under train blamed "Muslims, Hindus and
Egyptians" for 9/11 (AP 6.32pm)
(4) Pamela Geller (Jewish) NYC ads featured WTC burning with a Qu'ran
verse printed alongside
(5) 9/11 a false flag op clandestinely carried out by Mossad
(6) The 11th Anniversary of 9/11 - Paul Craig Roberts
(7) Building Design has NOT changed as a result of 9/11, contrary to
NIST Reports - Kevin Ryan

(1) 9/11: Richard Gage 10-minute video (Dec 2012) links 9/11 to Police
State, US invasions

From: Keith Lampe <us.exile.govt@gmail.com> Date: 31 December 2012 03:57

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Daren <ulm2012@googlemail.com> wrote:

This is the best 10-min video on 911 I've ever seen......SUCCINCT and

I feel this is very important as it has been the premise for the following:

1. US going to war with 2 countries.

2. Many of the draconian laws that have taken away common citizens'
rights and freedoms.
Please take the time to watch the video link below......

Architect Richard Gage reminds us that 9/11 is the excuse that is used
by the government to wage aggressive wars around the world and restrict
the freedom of its citizens. [Therefore, it is of utmost importance to
recognize that the collapse of the three buildings on 9/11 was the
result of controlled demolition. Here is a short, yet compelling,
overview of the evidence.]

YouTube Posted 2012 Dec 23

Click here for the video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZAHp_zSGd8

== also see

9/11: Explosive Evidence–Experts Speak Out

(2) Woman charged with Hate Crime for pushing man under train in NY;
Bloomberg downplays it (AP 6.16pm)


Woman Charged With Hate Crime In New York Subway Death


December 29, 2012 6:16 PM

A woman accused of pushing a man to his death in front of a subway train
was charged Saturday with murder as a hate crime.

Police arrested Erica Menendez on Saturday after a passer-by on a street
noticed she resembled the woman seen in a surveillance video.

A spokeswoman for Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown said
Menendez told authorities she hates Hindus and Muslims.

Subway shoving victim Sunando Sen was from India, but it's unclear if he
was Muslim or Hindu.

Sen, who lived in Queens and ran a printing shop, was killed Thursday
night. Witnesses said a muttering woman pushed him on the tracks as a 7
train entered a Queens station and then ran off.

Menendez was in custody Saturday and couldn't be reached for comment. It
was unclear if she had an attorney.

It was unclear whether the woman who pushed Sen had any connection to
him. Witnesses told police the two hadn't interacted on the platform as
they waited for the 7 train, which runs between Manhattan and Queens.

Police released security camera video showing the woman running from the
station where Sen was killed.

On Saturday, a passer-by noticed a woman who resembled the woman in the
video and called 911. Police responded and confirmed her identity and
took her to a police station, where she made statements implicating
herself in the crime, police spokesman Paul Browne said.

The attack was the second time this month that a man was pushed to his
death in a city subway station. A homeless man was arrested in early
December and accused of shoving a man in front of a train in Times
Square. He claimed he acted in self-defense and is awaiting trial.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Friday urged residents to keep the second
fatal subway shove in the city this month in perspective. The news of
Sen's horrific death came as the mayor touted drops in the city's annual
homicide and shooting totals.

"It's a very tragic case, but what we want to focus on today is the
overall safety in New York," Bloomberg told reporters following a police
academy graduation on Friday.

(3) Woman who pushed man under train blamed "Muslims, Hindus and
Egyptians" for 9/11 (AP 6.32pm)

{Bloomberg's comments were removed for the 6.32pm edition}


Dec 30, 6:32 PM EST



NEW YORK (AP) -- A 31-year-old woman accused of shoving a man to his
death in front of a subway train because she believed he was Muslim
laughed and smiled during a court hearing where she was ordered to
undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

Erika Menendez, 31, was charged Saturday night with murder as a hate
crime after she told police she spontaneously pushed Sunando Sen,
according to prosecutors.

"There is no reason. I just pushed him in front of the train because I
thought it would be cool," she said, according to the Queens district
attorney's office.

She laughed so hard during her arraignment in Queens criminal court that
Judge Gia Morris told her lawyer: "You're going to have to have your
client stop laughing."

Defense attorney Dietrich Epperson said her behavior in court was no
different from how she had been acting, and said her client didn't
really think the proceedings were funny, according to Newsday. A call by
The Associated Press to Epperson was not immediately returned Sunday.
Menendez was held without bail and ordered to have a mental health exam.

Queens prosecutors said she pushed the 46-year-old India native to his
death because she blamed "Muslims, Hindus and Egyptians" for the Sept.
11 terrorist attacks.

"I pushed a Muslim off the train tracks because I hate Hindus and
Muslims - ever since 2001 when they put down the twin towers I've been
beating them up," Menendez told police, according to the district
attorney's office.

Friends and co-workers said Sen, a native of Calcutta, was Hindu. He had
lived in Queens for decades and was a graphic designer and copy shop
owner. Sen was standing on an elevated platform of the 7 train that
travels between Manhattan and Queens when he was shoved from behind as
the train entered the station.

Witnesses told police a woman had been mumbling to herself and was
sitting on a bench behind Sen until the train pulled in, then shoved him
from behind. She then fled. ...

(4) Pamela Geller (Jewish) NYC ads featured WTC burning with a Qu'ran
verse printed alongside


After Islamophobic hate crime in New York City, mayor wants public to
‘keep death in perspective’

by Annie Robbins and Alex Kane on December 29, 2012

A horrific crime if we've ever seen one--and a reminder that
Islamophobia affects many communities outside Muslim ones.

From the AP <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33475.htm> ...

A woman who told police she shoved a man to his death off a subway
platform into the path of a train because she hates Muslims and thought
he was one was charged Saturday with murder as a hate crime, prosecutors
said. .....

"I pushed a Muslim off the train tracks because I hate Hindus and
Muslims ever since 2001 when they put down the twin towers I've been
beating them up," Menendez told police, according to the district
attorney's office.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Friday urged residents to keep Sen's death in
perspective as he touted new historic lows in the city's annual homicide
and shooting totals.

"It's a very tragic case, but what we want to focus on today is the
overall safety in New York," Bloomberg told reporters following a police
academy graduation.

What kind of perspective is Bloomberg referencing? If someone said "I
shoved a Jew in front of a train because I hate Jews," would Bloomberg
be touting drops in the city's annual homicide and shooting totals?
Quite an insensitive comment, at the very least.

After this news broke, Twitter was aflutter with people pointing to
Pamela Geller as one culprit pushing anti-Muslim sentiment in the city.
Geller's organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, recently
put up a new crop of ads that features the World Trade Center burning
with a Qu'ran verse printed to the right of the towers. ...

(5) 9/11 a false flag op clandestinely carried out by Mossad

From: sababu sanyika <sasanyika@yahoo.com> Date: 31 December 2012 09:56

After Islamophobic Hate Crime in New York City, Mayor Wants Public to
‘Keep Death in Perspective’

Dear People, it is known by very credible experts in law enforcement,
intelligence and military affairs that 911 was a false flag op
clandestinely carried out by Mossad, the zionazis secret agency.

Please google - "Dr. Allen Sabrosky- Mossad Did 911" or contact at
docbrosk@comcast.net. Also, http://www.911truth.org and
http://www.veteranstoday.com or at info@veteranstoday.com

The above persons and sites are unbias, and they are loyal American
citizens with the best interest of our nation as primary concern.


FOR THE 911 ATTACK. This inexcusable murder of our Hindu brother is
truly sad, unfortunate,and firmly condemnable as a crime against
humanity reflective of zionazis evil impact on a naive, indoctrinated,
gullible, innocent, and fearful public.

zionazis control of and use of mass media,and other societal
influences,t o flimflam the public conscience in an orgy of deceit has
been so effective that truly - "monstrous was the gullibility of the
people" - Arnold Bennett. Deliberate psychological indoctrination of
masses of people has allowed easy manipulation of a public mind that has
been trapped in a web of Talmudic social engineering for centuries.

It's time to massively unleash this unimpeachable truth to the global
public so that the U.S.A. and our world community can halt zionazis led
orchestrated wars,financial crisis,torture in secret prisons, and other
evil deceptions and crimes originating from zionazis treachery. We must
keep in mind this zionazis ideology is deliberately making war on the
rest of us in Talmudic incited genocidal brutality toward Gentiles and
Torah True Jewry.

Mossad's motto is - "by way of deception, thy {thou} shall do war" ...

(6) The 11th Anniversary of 9/11 - Paul Craig Roberts


The 11th Anniversary of 9/11

Paul Craig Roberts

September 11, 2012

The article below was written for the Journal of 9/11 Studies for the
eleventh anniversary of September 11, 2001, the day that terminated
accountable government and American liberty. It is posted here with the
agreement of the editors.

In order to understand the improbability of the government’s explanation
of 9/11, it is not necessary to know anything about what force or forces
brought down the three World Trade Center buildings, what hit the
Pentagon or caused the explosion, the flying skills or lack thereof of
the alleged hijackers, whether the airliner crashed in Pennsylvania or
was shot down, whether cell phone calls made at the altitudes could be
received, or any other debated aspect of the controversy.

You only have to know two things.

One is that according to the official story, a handful of Arabs, mainly
Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and competent
intelligence service, men without James Bond and V for Vendetta
capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security
Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security
agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad. Not only did the
entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail, but on the morning
of the attack the entire apparatus of the National Security State
simultaneously failed. Airport security failed four times in one hour.
NORAD failed. Air Traffic Control failed. The US Air Force failed. The
National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed. Absolutely nothing
worked. The world’s only superpower was helpless at the humiliating
mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs.

It is hard to image a more far-fetched story–except for the second thing
you need to know: The humiliating failure of US National Security did
not result in immediate demands from the President of the United States,
from Congress, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from the media for an
investigation of how such improbable total failure could have occurred.
No one was held accountable for the greatest failure of national
security in world history. Instead, the White House dragged its feet for
a year resisting any investigation until the persistent demands from
9/11 families for accountability forced President George W. Bush to
appoint a political commission, devoid of any experts, to hold a pretend

On 9/11 Doubts Were Immediate

On September 11, 2001, a neighbor telephoned and said, “turn on the TV.”
I assumed that a hurricane, possibly a bad one from the sound of the
neighbor’s voice, was headed our way, and turned on the TV to determine
whether we needed to shutter the house and leave.

What I saw was black smoke from upper floors of one of the World Trade
Center towers. It didn’t seem to be much of a fire, and the reports were
that the fire was under control. While I was trying to figure out why
every TV network had its main news anchor covering an office fire, TV
cameras showed an airplane hitting the other tower. It was then that I
learned that both towers had been hit by airliners.

Cameras showed people standing at the hole in the side of the tower
looking out. This didn’t surprise me. The airliner was minute compared
to the massive building. But what was going on? Two accidents, one on
top of the other?

The towers—the three-fourths or four-fifths of the buildings beneath the
plane strikes–were standing, apparently largely undamaged. There were no
signs of fire except in the vicinity of where the airliners had hit.
Suddenly, one of the towers blew up, disintegrated, and disappeared in
fine dust. Before one could make any sense of this, the same thing
happened to the second tower, and it too disappeared into fine dust.


The TV news anchors compared the disintegration of the towers to
controlled demolition. There were numerous reports of explosions
throughout the towers from the base or sub-basements to the top. (Once
the government put out the story of terrorist attack, references to
controlled demolition and explosions disappeared from the print and TV
media.) This made sense to me. Someone had blown up the buildings. It
was completely obvious that the towers had not fallen down from
asymmetrical structural damage. They had blown up.

The images of the airliners hitting the towers and the towers blowing up
were replayed time and again. Airliners hit the top portions of the
towers, and not long afterward the towers blew up. I turned off the TV
wondering how it was that cameras had been ready to catch such an
unusual phenomenon as an airplane flying into a skyscraper.

I don’t remember the time line, but it wasn’t long before the story was
in place that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda gang had attacked the US.
A passport had been found in the rubble. Another airliner had flown into
the Pentagon, and a fourth airliner had crashed or been shot down. Four
airliners had been hijacked, meaning airport security had failed four
times on the same morning. Terrorists had successfully assaulted America.

When I heard these reports, I wondered. How could a tiny undamaged
passport be found in the rubble of two skyscrapers, each more than 100
stories tall, when bodies, office furniture and computers could not be
found? How could airport security fail so totally that four airliners
could be hijacked within the same hour? How could authorities know so
conclusively and almost immediately the names of the perpetrators who
pulled off such a successful attack on the world’s only superpower, when
the authorities had no idea that such an attack was planned or even

These questions disturbed me, because as a former member of the
congressional staff and as a presidential appointee to high office, I
had high level security clearances. In addition to my duties as
Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, I had FEMA responsibilities in
the event of nuclear attack. There was a mountain hideaway to which I
was supposed to report in the event of a nuclear attack and from which I
was supposed to take over the US government in the event no higher
official survived the attack.

The more the story of 9/11 was presented in the media, the more wondrous
it became. It is not credible that not only the CIA and FBI failed to
detect the plot, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies, including the
National Security Agency, which spies on everyone on the planet, and the
Defense Intelligence Agency, Israel’s Mossad, and the intelligence
agencies of Washington’s NATO allies. There are simply too many watchmen
and too much infiltration of terrorist groups for such a complex attack
to be prepared undetected and carried out undeterred.

Washington’s explanation of the attack implied a security failure too
massive to be credible. Such a catastrophic failure of national security
would mean that the US and Western Europe were never safe for one second
during the Cold War, that the Soviet Union could have destroyed the
entire West in one undetected fell swoop.

As a person whose colleagues at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington were former secretaries of state,
former national security advisors, former CIA directors, former chairmen
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I was troubled by the story that a
collection of individuals unsupported by a competent intelligence
service had pulled off the events of 9/11.

As a person with high level government service, I knew that any such
successful operation as 9/11 would have resulted in immediate demands
from the White House, Congress, and the media for accountability. There
would have been an investigation of how every aspect of US security
could totally fail simultaneously in one morning. Such a catastrophic
and embarrassing failure of the national security state would not be
left unexamined.

NORAD failed. The US Air Force could not get jet fighters in the air.
Air Traffic Control lost sight of the hijacked airliners. Yet, instead
of launching an investigation, the White House resisted for one year the
demands of the 9/11 families for an investigation. Neither the public,
the media, nor Congress seemed to think an investigation was necessary.
The focus was on revenge, which the Bush neocon regime said meant
invading Afghanistan which was alleged to be sheltering the perpetrator,
Osama bin Laden.

Normally, terrorists are proud of their success and announce their
responsibility. It is a way to build a movement. Often a number of
terrorist groups will compete in claiming credit for a successful
operation. But Osama bin Laden in the last video that is certified by
independent experts said that he had no responsibility for 9/11, that he
had nothing against the American people, that his opposition was limited
to the US government’s colonial policies and control over Muslim

It makes no sense that the “mastermind” of the most humiliating blow in
world history ever to have been delivered against a superpower would not
claim credit for his accomplishment. By September 11, 2001, Osama bin
Laden knew that he was deathly ill. According to news reports he
underwent kidney dialysis the following month. The most reliable reports
that we have are that he died in December 2001. It is simply not
credible that bin Laden denied responsibility because he feared Washington.

But Osama bin Laden was too useful a bogeyman, and Washington and the
presstitute media kept him alive for another decade until Obama needed
to kill the dead man in order to boost his sinking standings in the
polls so that Democrats would not back a challenger for the Democratic
presidential nomination.

Numerous bin Laden videos, every one pronounced a fake by experts, were
released whenever it was convenient for Washington. No one in the
Western media or in the US Congress or European or UK parliaments was
sufficiently intelligent to recognize that a bin Laden video always
showed up on cue when Washington needed it. “Why would the ‘mastermind’
be so accommodating for Washington?” was the question that went through
my mind every time one of the fake videos was released.

The 9/11 “investigation” that finally took place was a political one run
from the White House. One member of the commission resigned, declaring
the investigation to be a farce, and both co-chairman and the legal
counsel of the 9/11 Commission distanced themselves from their report
with statements that the 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail,” that
resources were withheld from the commission, that representatives of the
US military lied to the commission and that the commission considered
referring the false testimony for criminal prosecution.

One would think that these revelations would cause a sensation, but the
news media, Congress, the White House, and the public were silent.

All of this bothered me a great deal. The US had invaded two Muslim
countries based on unsubstantiated allegations linking the two countries
to 9/11, which itself remained uninvestigated. The neoconservatives who
staffed the George W. Bush regime were advocating more invasions of more
Muslim countries. Paul O’Neill, President Bush’s first Treasury
Secretary, stated publicly that the Bush regime was planning to invade
Iraq prior to 9/11. O’Neill said that no one at a National Security
Council meeting even asked the question, why invade Iraq? “It was all
about finding a way to do it.”


The leaked top secret Downing Street Memo written by the head of British
intelligence (MI6) confirms Paul O’Neill’s testimony. The memo, known as
the “smoking gun memo” whose authenticity has been confirmed, states
that “President George W. Bush wants to remove Saddam Hussein, through
military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But
the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” In other
words, the US invasion of Iraq was based on nothing but a made up lie.

As an engineering student I had witnessed a controlled demolition. When
films of the collapse of WTC building 7 emerged, it was obvious that
building 7 had been brought down by controlled demolition. When physics
instructor David Chandler measured the descent of the building and
established that it took place at free fall acceleration, the case was
closed. Buildings cannot enter free fall unless controlled demolition
has removed all resistance to the collapsing floors.


If airliners brought down two skyscrapers, why was controlled demolition
used to bring down a third building?

I assumed that structural architects, structural engineers, and
physicists would blow the whistle on the obviously false story. If I
could see that something was amiss, certainly more highly trained people

The first physicist to make an effective and compelling argument was
Steven Jones at BYU. Jones said that explosives brought down the twin
towers. He made a good case. For his efforts, he was pressured to resign
his tenured position. I wondered whether the federal government had
threatened BYU’s research grants or whether patriotic trustees and
alumni were the driving force behind Jones’ expulsion. Regardless, the
message was clear to other university based experts: “Shut up or we’ll
get you.”

Steven Jones was vindicated when chemist Niels Harrit of the University
of Copenhagen In Denmark reported unequivocally that the scientific team
in which he participated found nano-thermite in the residue of the twin
towers. This sensational finding was not mentioned in the US print and
TV media to my knowledge.

Several years after 9/11 architect Richard Gage formed Architects and
Engineers for 9/11 truth, an organization that has grown to include
1,700 experts. The plans of the towers have been studied. They were
formidable structures. They were constructed to withstand airliner hits
and fires. There is no credible explanation of their failure except
intentional demolition.

I also found disturbing the gullibility of the public, media, and
Congress in the unquestioning acceptance of the official stories of the
shoe-bomber, shampoo and bottled water bomber, and underwear bomber
plots to blow up airliners in transit. These schemes are farcical. How
can we believe that al Qaeda, capable of pulling off the most fantastic
terrorist attack in history and capable of devising improvised explosive
devices (IEDs) that kill and maim US troops and destroy US military
vehicles would rely on something that had to be lighted with a match?
The shoe and underwear bombers would simply have pushed a button on
their cell phones or laptops, and the liquid bomb would not have
required extended time in a lavatory to be mixed (all to no effect).

None of this makes any sense. Moreover, experts disputed many of the
government’s claims, which were never backed by anything but the
government’s story line. There is no independent evidence that anything
was involved other than firecracker powders.

The case of the underwear bomber is especially difficult to accept.
According to witnesses, the underwear bomber was not allowed on the
airliner, because he had no passport. So an official appears who walks
him onto the airliner bound for Detroit on Christmas day. What kind of
official has the authority to override established rules, and what did
the official think would happen to the passenger when he presented
himself to US Customs without a passport? Any official with the power to
override standard operating practices would know that it was pointless
to send a passenger to a country where his entry would be rejected.

The circumstantial evidence is that these were orchestrated events
designed to keep fear alive, to create new intrusive powers for a new
over-arching federal policy agency, to accustom US citizens to intrusive
searches and a police force to conducting them, and to sell expensive
porno-scanners and now more advanced devices to the Transportation
Safety Administration. Apparently, this expensive collection of
high-tech gadgetry is insufficient to protect us from terrorists, and in
August 2012 the Department of Homeland Security put in an order for 750
million rounds of ammunition, enough to shoot every person in the US 2.5

Naive and gullible Americans claim that if some part of the US
government had been involved in 9/11, “someone would have talked by
now.” A comforting thought, perhaps, but nothing more. Consider, for
example, the cover-up by the US government of the 1967 Israeli attack on
the USS Liberty that killed or wounded most of the crew but failed to
sink the ship. As the survivors have testified, they were ordered in a
threatening way not to speak about the event. It was twelve years later
before one of the USS Liberty’s officers, James Ennes, told the story of
the attack in his book, Assault on the Liberty. I continue to wonder how
the professionals at the National Institute of Standards and Technology
feel about being maneuvered by the federal government into the
unscientific position NIST took concerning the destruction of the WTC

What will be the outcome of the doubts about the official story raised
by experts? I worry that most Americans are too mentally and emotionally
weak to be able to come to grips with the truth. They are far more
comfortable with the story that enemies attacked America successfully
despite the massive national security state in place. The American
public has proved itself to be so cowardly that it willingly, without a
peep, sacrificed its civil liberty and the protections of law guaranteed
by the Constitution in order to be “safe.”

Congress is not about to expose itself for having squandered trillions
of dollars on pointless wars based on an orchestrated “new Pearl
Harbor.” When the neoconservatives said that a “new Pearl Harbor” was a
requirement for their wars for American/Israeli hegemony, they set the
stage for the 21st century wars that Washington has launched. If Syria
falls, there is only Iran, and then Washington stands in direct
confrontation with Russia and China.

Unless Russia and China can be overthrown with “color revolutions,”
these two nuclear powers are unlikely to submit to Washington’s
hegemony. The world as we know it might be drawing to a close.

If enough Americans or even other peoples in the world had the
intelligence to realize that massive steel structures do not
disintegrate into fine dust because a flimsy airliner hits them and
limited short-lived fires burn on a few floors, Washington would be
faced with the suspicion it deserves.

If 9/11 was actually the result of the failure of the national security
state to deter an attack, the government’s refusal to conduct a real
investigation is an even greater failure. It has fallen to concerned and
qualified individuals to perform the investigative role abandoned by
government. The presentations at the Toronto Hearings, along with the
evaluations of the Panel, are now available, as is the documentary film,
“Explosive Evidence–Experts Speak Out,” provided by Architects and
Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

The government’s agents and apologists try to deflect attention from
disturbing facts by redefining factual evidence revealed by experts as
the product of “a conspiracy culture.” If people despite their
brainwashing and lack of scientific education are able to absorb the
information made available to them, perhaps both the US Constitution and
peace could be restored. Only informed people can restrain Washington
and avert the crazed hegemonic US government from destroying the world
in war.

(7) Building Design has NOT changed as a result of 9/11, contrary to
NIST Reports - Kevin Ryan


Are Tall Buildings Safer As a Result of the NIST WTC Reports?

by Kevin Ryan

September 10, 2012

What changes have been made as a result of the World Trade Center (WTC)
investigation conducted by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST)? Are tall buildings around the world safe from the
risk of global collapse due to fire as described by the official

In 2008, NIST began claiming that its investigation would help ensure
the safety of future buildings. NIST said that such buildings “should be
increasingly resistant to fire, more easily evacuated in emergencies,
and safer overall” as a result of the WTC investigation. Commerce
Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, the Bush Administration cabinet member in
charge of NIST at the time, said, “The lessons learned from the tragic
events of 9/11 have yielded stronger building and fire codes for a new
generation of safer, more robust buildings across the nation.”[1]

Is this true? If so, we should be able to see improvements being made to
the design and construction processes for tall buildings around the
world. We should also expect that existing buildings would be evaluated
for design problems and retrofitted in an urgent manner to ensure that
fires do not bring buildings crashing down as they did on 9/11, killing
thousands of unsuspecting victims.

Unfortunately, there are no signs that such design evaluations and
retrofit projects have occurred. This is a strong indication that the
international building community has not taken the NIST WTC reports

In a few stunning instances, the NIST findings were never considered at
all prior to building design and construction. An example is the new WTC
building 7, which was fully completed in 2006. That same year, NIST
spokesman Shyam Sunder was saying, “We’ve had trouble getting a handle
on building No. 7.”[2] To clarify, in 2006 NIST had no idea what
happened to the original WTC 7, a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit
by a plane yet collapsed into its own footprint in a matter of seconds
on 9/11. Therefore the new, even taller, WTC 7 could not have
incorporated any design or construction changes resulting from the NIST
investigation. Apparently people still use the building, however, and do
not seem bothered by the risk.

How about for other buildings in New York City and elsewhere, including
the widely publicized replacement for WTC 1 being completed this year?
In order to answer that question, we should review a little history
behind the NIST WTC investigation.

The NIST WTC Investigation

According to NIST, the original Twin Towers were built to meet the 1968
NYC building code requirements.[3] This code required three hours of
fire resistance for the steel column components and two hours of fire
resistance for the floor assemblies. A startling discrepancy here is
that the south tower was said to be completely destroyed less than one
hour after the fires began. And what people often don’t realize is that
fire is the primary explanation for failure of all three WTC buildings.

NIST did not explain this discrepancy directly. Instead, the NIST WTC
reports, which amount to tens of thousands of pages, reflected the
results of computer modeling that proposed three root causes.

“Widely dislodged” fireproofing – the Twin Towers

Linear thermal expansion – WTC 7

“Progressive global collapse” – all three buildings [4]

Progressive global collapse was a term that NIST used frequently
throughout its investigation despite the fact that no tall building had
ever collapsed completely due to fire. In fact, the only three instances
of progressive global collapse for any reason other than demolition
occurred all in the same place (at the WTC) at the same time (on 9/11).

With respect to the fireproofing (i.e. insulation) loss in the towers,
NIST said, “The WTC towers would likely not have collapsed under the
combined effects of aircraft impact and the extensive, multi-floor fires
if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only
minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.”

At the time of the 9/11 attacks, the WTC towers were undergoing a
fireproofing upgrade to better ensure the buildings’ fire resistance. In
an incredible coincidence, the floors where the full fireproofing
upgrades had been completed were the same floors that were struck by the
aircraft on 9/11.[5]

The true condition of the fireproofing in the WTC towers at the time of
impact has been misrepresented by supporters of the official account.
These official account supporters produce old photos of the fireproofing
condition prior to the upgrades. What they don’t tell you is that the
upgraded fireproofing, for example on the impact floors of the north
tower, was measured before the attacks and found to be 3.25 inches
thick. This was twice what was required by the NYC code. What’s more,
inspectors found that the adhesion, or bond strength, of the newly
installed fireproofing was twice as high as what was required.[6]

How did this newly installed, superior fireproofing in the towers get
“widely dislodged” as proposed by NIST?

We don’t know because NIST produced a startling lack of scientific
evidence for its central claim that the fireproofing was widely
dislodged. In fact, the only evidence NIST presented for this was a test
in which 15 rounds from a shotgun were aimed at various
non-representative samples. A shotgun may have been needed due to the
fact that other tests NIST had performed showed the bond strength of the
WTC fireproofing to be “considerably greater” than what was expected.[7]

For WTC 7, the root cause cited by NIST was the dislocation of a girder
caused by the linear thermal expansion of floor beams. The expanding
composite beams were said to have caused the breakage of over one
hundred high-strength bolts and other structural connections, and
thereby the failure of a girder supporting a critical column.

However, other scientists submitted public comments to NIST about actual
physical tests they had done, which NIST avoided entirely, that
indicated such a sequence was not realistic. “Having conducted numerous
fire tests on composite beams, we have never observed this,” wrote Dr.
David Proe of Victoria Universty.[8]

As a whole the NIST WTC reports were found to be unscientific and
false.[9] And because the computer models upon which these reports were
ultimately based have never been made available to the public, the NIST
findings cannot be replicated.

Ignoring NIST’s Recommendations

Regardless of the lack of scientific validity of the WTC reports, NIST
represents a standard making body of the U.S. government and its
findings should compel U.S. professionals to make changes to their
practices. To see if building professionals and local government
regulators have followed NIST’s lead, we should examine the relevant
building codes for any updates resulting from the NIST WTC investigation.

The International Code Council (ICC)’s International Building Code (IBC)
provides a general guidance for local code makers in the United States.
Following the IBC code is not a requirement for local governments,
however. Translation of the code into local code requirements is
strictly a discretionary decision.

Although the ICC praised NIST and its contractors for the hard work that
had gone into the NIST WTC investigation, the fact is that ICC did not
incorporate relevant changes into its IBC code as a result.

In its 2008 press release on the subject, NIST claimed that the IBC code
had changed to “address areas such as increasing structural resistance
to building collapse from fire and other incidents; requiring a third
exit stairway for tall buildings; increasing the width of all stairways
by 50 percent in new high-rises; [and] strengthening criteria for the
bonding, proper installation and inspection of sprayed fire-resistive

Of course, additional and wider exit stairways cannot prevent the
catastrophic collapse of a skyscraper from fire. But NIST was not
telling the truth about the ICC having adopted code changes to increase
structural resistance to the kinds of building collapse phenomena
proposed by the WTC reports.

A 2010 press release from NIST added “better communications” to the list
of ICC-adopted recommendations from the WTC investigation.[10] It’s true
that the radios used by firefighters in the WTC were a concern, and were
actually known by NYC officials to be faulty as early as 1993.[11]
However, no amount of radio-related code differences would have
prevented the unprecedented destruction of the buildings. Similarly,
NIST’s evacuation recommendations had no relevance to the root cause of
the WTC destruction.

NIST had to admit that ICC did not adopt the recommendations that called
for building professionals to “address areas such as designing
structures to mitigate disproportionate progressive collapse.”[12]

In a January 2011 letter to NIST, the ICC confirmed that this was still
the case.[13] The only code changes that ICC adopted were:

“1) Luminous egress path marking required; 2) exit stairway enclosures
required to be separated by no less than 30 feet; 3) enhanced inspection
requirements for Sprayed-on Fire-Resistant Material (SFRM).”

And for buildings higher than 420 feet:

“1) Increased bond strength for SFRM; 2) a second, additional exit
stairway, with a minimum separation between stairwells; 3) a requirement
to increase structural integrity of exit enclosures and elevator hoist
enclosures; 4) redundant sprinkler system risers with alternate floor

Of these changes, only the two related to SFRM can be seen as linked to
the official account of the collapse of the buildings. But even these
changes were not planned for addition to the IBC code until release of
the 2012 edition. Apparently the concerns about the SFRM and its bond
strength were not that great.

That might be because it’s tough to see how the SFRM code changes were
related anyway. That is, the ICC changes to require greater fireproofing
bond strength cannot be reconciled with the fact that the fireproofing
in the alleged failure areas of the towers was already far greater than
what the code required. Yet still the buildings suffered “progressive
global collapse,” a phenomenon for which the ICC made no changes.

As for the inexplicable collapse of WTC 7, the ICC made no changes there
either. The alleged root cause of floor beam thermal expansion is not
addressed by any ICC code change.

How about New York City and government leaders in general? Were federal
and state leaders, municipalities and building professionals willing to
put money into the relevant recommendations made by NIST, and thereby
endorse the official explanations for what happened at the WTC? No, they
were not.

The current (2008) NYC code includes changes that were said to be
modeled after the ICC’s changes, which were said to be a result of the
NIST WTC investigation. However, the actual changes made were not
related to NIST’s three root causes of the WTC destruction. Instead,
they focused on “widened stairwells in high-rise buildings, expanded
sprinkler systems, and enhanced emergency voice communication systems.”[14]

The NYC building code includes a requirement for SFRM bond strength that
clearly does not take the WTC investigation into account. The
requirement is that the bond strength “shall not be less than 150 pounds
per square foot (psf).“[15] The problem is that the bond strength of the
fireproofing in the WTC was known to be much higher than this and yet
we’re told it was still widely dislodged.

The Port Authority of NY and NJ provided 64 bond strength measurement
values to NIST, taken from the fireproofing in the impact and failures
zones of the WTC. NIST even listed these in its report. None were as low
as 150 psf and most were twice that value.[16] The failure to increase
the bond strength requirement in the building code, leaving it at a
value that was far lower than what the WTC had in place, indicates that
NYC officials are not in the least bit worried about bond strength.

Related to WTC 7, the 2008 NYC code also refers to the need to ensure
that the fire-induced expansion of building components (e.g. steel
beams) does “not adversely interfere with the system’s
capabilities.”[17] But the 1968 code included similar requirements and
even stated that the coefficient of expansion for all building materials
needed to be addressed in test reports.[18]

More specifically, the 1968 code that WTC 7 was required to meet stated
that the design “shall provide for forces and/or movements resulting
from an assumed expansion corresponding to a change in temperature.”
Therefore not only was there no change as a result of the NIST WTC 7
report, given the NIST account we might wonder if the original WTC 7 was
constructed outside of the NYC code requirements.

Another Reason the NIST WTC Reports Are False

Despite its grandiose claims, NIST knows that the building community has
ignored the WTC investigation findings. That’s clear from NIST’s own
tracking sheet on its website. This tracks all 30 recommendations from
the NIST WTC investigation and lists the code “outcomes” from each.[19]
As of August 2011, the most recent update, not one NIST recommendation
related to progressive global collapse, “widely dislodged” fireproofing,
or linear thermal expansion has been adopted.

The two NIST recommendations that call for (unspecified) measures to
prevent progressive global collapse have been completely ignored. Other
things like an additional exit stairway, a fire service access elevator,
and stairwells with glow-in-the-dark markings are simply not relevant.[20]

NIST might argue that there is one ICC change that calls for
fireproofing to have increased bond strength and be installed and
inspected correctly. But since bond strength was not a root cause of the
WTC destruction, and measurements just before 9/11 showed that the
fireproofing in the impact zones was far better installed and had far
better bond strength than what was required, this is a red herring.
That’s not to mention that no tests were ever done to indicate what bond
strength was needed to resist flying aircraft debris.

Are tall buildings safer as a result of the NIST WTC report? No, they
are most certainly not. And if people actually understood and believed
the official account of what happened at the WTC they would not enter
tall buildings because in doing so they would be putting their lives at

The truth, however, is that the NIST WTC investigation was a politically
motivated diversion that produced reports which are known to be false.
This fact is re-emphasized by the knowledge that the international
building community, including that of New York City, has not adopted
code changes that can be traced to the root causes cited by NIST for the
WTC destruction.


[1] NIST, Safer Buildings Are Goal of New Code Changes Based on
Recommendations from NIST World Trade Center Investigation, October 1,
2008, http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc_100108.cfm

[2] Marc Jacobsen, The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll, New York Magazine, Mar
19, 2006, http://nymag.com/news/features/16464/

[3] NIST NCSTAR 1-1F, Executive Summary, p XXV,

[4] The NIST WTC reports can be found at http://wtc.nist.gov

[5] Kevin R. Ryan, Another amazing coincidence related to the WTC,
911Blogger.com, January 6, 2008, http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272

[6] For the SFRM thickness and adhesion values, see NIST WTC report
NCSTAR 1-6A, figure A-60,

[7] Kevin R. Ryan, The Short Reign of Ryan Mackey, Journal of 9/11
Studies, December 2007,

[8] Public Comments Received by NIST on DRAFT Reports, August
See also – Fire Safety Researchers at Victoria University Disagree with
NIST’s WTC 7 Report,

[9] An easy way to see to understand the falsity of the NIST WTC reports
is to watch my two short videos on the subject — Why the NIST Report for
the Towers is
and Why the NIST WTC 7 Report is

[10] NIST WTC Recommendations Are Basis for New Set of Revised Codes,
June 9, 2010

[11] Wayne Barrett, Rudy Giuliani’s Five Big Lies About 9/11, The
Village Voice, July 31, 2007,

[12] NIST, Safer Buildings Are Goal of New Code Changes Based on
Recommendations from NIST World Trade Center Investigation, October 1,
2008, http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc_100108.cfm

[13] National Institute of Standards and Technology: Request for
Information, International Code Council, Docket No. 0909100442-0563-02,
January 12, 2011, http://standards.gov/upload/35_ICC.pdf

[14] The Real Deal, New York City Real Estate News, New buildings must
meet latest NYC construction code, July 01, 2009,

[15] 2008 New York City Building Code, section 909.4.2 Temperature
Effect of Fire, section 1704.11.5

[16] NIST NCSTAR 1-6A, p 45

[17] 2008 New York City Building Code, section 909.4.2 Temperature
Effect of Fire, section 909.4.2

[18] 1968 New York City Building Code, Article 2: Fire protection test

[19] Status of NIST’s Recommendations Following the Federal Building and
Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, NIST WTC website,
August 8, 2011,

[20] Building design and Construction (Staff), NIST WTC recommendations
finally adopted in the model building codes, August 11, 2011,

Kevin R. Ryan began to investigate the tragedy of September 11th, 2001
through his work as Site Manager for a division of Underwriters
Laboratories (UL). He was fired by UL in 2004 for writing to the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), asking about its
World Trade Center investigation and UL’s work to ensure the fire
resistance of the buildings. He now serves as co-editor of the Journal
of 9/11 Studies, and is a former board director at Architects and
Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Ryan has co-authored several books and
peer-reviewed scientific articles on the subject. Read more articles by
Kevin Ryan.

No comments:

Post a Comment