Author's note in 2021: This 'Book' was assembled sometime between 2012 and 2014. I haven't edited it since then except for very minor things. I haven't needed to change much as the original information is still accurate 20 years after the collapses.

A 20 year review of this information is available elsewhere in this website.

PREFACE

THESIS STATED

There is no fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses. This is verifiably true beyond doubt. The true collapse modes of the Twin Towers are not accurately determined within any academic, professional or government literature.

Direct measurements and observations extracted from the visual record of the collapses grossly contradict the written history of those events as it is generally presented. In the course of research the author was able to collect a record of movement and behavior of all 3 collapsed buildings that was verifiably superior to and grossly contradicted the record provided by U.S. Government agencies. The author corresponded with other independent researchers who provided measurements and documented observables on a level far more intricate than that which previously existed. This book and the accompanying website are a compilation of that collected data.

Even so, the thesis deals with the curious situation in which there is no accurate technical history of the WTC collapses available but many people believe or assume one exists. They simply assume their written history is accurate. At the heart of such an argument is the question, "What is knowable and verifiable about the collapses?"

It is commonly believed that some process called "scientific examination" had taken place and groups of experts have concluded how the towers fell.

It is believed that experts have reached conclusions by taking the available evidence as far as it can go, verifying claims directly when possible, and some type of accurate professional and academic consensus had been reached about how and why the towers collapsed the way they did.

It is commonly believed that the result of this consensus currently represents our most complete and in depth knowledge on the collapses to date and that the information which comprises history as it is most currently portrayed is worthy of teaching future generations for their benefit.

Within this book the author proves, in a way that can be cross-checked and verified by the reader, that none of these beliefs are correct.

LAYOUT OF BOOK

The book is presented in 7 parts

1: Science vs Subjective Viewpoints
2: Toward an Accurate Collapse History
3: WTC Collapses Misrepresented
4: How Scientific Institutions Can Be Blind To Contradiction
5: Reassessing the Question of Demolition
6: WTC Collapse Records Studied as Meme Replication
7: Conclusions

In part 1, the main intention of giving a brief overview of science is to clearly show that accurate science requires a conformity to measurables and observables. A theory within physics is only as good as it matches all observables and measurables (experiments and observations) A physical theory or a model of a physical mechanism is well expressed in a statement made by Albert Einstein and sometimes referred to as "Einstein's Razor":

"The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."¹

This expresses the simple need to conform to observables and measurables. Any model can be challenged when it ceases to match observables of the object or process being modelled.

David Bohm, widely considered to be one of the best quantum physicists of all time, describes another purpose of physical theories:

"A theory is to make you understand what is going on, to make it (the process under study) intelligible."²

This book demonstrates that the public was never offered a coherent, intelligible explanation for the World Trade Center building collapses.

In part 2 measurables and observables are carefully extracted from the visual record and assembled as technical records of the collapse processes. These descriptions of movement and behavior are provably the most accurate records of building deformity, collapse initiation, collapse progression and rubble distributions available within the public domain.

Interestingly, these mappings exist only because independent researchers constructed them. Without independent research and researchers, no accurate collapse record would exist at all. It would not even be possible to know that no accurate collapse record exists. In fact, in part 6 it is shown that without the efforts of independent researchers nobody would have any accurate basis by which to judge the appearances of the collapses at all.

In part 3 a simple but powerful system of fact-checking is introduced in which the measurables and observables extracted directly from the visual record and compared with various claims of how and why the WTC towers collapsed. It is found that the technical record which is commonly accepted is laden with mistakes and omissions which are easily recognizable when carefully compared directly to the visual record of the collapses themselves. The formulations of these descriptions within the official history seem to have nothing to do with anything that can be called a scientific method of verification as they deviate from measurables and observable features at random.

Even though the visual record is publicly available, very, very few people made efforts to accurately cross-check claims by using careful observation and measurement. The current technical histories of each collapse are basically overly-simplified cartoon caricatures of the collapses themselves and do not reflect accurate behavior or movement of any of the 3 collapsed towers. Parts 2 and 3 demonstrate that there is a verifiable series of gaping contradictions between the extant visual record of the WTC collapses and claims within current government, academic and professional literature. For readers that do not recognize these contradictions to exist, there is little reason or motivation to re-examine the collapses directly through ones own effort, using ones own eyes. The book as a whole is written in a way that helps destroy any belief one may have in "experts" or authority consensus with respect to the collapses. The purpose of part 2 is both to educate and to destroy the most common illusions being held by so many people, illusions that are defended with fierce passion. These common illusions form a type of surrogate history and the basis of a false, artificially narrowed "debate" taking place between perceived "experts".

Part 4 addresses how existing scientific institutions such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) can be so blind to contradiction. After all, how is it possible that a small number of independent researchers were able to spot so many features of the visible collapse processes that the NIST overlooked or described incorrectly?

The mere suggestion that this is not only possible, but it actually occurred, is simply too much for some people, both scientist and layman, to accept as true. The fact that it did happen challenges the world views of some people to such extremes that they cannot bring themselves to accept it as a reality.

But it is not so strange if one takes the time to understand what science really is and what it is not and how science is actually applied within our existing institutions of government, university and laboratory. Within part 1 of this book the author offers a brief overview of what science is and what it is not. Within part 4 the issue is readdressed in light of the information presented parts 2 and 3.

Within part 6 the general representations of the collapses within popular media one decade after the events are examined . It is found, not surprisingly, that journalists are helpless to fact-check technical claims and simply report (repeat) what they perceive to be expert opinions. Journalists merely echo technical claims from what they perceive to be the most authoritative opinion on the subject. These reverberations of the echoing process through self proclaimed experts and media articles give the illusory impression of verification and confirmation. But in reality, it is just a repeating echo originating from a single source. The thesis is tested by looking at the information available to the average person and to academic researchers over 1 decade after the collapses.

One of the many consequences of there being no accurate technical description or history of the collapses is that there is an information vacuum right in the middle of the events of 9-11-01. There is a gaping void of verifiable, correct information regarding each collapse and people fill that gap of information in various ways.

FOR WHOM IS THIS BOOK WRITTEN?

In his book "Relativity", Albert Einstein attempted to explain a complex technical subject (relativity) "in terms that anybody can understand". This is also the aim of the present book; to explain some physically complex subjects in a way that is accessible to the average reader. What Einstein wrote in his preface about his own book seems equally applicable in this one and is reproduced below:

"The work presumes a standard of education corresponding to that of a university matriculation examination, and, despite the shortness of the book, a fair amount of patience and force of will on the part of the reader. The author has spared himself no pains in the endeavour to present the main ideas in the simplest and most intelligible form, and on the whole, in the sequence and connection in which they actually originated. In the interest of clearness, it appeared to me inevitable that I should repeat myself frequently, without paying the slightest attention to the elegance of the presentation. I adhered scrupulously to the precept of that brilliant theoretical physicist L. Boltzmann, according to whom matters of elegance ought to be left to the tailor and the cobbler. I make no pretence of having withheld from the reader difficulties which are inherent in the subject. On the other hand, I have purposely treated the empirical foundations of the theory in a "step-motherly" fashion, so that readers unfamiliar with physics may not feel like the wanderer who was unable to see the forest through the trees. May the book bring some one a few happy hours of suggestive thought!"³

The present book is also short and is written to express a set of observations clearly. The author also adheres to the same principle of L. Boltzmann concerning elegance. The author also makes no pretence of withholding difficulties which are inherent in a complex technical subject. Even so, every effort possible was made to present the collapse mechanics of all 3 WTC towers in a way that is accessible to readers unfamiliar with physics since this is their history, too, and they have a right to have access to accurate representations of it. I have treated the explanation of collapse mechanics in a similar "step-motherly" fashion, so that readers unfamilar with technical arguments can have access to an accurate technical history of the WTC collapses.

Professional engineers and scientists have had opportunities to provide the public with an accurate history of the collapse progressions and collapse initiations of all 3 WTC towers for over a decade and have, quite frankly, failed. This work is the result of efforts made by a very small number of independent researchers to correct the historic record.

This work is focused toward those who realize that claims, models and theories that do not center on the need for accuracy are a waste of time. May the book bring the reader a few hours of suggestive thought and may it help form the basis of a realistic and verifiable technical history of the World Trade Center collapses, as opposed to that which currently exists within the public record.

On to part 1:

1: Science vs Subjective Viewpoints

_______________________________________

1 Einstein

2 Bohm, from video interview shown in part 1,

3 Einstein, Relativity, an explanation that anybody can understand

br/>