











Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues:

"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"

Mills M. Kay Mackey, structural engineer, of Denver, Colorado, points out:

"The force from the jets and the burning fuel could not have been sufficient to make the building collapse. Why doesn't the media mention that the 11th floor was completely immolated on February 13th, 1975? It had the weight of nearly 100 stories on top of it but it did not collapse?"

Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer and architect (ret.)


Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer


There are many other structural engineers who have questioned the government's account in private. We support them and wish them courage to discuss these vital issues publicly.

See also this.

Public relations emergency

Question: What is the best way to awaken our rational but ignorant friends?

Answer: With well-rehearsed, brief statements of fact that will engage and convince the average informed person.

Examples of convincing topics:
- The official account of 9/11. Many do not even know the basic facts of the official story, or even that three buildings were destroyed. Stress that seven "highjackers" were likely alive and well after 9/11. Focus on other glaring inconsistencies.
- Members of the establishment who challenge the official version. Associated websites such as architects/engineers, Patriots, Pilots, Scholars for truth/justice.
- basic physics, primarily that a simple collapse theory (say "simple collapse") does not add up as the pile driver can't fall at gravity rate and do the work of pulverizing and squashing steel at the same time. Say "physical impossibility".
- many historical precedents: say Gulf of Tonkin declassified, and many others. Leave it at that.

Examples of unconvincing topics:
-true as these may be, the following topics are credibility killers for our gentle rational friends.
- prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor
- Kennedy assasination
- NORAD stand down. (Nobody understands the intricacies of how NORAD works. Who are you to say what should or should not have happened?)
- Put options, for the same reason

I have no time to delve more deeply. Let's work together to generate a list of prime subjects and "elevator pitches" for each. Let's not waste time on heavily detailed (no matter how convincing) topics that our yet-to-awaken friends will come to later. This is an all-out public relations emergency from now until November. After that, who knows what the dynamic will be? Now there is momentum; there is no gurantee for the future.

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Play dumb

I like using happenings like the Jesse Ventura thing to ease people into the subject.

" did you see that Ventura interview on FOX?"

"Kinda wacked out stuff..... until I started to look into some of his claims"

"There are several websites dedicated to this stuff"

"I was researching it and found a film thats pretty interesting.... Loose Change"

Hit a couple key points then leave it at that.... works 90% of the time
Together in Truth!

Gentle approach works best

I have noticed a lot people can't have it forced down their throats, especially if the person delivering this bad news comes across as a "Expert" or knows secret knowledge. The above poster has the right idea, innocuously infect them with a bit of the truth and play coy.

I have used that Ventura idea several times over my CB radio (I'm a truck driver with my own rolling radio show, LOL) and it gets a lot of discussion, especially when I'm near truck stops.


You have a great depth and understanding of what's going on.

I read your post / comments some time ago detailing whats wrong with the country.

There was a whole list that was JUST EXCELLENT.

From the Patriot Act to the Iraq War etc.

I cannot find the link, hope you will blog on it.


I'm not shure I agree on the put options,

they are fairly easy to explain, not as long ago as
pearl harbor or the Kennedy assasination
and a good indication of for-knowledge.

But maybe that is already too much for a newcomer?
For-knowledge implies a "conspiracy" right away so,
yes maybe it is better to focus only on other things and let people
come to the conclusion of "conspiracy" on their own.

Norad Stand Down

Andrews AFB 10 miles from the Pentagon.

Kennedy Assasination.

Operation Northwoods

War Games.

Vigilant Guardian

Able Danger


Put Options

Ask Dennis Kucinich.

Have used personally many times to wake up people.

So sorry, cannot agree with you.

OKC 1995.

WTC 1993.

All relevant.

Those who still choose to sleep........


Assess realistically what works for you

Part of the key may be to talk about what you're good at talking about. That means:

1) You understand this area well, and can defend it well against common criticisms; and

2) You know how to explain it clearly and concisely. If it takes you ten minutes to explain put options, and people are still confused about what they even mean, put options aren't the way you should go. Conversely, if you can explain them in under five minutes, and most listeners come aways with a sense of revelation, and you can clearly contrast normal phenomenon in the put options market from highly irregular phenomenon there, then put options is the way to go.

If you have a listener with special knowledge, you may be able to use that. Is he or she an engineer? An architect? A sophisticated investor? A physicist? A chemist? If you don't know the subjects yourselves, you may want at least to have on hand some provocative facts and some appropriate websites (you could even have a card listing some good websites, then mark the ones that bear on the listener's expertise as you hand it over).

Great list. Some suggestions:

I would put the names in boldface. Also, I'd put everyone's name at the beginning of the entry. Some are now enclosed in brackets in mid-paragraph.

Of sourse those are

Of sourse those are fantastic topics, but I would not lead with most of them. I'm trying to awaken one person each week, and that requires highly convincing sound bites that fly under average person's nutcase radar. If there is any hint that you are a fruitcake then its over. I cling to a handful of topics that are maximally effective and run a low risk of offending. Remember what it was like when you first awakened; it was a lot to take.

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Great start...

The awakening and support of structural engineers will be key to our cause.

I think this is an excellent post on the one hand but also a sad one in that among thousands of practicing structural engineers in this country and others, only 14 have publicly supported 9/11 truth.

GW - to your knowledge, are there any structural engineers that publicly support the OCT?

I can't believe the remaining SEs are agnostic on this topic.

I think we should try to educate structural engineers AND demolitions experts and then publically poll them.


Postscript: Since writing this list, I have found other structural engineers who challenge the government's version of 9/11. For example:

David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland, argues:

"Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . ."

Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California, states

"I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.

Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.

Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse.

For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures."

See this website and this website for further additions.


See also this.


You'll add them to the page, I assume?

Some more

Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona, writes:

" We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor bellow.

We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.

The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from ?"

David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California

and more

Terral Lee Croft, General Contractor, Demolition Supervisor:

"WTC-7 was built using Compartmentalization of all supporting columns, beams and girders using solid concrete slabs (horizontal) and curtain walls (vertical), which disqualifies 'fire' from being the cause of this collapse. The columns were encased in gypsum wallboard and/or coated with 3-hour 'spray on' protective insulation. Typical building fires burn at around 800 degrees, but the red iron in WTC-7 requires 2800 degrees to begin melting. There is no way 'all' of the steel supports were severed by any fire in just a few hours, unless controlled demolition was carefully planned and executed by demolition specialists."

Demolition and construction experts question collapse

Arkadiusz Jadczyk, professor of mathematical physics, Institute of Mathematics of Toulouse, University Paul Sabatier, Toulouse:

"Progressive collapse indeed – of Science."

Keith Seffen’s WTC Collapse Folly: Not Even Wrong