Propping Up the War on Terror
Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
March 28, 2006
"Already there is near-consensus as to the sequence of events that led
to the collapse of the World Trade Center."--Shankar Nair, as quoted in the
Chicago Tribune, September 19, 2001
Turn on C-Span, or "Meet The Press," or any other media program presenting federal
officials. Whatever the issue, it always comes back to the same thing. Our government
really has nothing else to offer us but protection from another 9/11. It uses
this painful story to cut public services, eliminate our basic rights, and plunder
the national coffers. But for many of us, it is not entirely clear from whom
we most need protection.1 As our debt explodes and our freedoms diminish, it
would be wise to maintain focus on the origins of our War on Terror. No matter
where this war leads us, we will need to keep the beginning in mind if we ever
hope to see an end.
The Point of Origin: The Collapse of the WTC
Many have found that the 9/11 Commission not only failed to help us understand
what happened; it also omitted or distorted most of the facts.2 But if we really
want to zero in on the exact turning point around which we plunged into chaos,
we need to focus in particular on the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.
This is where our hearts were wrenched and our minds were made ready for never-ending
war, torture, and apparently the end of everything that was American. If we
are ever to emerge from this insanity, we need to know how three tall buildings
collapsed due to fire, all on the same day, when no such thing has ever happened
The Twin Towers and Why They Fell
It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers in terms
of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the American Society
of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the buildings to
be "the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills
and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that "the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity
to resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of special
high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns were designed with
tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on these columns can be increased
more than 2,000% before failure occurs."4
One would expect that any explanation for the destruction of such buildings
would need to be very solid as well. Four years after 9/11, the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) finally did give us their version of "why
and how" two of the buildings collapsed, but its explanation may be even less
effective than the 9/11 Commission report.5 Now that the official story has
been given, however, we can see just how weak and ill-defined our basis for
this War on Terror has been all along. Additionally, we can track the evolution
of official comments about collapse and see who was involved.
Selling the Official Story: Some Key Players
Shankar Nair, whose statement quoted above is quite telling, was one of those
"experts" on whom the government depended to support what turned out to be an
ever-changing, but always flimsy, story. Many of the scientists involved in
the investigation were asked to examine ancillary issues, like escape routes
and other emergency response factors. But those few who attempted to explain
what really needed explaining, the unique events of fire-induced collapse, appear
to have engaged in what can only be called anti-science. That is, they started
with their conclusions and worked backward to some "leading hypotheses."
Not surprisingly, many of the contractors who contributed to the NIST investigation,
like the company for which Nair works, just happen to depend on good relationships
with the government in order to earn their living. What may be a surprise is
just how lucrative these relationships can be. For example, Nair's company,
Teng & Associates, boasts of Indefinite Quantity Contracts, long-term relationships
with federal government agencies, and federal projects worth in excess of $40
Others who worked so hard to maintain the official story included Gene Corley,
a concrete construction expert listed by the National Directory of Expert Witnesses
as a source for litigation testimony.7 Corley was more than just a witness,
however. He had led the Oklahoma City bombing investigation and then was asked
to lead the initial ASCE investigation into the WTC disaster. Perhaps someone
else, with less experience in bombings and more experience in fires, would have
been a better choice. But without authority to save samples or even obtain blueprints,
the ASCE investigation was ineffective anyway. Corley himself ended up being
a very versatile resource, however, providing testimony supporting the pre-determined
conclusions many times, and even posing as a reporter during an NIST media session.8
There was really no need for phony media coverage. As with The 9/11 Commission
Report and the lead-up to the Iraq War, the major media simply parroted any
explanations, or non-explanations, given in support of the official story. One
example is from a television program called "The Anatomy of September 11th,"
which aired on the History Channel. Corley took the lead on this one as well,
but James Glanz, a New York Times reporter, was also interviewed and helped
to spread what is probably the worst excuse for collapse given. He told us that
the fires heated the steel columns so much (the video suggested 2500 F) that
they were turned into "licorice." Other self-proclaimed experts have been heard
promoting similar theories.9 They will probably come to regret it.
This is because the results of physical tests performed by NIST's own Frank
Gayle proved this theory to be a ridiculous exaggeration, as some people already
knew. The temperatures seen by the few steel samples saved, only about 500 F,
were far too low to soften, let alone melt, even un-fireproofed steel. Of course
that result could have been calculated, knowing that 4,000 gallons of jet fuel10 ---not 24,000 gallons or 10,000 gallons, as some reports have claimed---were
sprayed into an open-air environment over several floors, each comprised of
more than 1,000 metric tons of concrete and steel.
Another expert who served on NIST's advisory committee was Charles Thornton,
of the engineering firm Thornton and Tomasetti. Thornton's partner, Richard
Tomasetti, was reported to be behind the unprecedented and widely criticized
decision to destroy most of the steel evidence.11 Early on Thornton said: "Karl,
we all know what caused the collapse." He was talking to Karl Koch, whose company
erected the WTC steel. Koch attempted to clarify as follows. "I could see it
in my mind's eye: The fire burned until the steel was weakened and the floors
above collapsed, starting a chain reaction of gravity, floor falling upon floor
upon floor, clunk – clunk – clunk, the load gaining weight and momentum
by the nanosecond, unstoppable. Once enough floors collapsed, the exterior walls
and the core columns were no longer laterally supported and folded in."12 This
is a description of what was called the Pancake Theory, the most widely accepted
version of what happened.
The Pancake Theory was promoted by an influential 2002 NOVA video called "Why
the Towers Fell," in which Corley (yet again) and Thornton were the primary
commentators. Both of them talked about the floors collapsing, and Thornton
described how the perimeter columns buckled outward, not inward as Koch had
described. The video made a number of false claims, including exaggeration of
the temperatures (2000 F), remarks about melting steel, and the incredible statement
that two-thirds of the columns in WTC1 (the North Tower) were completely severed.
NIST's report now indicates that only about 14% of the columns in WTC1 were
severed, and in some photos we can count most of these for ourselves.13
NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing
models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous
expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its
October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors
did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly
stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The results established
that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without
collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the
fires in any given location on September 11th."15
At the time of the floor tests, I worked for Underwriters Laboratories (UL).
I was very interested in the progress of these tests, having already asked some
sensitive questions. My interest began when UL's CEO, Loring Knoblauch, a very
experienced executive with a law degree from Harvard, surprised us at the company's
South Bend location, just a few weeks after 9/11, by saying that UL had certified
the steel used in the WTC buildings. Knoblauch told us that we should all be
proud that the buildings had stood for so long under such intense conditions.
In retrospect it is clear that all of us, including Knoblauch, were ignorant
of many important facts surrounding 9/11 and did not, therefore, see his statements
as particularly important.
Over the next two years, however, I learned more about the issues, like the
unprecedented destruction of the steel evidence and the fact that no tall steel-frame
buildings have ever collapsed due to fire. And I saw video of the owner of the
buildings, stating publicly that he and the fire department made the decision
to "pull"---that is, to demolish---WTC7 that day,16 even though demolition requires
many weeks of planning and preparation. Perhaps most compelling for me were
the words of a genuine expert on the WTC. This was John Skilling, the structural
engineer responsible for designing the towers.17 (The NOVA video, incidentally,
gave this credit to Leslie Robertson. But Robertson, who never claimed to have
originated the design, was only a junior member of the firm [Worthington, Skilling,
Helle and Jackson], and Skilling was known at the time to be the engineer in
charge.) In 1993, five years before his death, Skilling said that he had performed
an analysis on jet plane crashes and the ensuing fires and that "the building
structure would still be there."18
By 2003, all of this information was available to anyone who cared. The details
were, without a doubt, difficult to reconcile with testimony from officials,
reporters, and scientists who were supporting the official story. But in November
of that year, I felt that answers from UL were needed. If, as our CEO had suggested,
our company had tested samples of steel components and listed the results in
the UL Fire Resistance Directory almost forty years ago, Mr. Skilling would
have depended on these results to ensure that the buildings were sufficiently
fire resistant. So I sent a formal written message to our chief executive, outlining
my thoughts and asking what he was doing to protect our reputation.
Knoblauch's written response contained several points. He wrote: "We test to
the code requirements, and the steel clearly met those requirements and exceeded
them." He pointed to the NYC code used at the time of the WTC construction,
which required fire resistance times of 3 hours for building columns, and 2
hours for floors. From the start, his answers were not helping to explain fire-induced
collapse in 56 minutes (the time it took WTC2, the South Tower, to come down).
But he did give a better explanation of UL's involvement in testing the WTC
steel, even talking about the quality of the sample and how well it did. "We
tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on," he wrote, "and it did
This response was copied to several UL executives, including Tom Chapin, the
manager of UL's Fire Protection division. Chapin reminded me that UL was the
"leader in fire research testing," but he clearly did not want to make any commitments
on the issue. He talked about the floor assemblies, how these had not been UL
tested, and he made the misleading claim that UL does not certify structural
steel. But even an introductory textbook lists UL as one of the few important
organizations supporting codes and specifications because they "produce a Fire
Resistance Index with hourly ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls
and partitions tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119."20 He went on to
clarify that UL tests assemblies of which steel is a component. This is a bit
like saying "we don't crash test the car door, we crash test the whole car."
In any case, Chapin suggested that we be patient and wait for the report from
NIST, because the investigation into the "collapse of WTC buildings 1, 2, and
7" was an ongoing process and that "UL is right in the middle of these activities."21
For the most part, I did wait, although I shared my concerns with Chapin again
at UL's Leadership Summit in January 2004. I encouraged him to ask for a company
news release on our position, but this did not happen and I never heard from
him again. By the time UL tested the floor assembly models in August of that
year, I had been promoted to the top management job in my division, Environmental
Health Laboratories, overseeing all company functions. Two months later, NIST
released an official update that included the floor test results, as well as
Frank Gayle's results, in which steel temperatures were predicted. These results
clearly invalidated the major theories of collapse, because pancaking could
not occur without floor collapse and steel does not turn to licorice at the
After reviewing this update, I sent a letter directly to Dr. Gayle at NIST.
In this letter, I referred to my experiences at UL and asked for more information
on the WTC investigation and NIST's soon-to-be-published conclusions. NIST had
planned at the time to release its final report in December, with time allowed
for public comment. After I allowed my letter to become public,22 this date
was moved to January 2005, and then nothing was heard from NIST for several
Other than UL's involvement in testing the steel components, the facts I stated
had all been reported publicly, but when I put them together plainly, they were
considered outrageous. Five days after I sent my letter, I was fired by UL for
doing so. The company made a few brief statements in an attempt to discredit
me, then quickly began to make it clear that its relationship with the government,
perhaps due to its tax-exempt status, was more important than its commitment
to public safety.
For example, in spite of Tom Chapin's previous statements, UL suggested that
it had played only a "limited" role in the investigation. Despite what our CEO,
Loring Knoblauch, had written and copied to several executives, UL said there
was "no evidence" that any firm had tested the steel used in the WTC buildings.23
In doing so, UL implied that its CEO not only had fabricated this story about
testing the WTC steel but had also spoken and written about it for several years
without anyone in the company correcting him. As I see it, the only other option
was that the company claiming to be our "Public Safety Guardian" was lying to
us about the most important safety issue of our lives.
My experiences give a taste for the delicate nature of our critical turning
point. But to keep our focus, we should examine what NIST did with the results
of its physical tests, which had failed to support its conclusions. Did NIST
perform more tests, at least to prove its key argument that much of the fireproofing
on the steel in the Twin Towers popped off due to the impact of the airliners?
No, it did not. Instead, NIST put together a black box computer model that would
spit out the right answers. This black box model was driven by initial parameters
that could be tweaked. When the parameters that had initially been considered
"realistic" did not generate results that "compared to observed events," NIST
scientists performed their final analysis using another set of parameters they
called "more severe."24 When they were finished, their model produced video
graphics that would enable anyone to see the buildings collapse without having
to follow a train of logic to get there.
Tom Chapin of UL was one of those doomed to make public comments in support
of NIST's final report. His comments were innocuous enough but he did hint at
something of value. "The effect of scale of test assemblies...," Chapin said,
"requires more investigation."25 This may be the closest thing to a straightforward
statement that we will ever see from UL on the matter. But it seems clear enough
that results showing zero floor collapse, when scaled-up from the floor panels
to a few floors, would still result in zero floor collapse. Perhaps a more direct
version of Chapin's comment might be that test results negating predetermined
conclusions should not be used to prove them.
Other than the video, NIST left us with only some vague statements about a
few sagging floors suddenly destroying two hundred super-strong perimeter columns
and forty core columns. But since sagging floors do not weigh more than non-sagging
floors, it is difficult to see how this might occur, especially so uniformly.
NIST claimed the perimeter columns saw increased loads of between 0 and 25%
due to the damage, but it never reconciled this with the original claim that
these columns could resist 2000% increases in live load. And the outward-buckling
theory, suggested by Thornton, was changed again to inward buckling---apparently
the forces involved were never well defined. Additionally, NIST suggested that
the documents that would support testing of the steel components, along with
documents containing Skilling's jet-fuel-fire analysis, could not be found.26
Ultimately, NIST failed to give any explanation for the dynamics of the towers
as they fell, about how and why they dropped like rocks in free-fall. For both
buildings, NIST simply stated that "once the upper building section began to
move downwards . . ., global collapse ensued," as if just saying so was enough.27 As for WTC7, NIST as of yet has not elaborated on its "working collapse hypothesis,"
which was vaguely presented in June 2004.28 The bottom line is that, after more
than four years, it is still impossible for the government even to begin to
explain the primary events that drive this War on Terrorism.
So much has been sacrificed, and so much has been invested in this story, that
we all have a need for supportive answers. But when we look for those answers,
all our "mind's eye" can see is this smoky black box, where scientific results
are reversed to support politically correct, pre-determined conclusions. That
critical point of divergence, where our lives were turned upside down and all
logic followed, has always been too painful to imagine. But now, without expert
accounts of pancaking floors and licorice steel, it cannot be imagined at all.
Some of us remain hopeful that we can still achieve a critical mass awareness
of the need for truth, and in doing so pull the support out from under what
John McMurtry calls "the 9/11 Wars."29 But if we cannot, even as the hopes for
peace fade and the number of 9/11 families continues to grow, we should remember
how we got this story and how it was propped up despite all the evidence against
it. Because whatever happens next, after the smoke clears, our children may
have a need to know.
 Richard Heinberg, "Götterdämmerung," Museletter, No.144,
March 2004 (http://www.museletter.com/archive/144.html).
 David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions
(Northampton: Interlink Books, 2005). Griffin summarizes the omissions
and distortions in "The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie," 911 Visibility
Project, May 22, 2005 (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22-571pglie.php).
 Angus K. Gillespie, Twin Towers: The Life of New York City's World
Trade Center (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press 1999), 117.
 "How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings," Engineering
News-Record, April 2, 1964: 48-49.
 Jim Hoffman, "Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up
of the Crime of the Century," 911Research.wtc7.net, December 8, 2005 (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html).
 Website for Teng & Associates (http://www.teng.com/teng2k3/mainframe.asp).
 Website for National Directory of Expert Witnesses (http://national-experts.com/members2/witness.asp?d_memnum=07572&d_lnum=2).
 Archived webcast video of NIST press briefing, NIST News Release website,
June 23, 2005 (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_june2305.htm),
 Sheila Barter, "How the World Trade Center Fell," BBC News, September 13,
 Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), "World Trade Center
Building Performance Study," May 2005, Chapter 2.
 James Glanz and Eric Lipton, City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of
the World Trade Center (New York: Times Books, 2003), 330.
 Karl Koch III with Richard Firstman, Men of Steel: The Story of the
Family that Built the World Trade Center (New York: Crown Publishers, 2002),
 Eric Hufschmid, Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th
Attack (Goleta, Calif.: Endpoint Software, 2002), 27.
 Table of results from Underwriters Laboratories August 2004 floor model
tests, as presented by NIST in October 2004 (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P6StandardFireTestsforWeb.pdf),
 NIST, Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses
of the World Trade Center Towers(Draft) (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1draft.pdf),
 Silverstein's statement is contained in "America Rebuilds," PBS documentary,
2002 (www.pbs.org/americarebuilds). It can be viewed (www.infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV)
or heard on audio file (http://VestigialConscience.com/PullIt.mp3).
 "Structures Can Be Beautiful, World's Tallest Buildings Pose Esthetic
and Structural Challenge to John Skilling," Engineering News-Record,
April 2, 1964: 124.
 Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, 138.
 Underwriters Laboratories email correspondence, December 1, 2003.
 Samuel H. Marcus, Basics of Structural Steel (Reston, Va.: Reston
Publishing 1977), 20.
 Underwriters Laboratories email correspondence, December 1, 2003.
 Kevin Ryan, "The Collapse of the WTC," 911 Visibility Project, November
11, 2004 (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php).
 John Dobberstein, "Area Man Stirs Debate on WTC Collapse," South Bend
Tribune, November 22, 2004 (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041124095100856).
 NIST, Final Report, 196.
 Comments from Underwriters Laboratories on NIST WTC report, NIST website
 Archived webcast video of NIST press briefing, NIST News Release website,
June 23, 2005 (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_june2305.htm),
 NIST, Final Report, 197.
 NIST presentation on WTC7 collapse investigation, NIST website (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf).
 John McMurtry, "9/11 and the 9/11 Wars: Understanding the Supreme Crimes."
In David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, eds., 9/11 and the American Empire:
Intellectuals Speak Out (Northampton: Interlink Books, 2006). My present
essay will also appear in this volume.