Theater of Cruelty

Let's stick to science when it comes to 9/11, not conspiracies

Unfortunately, there was more focus on the "problem of conspiracy theorists" than the discussion of facts and scientific arguments after Ny Tid's 9/11 article in September.


I am a mechanical engineer with 46 years of experience. Before I moved to Norway 17 years ago, I held management positions in a major oil company. I am a member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE), an international organization with over 120 members from around the world, and I was recently elected chairman of IMechE's Scandinavian division.

Ignorance vs. knowledge quest. I was amazed at the hysteria in September around Ny Tid's publication of an article questioning the official account of the collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC7). In the comments I read, the focus was rather on blackening Ny Tid's editor and article writer as "conspiracy theorists" rather than analyzing and discussing facts and arguments.

The website claimed to fact – check the Ny Tid article by strangely picking out a few arguments that were rejected. Thus, they ignored most of the empirical evidence the article was about.

Over 2 architects and engineers have signed the request from Architects & Engineers for 900/9 Truth to the United States Congress.

The most disappointing, however, was Class Fight's editor Bjørgulv Braanen's assessment of the official report prepared by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the collapse of WTC7, as "thorough and solid" in the Class Fight's leader on 19. September this year.

I don't know if Braanen has read NIST's actual report on WTC7, but everything he wrote about the collapse seems to be taken from the article in Popular Mechanics in 2008 which he also referred to. The said article is based on a press release from NIST in 2008, and was republished 1. August 2017.

I would argue that the NIST report on WTC7 is anything but "thorough and solid". It is based at best on selective empirical data and is based on analyzes that NIST refuses to release.

However, the most disappointing was Klassekampen's editor Bjørgulv Braanen's assessment of the official report.

The explanation that a local failure caused by floor joists that expanded due to heat should have led to the symmetrical free fall collapse of the entire structure is so unlikely that it would require a staggering amount of empiricism to be considered plausible at all. There are also no examples of similar occurrences with other buildings of similar steel construction. NIST has not provided any empirical material of any kind. Instead, they have made allegations about what happened, based on computer models / simulations they do not want to publish or share with expert experts on building structures.

A new study to be completed in November 2017, funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is now being conducted by researchers at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. The original drawings of the buildings are used here. This study gives engineers and researchers the opportunity to use the latest modeling and simulation programs (SAP2000 and Abacus) for structural analysis, and together with data power that was not available in 2008, the conclusions of the NIST report can be followed. One month ago, project manager Dr. Leroy Hulsey presented the preliminary findings.

Hypotheses vs. empiricism. According to Hulsey, with multiple results, the first step in the scenario is the NIST report makes, not just unlikely – it's impossible. The local fires did not produce enough heat for the floor joists to have expanded enough to push the beam out of position. And even though they had expanded so much, the support beam would have been prevented from coming out of position by two structural components shown in the drawings: First, the support beam would be stuck behind a side plate on the adjacent pillar. Second, it would not have been so distorted that it would have been pushed out of position due to a strut in the structure. It seems that NIST overlooked the effect of the sideplate, and it is also known, from NIST's own statement, that the strut was omitted from their model.

When looking at how the whole building behaved, it is clear that the NIST model is unable to reproduce the collapse in question with sudden, almost symmetrical failure and free fall acceleration right down on its own foundation wall. The figure below shows, according to the NIST model, the state of the WTC7 after all the columns had yielded and the whole building began to collapse. Despite NIST's attempt to reproduce the observed collapse, what we see in their drawings is a large-scale deformation of the building's exterior – which cannot be seen in any of the film footage of WTC7 as raging. If the NIST model had been correct, such a deformation would be expected; the lack of this suggests that there was another mechanism behind the collapse.

The second phase of work currently underway at the University of Alaska will consider alternative fall mechanisms that fit with the observed collapse. It seems likely that the only way the collapse could have taken place is that all the columns in the building were destroyed at the same time.

A study is now being carried out at the University of Alaska, the Fairbanks building's original drawings and the latest simulation programs are used in the work.

Another aspect of the collapse of WTC7, which is difficult to explain from the hypothesis of fire as a cause, is that the building fell in absolute free fall for the first 2,25 seconds of the visible fall. The free fall acceleration of the WTC7 is shown in the image below, which was created by physics teacher David Chandler based on the footage of the incident. In addition, WTC7 went from standing still to a momentary and consistently free fall – which in turn indicates that the building's pillars were destroyed more or less simultaneously.

Last but not least: NIST claims that explosives can be ruled out as a hypothesis because no one heard explosions. But there are explosives available that have a low noise level and can cut steel quickly. There are also footage of several explosions just before the WTC7 collapse. We should also not forget that a renowned demolition expert, Danny Jovenko, was in no doubt that this was a routine demolition job when he saw footage of the collapse.

Back to Braanens leader. The class struggle editor should be honored for explaining his thought process. The reason he is unwilling to consider the possibility that WTC7 may have been destroyed by controlled demolition is – as he himself puts it – that it would mean that the world's largest conspiracy theory is true.

NIST has put forward a theory that is politically convenient, and which is not scientifically held when applied to the seams.

My concern is not to suggest whether a conspiracy theory is true or not. On a professional basis, I believe there is something that does not match NIST's technical explanation of how the WTC7 collapsed and what is visually documented. It is almost in an engineer's DNA to understand how things interrelate, influence each other and interact. From available sources, it is seen that WTC7 falls like a house of cards, while the expectation of how a steel structure will behave is more like that of a lego house. There is something disturbing about not being able to check information and facts in the seams without being branded as a conspirator.

Focus on the facts. Let us now end the emotional debate about conspiracies and rather use the energy to find out what are verifiable facts regarding the fall of WTC7. The Alaska Report will be published in November, and unlike the NIST study, it will be peer reviewed and all aspects can be reviewed by anyone who wishes. My strong call now is not to suppress fact-based disagreement.

In fact plain craftsmanship
Obviously 9/11 was an explosion
The new positivism
The new 


David Llewlyn
David Llewlyn
Llewelyn is the head of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers' Scandinavian department. See also

You may also like