Tower exploding, for Donald E. Stahl review by EMW Evolution of the 9/11 Controversy: From Conspiracy Theories to Conspiracy Photographs
Presented to the American Mensa Annual Gathering, Louisville, KY, July 3, 2015, by Donald E. Stahl

Review by Elizabeth Woodworth, co-founder,


This may well become recognized as a landmark article in the literature of 9/11.

Stahl places 9/11, “a story too big to cover” in the evolving context of Eisenhower’s “military industrial complex,” which has now grown into the “military-industrial-media-academic complex: MIMAC.”

The media has for some decades abandoned its traditional surveillance post by failing to question evidence of government conspiracies. Now academia has joined the media.

The academy has been so silent on the issue of 9/11 that those labeled “conspiracy theorists” may now be “considered more traditionally academic than the academicians.”

The result is that “conspiracists” (or “conspiracy theorists”) overwhelmingly talk about the issues, while conventionalists (or “coincidence theorists”) talk about those who talk about the issues; that is, they “report holders of beliefs and omit the reasons they hold them.”

Although both the government’s account and the accounts that deny it stipulate a conspiracy, it is only the side that thinks ill of the government that is branded a “conspiracy theorist” — as if it were a thoughtcrime needing to be criminalized by the government, as suggested by Cass Sunstein.

As the epitome of the disagreement, Stahl selects the contention that the Twin Towers were blown up or exploded (for which the government denies all evidence), versus the official account that they collapsed.

The spreadsheets and computer simulations backing the NIST Report of the “collapses” were afforded secrecy by new legislation (October 1, 2002) just as NIST was starting its investigation. The Director could withhold them if “public safety” was threatened.

Yet the stated purpose of the Report was to study “improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used.”

Asks Stahl: “If facts about building construction could jeopardize public safety, wouldn’t they be dangerous only if they weren’t known? Why keep them secret from the building industry?”

The secret computer simulations modeled only the narrowly defined collapse initiations and not the collapses themselves. Stahl ridicules as unhinged an examination that analyses a cause without studying its effects, asking, “How do you determine the cause of an event, if you do not look at the event?”

Then he moves towards sanity by simply looking at what visibly happened: the photographic evidence of the actual collapses deemed so irrelevant by NIST.

The photographs of the explosions are extraordinary. In this section Stahl decimates NIST’s artful use of the word “collapse” – which means something that loses integrity internally, contracts, and falls down — while pointing to photographs of the massive skyward ejections of beams, aluminum cladding and roiling clouds of dust that did anything but contract.

The obvious stares you in the face: “Collapses are down and in, and explosions are up and out.”

“Has there ever before been anything like this on Earth?” Stahl asks in reference to one of the photographs. “A skyscraper has turned into a dust fountain. This dust is not obscuring a building behind it. When it blows away, there is no building there. The dust is the building.”

It’s a crystal clear open-and-shut demonstration of how brazenly (and stupidly) NIST lied. But these lies cannot be subjected to legal discovery or FOIA requests. Their secret components may be released only at the discretion of one person (NIST’S Director).

This is outrageous, given that NIST is not in any way a security agency. It is a standards agency for the safety of public structures. The media, and indeed academia, should have been all over this fraudulent behavior from day one.

It’s not too late. Does a compelling and thoroughly documented presentation to a Mensa annual gathering qualify as being newsworthy?


Comments are closed.