Public outreach for the 9/11 Truth Action Project (911TAP) is all about getting people to "take the next step" in their 9/11 knowledge and action. If they don't know the 9/11 evidence, we teach it to them -- some of it. If they do know the evidence but haven't signed the 911TAP petition yet, then we ask them to sign it. If they have signed the petition, we ask them to do more, by volunteering with us or perhaps becoming a financial supporter. This article is about the first step: teaching 9/11 evidence to people who don't already know it.
Out among the public, people come and go very quickly. If your delivery is not tight and compelling, then your conversations will be short and unproductive. We call what we're doing out there, "Five Minute Outreach." It has three elements: (1) getting people to stop and listen to you in the first place, (2) making your argument, and (3) finishing the conversation off in a productive fashion. This article is about part (2) for people who don't know the 9/11 evidence -- "Five Minute Evidence" for short.
This article presents an overview of evidence delivery using an example. It is however, a good example, a preferred example actually, with the following features:
- It is intuitive in its explanations of technical evidence that the general public can easily grasp.
- It is bullet proof, giving us confidence that we can win any argument over this evidence.
- It is simple, making it easy to learn, easy to explain, and easy to defend.
- It employs a "soft touch" approach that recognizes and addresses the effects of modern-day commercial advertising and government/media propaganda.
- It is supported by the current 911TAP brochure. The brochure was designed to support it.
Backup details for the argument will be covered in follow-up articles that will be available in the coming months. Other articles to follow will fill in the other parts of Five Minute Outreach.
To be clear, these articles will not be describing some theory of 9/11 outreach. All of the techniques covered in this series have been successfully used on dozens of people in the real world. The approach described here has been used on hundreds of people. At the same time, we're not trying to be viewed as all-knowing about this. If you already have an approach for teaching the evidence that works for you, this is not meant to replace it. But if you don't have something great now, or you want to experiment, then we hope you will give this a try.
The purpose of our evidence delivery is to support the 911TAP Top-Level Goal of achieving a new, independent 9/11 investigation. The argument described here demonstrates that a new 9/11 investigation is needed, and focuses entirely on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. It goes like this:
- The collapse of Building 7 is consistent with controlled demolition.
- The collapse of Building 7 is not consistent with fire damage.
- The government's explanation for the Building 7 collapse is wrong.
- The first three bullets collectively imply that we need a new investigation.
It is straightforward to demonstrate that the first three statements are true. The fourth one ties this accomplishment to the desired conclusion, that a new investigation is needed. The fourth bullet is there to remind us that we should not take this implication for granted. But, in practice, if someone is not willing to accept the need for a new investigation when the first three statements are shown to be true, then this is probably someone we are wasting time on.
It is a good idea to show people some pictures or a video of the Building 7 collapse so they can best appreciate what you're about to tell them. The easiest way to accomplish this is to bring along some AE911Truth or 911TAP brochures, or something else you've custom-built for this purpose; if you are tabling and have a video running, even better. You can also consider running a video on your phone. An excellent source of videos, including Building 7 collapse videos, can be found at the following website:
Getting people to stop and give you their full attention can be tricky, and we will cover some techniques for doing this in future articles. Here it's assumed that you already have somebody in front of you. This person knows you want to talk about 9/11, but may be ready to write you off as a lunatic, depending on your next couple of sentences.
At this point, an excellent way to begin is to ask this simple question:
- Do you know about Building 7?
If you haven't tried this yet, you will likely be pleasantly surprised with the reactions you get. It's quite good at getting people into a state where they become very reasonable to work with. They almost always respond with:
Now, you can show off your pictures or video and fill in some important details:
- It was the third tower to come down on 9/11, at 5:20 in the afternoon
- It was a 47-story skyscraper.
- It was across the street from the North Tower.
- It was not hit by an airplane.
- It had some small office fires said to be caused by the falling North Tower.
- It is supposedly the only skyscraper to ever come down from fire.
Consistent with Controlled Demolition
While the person is looking at the pictures or video of Building 7 going down, it is a good time to introduce the topic of controlled demolition. Here are examples of some things you can say:
- When you look at the video of Building 7 going down, you swear you're looking at a controlled demolition.
- Just like those hotel demolitions in Vegas.
- Smooth descent, level roof-line almost all the way down.
- What really gives it away though, is that it came down in free fall for eight stories.
- Right from the very beginning -- it was hardly even moving and then went straight into free fall.
- The top part of the building was literally falling through air.
- The building had 82 support columns holding it up.
- To get free fall, some external force was needed to take those columns out.
- To get it to fall level, the force had to be synchronized across the building.
- This is exactly what a controlled demolition does.
Notice what we are NOT saying here. We are not saying, for example, something like: "This can ONLY be accomplished by controlled demolition." This is a good thing, as it is not necessary to prove controlled demolition in arguing for a new investigation, and we don't want to make unnecessary work for ourselves. Proving controlled demolition, like proving many things, is hard. Words such as only, prove, and proof are not words that we should be using loosely in a five minute conversation. We can quickly lose credibility if we are not immediately ready with bullet-proof arguments to justify them.
What does the word prove even mean anyway? Logicians prove things by applying inference rules to axioms and theorems to generate new theorems. Is this what we mean? In U.S. criminal trials, proving guilt requires demonstrating it "beyond a reasonable doubt," while in civil trials, only a "preponderance of evidence" is needed. What precisely is needed to prove controlled demolition of Building 7? In a five minute conversation can we explain why no other explanation is possible? What are all of the possible alternatives anyway?
Another reason for avoiding words such as only, prove, and proof is psychological. People in the U.S. are bombarded by exaggerated claims from seemingly everywhere: television commercials, political ads, Internet bombshell articles, and so on. In this environment, it is easy to dismiss somebody making strong claims without immediate strong justification. On the other hand, someone making modest claims who does bring strong justification is someone to be taken seriously. These are the people we want to be.
Argue: Consistent with controlled demolition.
Not: Proof of controlled demolition.
Just to be clear, the collapse of Building 7 is consistent with controlled demolition because it shares an essential feature in common with controlled demolitions -- its motion. More details on the fine points of this evidence and arguments, and dealing with people who are loyal to the official story, are discussed in the follow-up articles mentioned above. In the meantime, a good source for more insight into this topic is this three-part video by David Chandler:
Not Consistent with Fire Damage
The argument that the motion of Building 7 is not consistent with fire damage can be pursued in different ways:
- The claimed unprecedented collapse from fire in the historical context of thousands of skyscraper fires.
- Experimental tests of fire on skyscraper mock-ups (e.g., Cardington test in U.K.).
- The suddenness, widespread symmetry, and free fall of the collapse in response to scattered fires.
Concerning point 1, some of the things you can discuss include the following:
- There has never been a complete skyscraper collapse from fire before or after 9/11.
- There are hundreds of skyscraper fires every year.
- Many of these were a lot hotter and longer-lasting than the fire in Building 7.
Because the thousands of skyscraper fires outside of 9/11 resulted in no complete collapses, we can conclude that the complete collapse of Building 7 is not consistent with what fire alone does to skyscrapers in the real world. If someone wants to argue that the Building 7 scenario was uniquely supportive of collapse from fire, then they would need to produce evidence for this claim. They would need to demonstrate that none of the other skyscraper fires shared the feature claimed to be unique to Building 7. To date, no one has done so.
To follow up on this topic, Chapter 1 of pdf Beyond Misinformation (7.14 MB) , a 50-page booklet from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is an excellent resource for learning more about the history of skyscraper fires. The booklet is linked here:
Skyscrapers with Hot, Long-Lasting Fires that Did Not Collapse:
The following topics can be discussed regarding point 2 on experimental test results:
- Building fires have been studied in laboratory tests.
- These experiments with real fire on real steel don't show collapses either.
- They just show slow asymmetric deformations and sagging.
- This is nothing like the sudden, symmetric, global destruction of Building 7.
The behavior of Building 7 is inconsistent on three counts with these exercises of real fire on real steel. For one, the motion of Building 7 was sudden, whereas the motion was slow in the test buildings. The global motion of Building 7 distinguishes it from the localized movement in the test buildings. Finally, the breakage and destruction of Building 7 is in great contrast to the mere deformation and sagging experienced by the test buildings.
Table 1 of Beyond Misinformation (linked above) has some details on fire tests performed in the U.K. The booklet also provides a detailed comparison of skyscraper characteristics under controlled demolition and under damage by fire. The motion of Building 7 fits squarely on the controlled demolition side.
Finally, if you feel inclined to do so, you can pursue the following question:
- How did multiple columns of Building 7 suddenly enter free fall at the same time?
- How did they instantly change their behavior from that of steel to that of air?
- The columns were almost certainly not at the same temperature.
- Some columns were in areas where the fire had burned out, and were cooling off.
- Some columns were heating up.
- And some columns were never touched by fire.
- How did they all behave in exactly the same way?
Perhaps it is overkill to pursue this discussion in light of above, however, it is an argument that has gotten a positive reaction where we have used it. It is a simple appeal to the good common sense of the open-minded people we meet on the street.
The Government Explanation is Wrong
Many good, critical-thinking people will not be convinced by the evidence and arguments put forward so far. In their minds there is still the possibility that the U.S. government investigations have already accounted for this evidence and arguments. They might say that, if only we had looked more carefully ourselves, our concerns would have been satisfied by the government reports. We need to be able to convince them why this is not so.
The following discussion is a technical discussion, but one that can be understood by anyone who knows the difference between air and steel. You can begin it with something like this:
- The government did not perform a standard fire investigation.
- They based everything on a computer model of the building and its fires.
Now, what do we mean by a "standard fire investigation"? There is, in fact, a national standard for investigating building fires. It is produced by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and it's designated NFPA-921. We will discuss more details of this standard in a future article, but for a head start you can watch an excellent video on this topic by former firefighter Erik Lawyer:
A good overview of what NIST did instead is contained in the following video from NIST:
With just a small amount of preparation, anyone can become an expert at explaining a key flaw in the NIST model that invalidates their entire report. Here is an example explanation.
- The NIST computer model is a secret model -- they won't release the details.
- But we do know that the model is not an accurate representation of the real building.
- It is missing a steel component in the path of the claimed initial failure.
- We've learned this from structural drawings that have been released over the years.
- In the model, the bottom part of a girder (the flange) pushes through air to cause the initial failure.
- In the real building it would have had to push through 3/4-inch steel.
- Even a child knows that air is not the same thing as steel.
- These flange stiffener plates need to be in the model.
- Without them, the bad NIST model invalidates their entire report.
The following video does a good job of explaining the initial failure that NIST claims was discovered by their secret computer model. It also explains how the missing flange stiffeners in the NIST model rule out this explanation.
The following set of three images show the structural connection where NIST claims the initiating failure occurred.
The first image, "Photograph Showing Connection at Column 79," is a photograph showing a girder entering the picture from the upper right and its attachment to the vertical Column 79. NIST claims the floor beams entering the picture from the upper left thermally expanded to push against this girder and drive it off its seat on Column 79
Girder Seated Connection at Column 79 Showing Perpendicular Floor Beams.
The middle image, "NIST Report Explanation With No Stiffeners" shows the position of the girder on its seat at Column 79 before and after being pushed by the floor beams (one floor beam is shown entering the graphic from the bottom). This graphic represents the NIST model of the connection and is missing the flange stiffener plates that were in the building. NIST claims that the building collapse began when the vertical part of the girder (the web) was pushed off the seat, leaving only a thin bottom flange on the seat. This flange then failed (pushing through air), which allowed the vertical web to drop and begin the global collapse of the building.
The final image, "Position of Stiffener Plate Welded to Flange and Web of Girder," shows the location of an important flange stiffener plate on the girder. In the real building, if the girder web (the vertical part) had been pushed off the edge, the horizontal bottom flange remaining on the seat would have had to push through the 3/4-inch steel of the welded flange stiffener plate to fail. As anyone would know that pushing through air is not the same as pushing through steel, the failure by NIST to accurately model this connection is astounding.
The following letter from attorney William Pepper to the U.S. Government provides one final look at this topic. The letter has Dr. Pepper requesting a re-evaluation and correction of the NIST report, a good description of the missing flange stiffeners, and additional problems with the NIST model.
To sum up this section, we can say that the government explanation for the Building 7 collapse is wrong simply because their explanation has the failing flange of their initiating failure pushing through air, when in reality it would have had to push through steel. We could say more against their explanation, but this is all that we need.
The three key argument points covered in this article are all that is needed to make the case for a new, independent investigation of 9/11. Again, they are:
- The collapse of Building 7 is consistent with controlled demolition.
- The collapse of Building 7 is not consistent with fire damage.
- The government explanation for the Building 7 collapse is wrong.
By focusing on this small group of arguments, it is relatively easy to achieve a level of "mastery of evidence" that makes us invincible to counter-arguments from anyone who might choose to debate us. This provides us, not only the knowledge we need, but also the confidence we need to engage in detailed one-on-one outreach with people that we don't already know.
As advocates for 9/11 Truth, we have the evidence and logic on our side. No matter how you like to frame your discussions of 9/11 with strangers, mastering the content of this and upcoming articles will allow you to persuasively employ evidence and logic on anyone who needs it. It is important to the 9/11 Truth movement that more and more of us are able and choose to do this. Upcoming articles will dig deeper into some of the topics introduced here and show how to handle counter-arguments used by people loyal to the official story of 9/11.