Stand for the Truth A Government Researcher Speaks Out911 Evidence and NIST

New York City, 2001. No tall building had ever collapsed
primarily due to fire, but that's exactly what investigators
believe happened to the 47 story World Trade Center Building 7,
on September 11th, according to a three year comprehensive
building and fire safety investigation, just completed by the National Institute
of Standards and Technology, or NIST. Could one use a controlled demolition
on any building? Sure! Did it happen to WTC 7 on 9/11?
No, it did not. Building 7 was no ordinary building.

Among other key tenants include several
intelligence and law enforcement agencies, it also housed New York City's
Emergency Operations Center. So have you had anybody
come up to you and say: "Building 7"? Have you had "Building 7"?
No, no. Oh. Walk around.

Be on television a little more.
You'll get the [inaudible] We must not tolerate
outrageous conspiracy theories, concerning the attacks
of September the 11th. My name is Peter Michael Ketcham.
I was born and raised in Wisconsin. I've spent much of my life in the high performance
and scientific computing world. I worked at NIST for 14 years,
starting in 1997.

I initially joined the High Performance
Systems and Services Division, and a few years later was moved into the Mathematical and Computational
Sciences Division. I also was Chair of our Applied
Mathematics Seminar Series, and hosted that for several years. This is NIST - the National Institute
of Standards and Technology. In the United States,
standards setting is led by industry - but NIST plays a critical role
in supporting, defining, and fostering that effort, and coordinating it
with the Federal Government.

Over our long history,
we have cultivated deep scientific roots that cut across a whole range of disciplines. NIST was given the task of investigating
the World Trade Center collapses, that of course happened on 9/11. Ranking Member Hall,
and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity
to testify on this role in the investigation into the collapse
of the World Trade Center towers. I was not involved in those investigations
or writing those reports but I was certainly aware that
that research study was going on.

NIST's role, as I understand it,
was to investigate the collapses of the three
World Trade Center towers - and by that I mean towers 1, 2 and 7,
and determine why they had collapsed. The collapse of these towers was
the worst building disaster in human history. Engineers, emergency responders,
and the nation did not anticipate that we were largely unprepared
for such a catastrophe. I began to look into this in July of 2016.

It actually came up in a conversation
with a friend that I had known for 30 years, and she mentioned something along the lines of: Gee, do you realize there's some growing evidence that the official 9/11 narrative may not be quite
what we all thought it was? I didn't do anything for about a month.
I think I just let it sink in. But in the middle of August I felt
very compelled to start investigating. And in a very short amount of time,
it became clear to me, that NIST's investigation of the collapse
of the World Trade Centers was not a sincere and genuine study, and I quickly became furious.
At first I was furious with myself. I couldn't believe that
I had not noticed this before, how could I have not noticed this
for the last 15 years? And that fury then quickly transferred to NIST,
my former employer, who I had always thought very highly of,
and always felt that NIST did research of the highest integrity.

So to see what they had done, what NIST had done, with the World Trade Center investigation
and report, left me stunned. Good Morning. I'm here to summarize
the findings from our three-year study of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Before I tell you what we found,
I'd like to tell you what we did not find.

We did not find any evidence that explosives
were used in the collapse of Building 7. We ran down detailed computer simulations
of blast scenarios. This size blast would have produced
an incredibly loud sound, that was not recorded on videos of the collapse,
nor reported by witnesses. You want to call your mother or something? What became immediately obvious to me,
was that there was overwhelming evidence, that all three of those towers, 1, 2 and 7,
collapsed due to controlled demolition.

And the NIST reports focused almost entirely
on reasons due to fire, and the associated plane crashes
and jet fuel. What we found, was that uncontrolled
building fires caused an extraordinary event. The collapse of World Trade Center 7
was primarily due to fires. What I saw was that the most likely cause,
controlled demolition, was not investigated at all.

In fact it was dismissed in one
or two sentences within the report. For the third time today. It's reminiscent of those pictures we've all
seen too much on television before, when a building was deliberately destroyed
by well-placed dynamite to knock it down. I turned in time to see what looked
like a skyscraper implosion, it looked like it has been done
by a demolition crew.

The whole thing
just collapsing down on itself. It was almost as if it were planned implosion,
it just pancaked. This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building over 15 stories tall
has collapsed primarily due to fire. What's special about Building 7, and I think
why it has gotten as much attention as it has, is because it wasn't hit by a plane, so that cannot be used as a reason
for why the building collapsed.

Now it did have some fires.
They weren't terribly notable fires. They were rather modest in my opinion. And to complicate matters even more, there was an obvious foreknowledge
on the part of some people, that seemed to know this building
was going to come down. That building right there,
the brown building, the tall one, is Number 7 World Trade Center.

I've heard several reports
from several different officers now, that that is the building
that is going to go down next. In fact, one officer told me they are just waiting
for that to come down at this point. Rescue workers pushed people away from the scene. Now all these stories are not compatible.

You cannot have a heavily built, steel-framed
high rise collapse due to modest fires. If that were the case it would be
extremely unusual for that to happen. So unusual that you could not possibly
predict when or if it was going to happen. At the same time you have people
more or less "waiting" for it to come down, and in some cases they had reported
it collapsed before it actually did.

We are getting information now
that one of the other buildings, Building 7 in the World Trade Center complex,
is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing ... Ah, we've got some news just coming in actually, that the Salomon Brothers Building in New York, right in the heart of Manhattan,
has also collapsed! There were very few people
in the Salomon Building when it collapsed, I mean there were I suppose fears of possible
further collapses around the area? That's what you would hope,
because this whole downtown area behind me has been completely sealed off and evacuated,
apart from the emergency workers. That was done by the mayor, Rudy Giuliani. The point is, that building is heavily built.

There would be no reason
to expect it to come down. Can you confirm that it was just Number 7
that just went in? Yes Sir! And you guys knew this was coming all day? We had heard reports
that the building was unstable and that eventually it would come down
on its own, or it would be taken down. We knew from the beginning of our study, that understanding what happened
to Building 7 on 9/11 would be difficult. It did not fit any text book example
that you could readily point to and say "yes, that's why the buildings fell.

I believe there is a quote at one point that the NIST investigators
said something along the lines: They were having trouble getting a handle
on why Building 7 had collapsed. NIST is extremely competent. So to have NIST be baffled
by the collapse of a building that had only modest fires, and exhibits every characteristic
of controlled demolition, if they say they were
coming up empty-handed, and couldn't figure it out,
that's not believable. NIST put forward a model
for the collapse of Building 7, that appears to me,
that they were grabbing at straws.

Our study has identified
thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause
the collapse of a structure. For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse. Now, when I was a kid, and many people
today are probably too young for this, but there was a cartoonist
called Rube Goldberg. He drew cartoons of these machines
that did a very simple thing in an incredibly complex way,
and it was meant to be humorous.

How does this door opener upper really work? You see waiter places cat B
on pile of dirty dishes A. Now cat B sees mouse C.
Of course this is a stuffed mouse, because he must be used for the next waiter. It was meant to spoof the aspect of human nature that sometimes makes things far more
complicated than they need to be. And these were called Rube Goldberg machines,
or Rube Goldberg devices.

... And sets off bomb G,
opening door H very gently. The explanation that is given by NIST
for the collapse of Building 7, sounds like a Rube Goldberg device. You could have beams that are here,
that are restrained from expanding, prevented from expanding because of this column
here, for example, and that can buckle.

And you see an example
of a buckled beam right here. One column slides off of its seat, on a few particular floors,
and within a matter of moments, there is some chain reaction like a set of dominos
that brings the building entirely down. It is possible that you could have a local failure
as a result of a connection failing. But the likelihood of that failure
dragging the entire building, in such a fashion that all the columns
would fail at the same time, is an impossibility.

Impossibility? Yes And you can see, on the screen,
the column at the very right is Column 79, and that's the column that first buckles,
causing the floors to come down, followed by a quick succession
of failures of adjoining columns. Steel-framed buildings don't do that. That doesn't happen. It's just fantasy-land.

Here is our structural model showing
the building collapsing, which matches quite well
with the video of the event. Does the model that NIST produced for
World Trade 7 match what we actually saw? NO! We heard this sound,
that sounded like a clap of thunder. It looked like a shock-wave
ripping through the building and the windows all busted out. About a second later the bottom floor caved out,
the building followed after that.

I'm reminded of the old fairy tale of
"The Emperor Has No Clothes." Everyone is watching the emperor go by, and has been brainwashed to believe that
the emperor has a beautiful set of clothes on when actually he is wearing nothing but underwear. Hahaha. The Emperor has no clothes on! Now, what we see in the NIST model, first they play only the first few seconds of it. We only see a little bit
of the building beginning to collapse.

It is extremely atypical
to build a computer model, and create an animation of that model, and to show only the first part of it. Why not follow through to the end?
Where's the end? And what we DO see doesn't match
what we saw in reality. The animation for the NIST model
of the collapse of World Trade Center 7 has the sides sort of kinking in
and the top of it kind of bending funny. That is not what the video
of the collapse of Building 7 shows.

Building 7 came down almost straight down. This is clearly
the way the structure is collapsing, this was the result of something
that was planned. This is not  it's not accidental,
that the first tower just happened to collapse and then the second tower just happened
to collapse in exactly the same way. How they accomplished this,
we don't know.

One of the things I noticed
in NIST's investigation and reports is this fixation on collapse initiation. As if all that was required was to investigate up until the point that the collapses initiate. No, there's a lot more to the story than that. In fact, that's stopping
just when it's getting interesting.

But NIST makes a one or two sentence
summary along the lines of: and then the building collapsed completely. We were charged with finding out
the cause of the collapse. And we found what happened, I think we've scientifically demonstrated
what was required to initiate the collapse. Once the collapse initiated,
the video evidence is rather clear.

It was not stopped by the floors below, so there was no calculation
that we did to demonstrate that, what is clear from the videos. To investigate only up to collapse initiation is only doing part of the story
and leaving out a great deal. Now it may be that something
fell off the building. It may be that something has fallen,
we don't know to be perfectly honest, but that is what you are looking at,
is the current ...

That's the scene at this moment
at the World Trade Center. Don Dahler from ABC's Good Morning America
is down in the general vicinity, Don can you tell us what has just happened? Yes Peter, it's Don Dahler, I'm down here,
I'm 4 blocks north of the World Trade Center, the second building that was hit
by the plane has just completely collapsed. The entire building has just collapsed
as if a demolition team set off ... When you see the old demolitions
of these old buildings.

It folded down on itself
and it is not there any more. Thanks very much Don.
It absolutely collapsed. The whole side has collapsed?
The whole BUILDING has collapsed. The whole BUILDING has collapsed? The building has collapsed.

If the top of the building became unstable, due to the weakening of columns, one would reasonably expect the top
of the building to start to lean, start to creak, connections start to break, and the top of the building
would simply fall off to the side, and come crashing down
on the buildings next door, and the rest of the tower would remain. That's what one would expect.
Instead we saw something quite different. It is not reasonable to think that the weakening
of some columns near the impact zone could somehow lead to an entire building
collapsing entirely down on itself, symmetrically, into its own footprint, with nothing left but bits of dust. That's not plausible.
That's not reasonable.

Watch some of the videos of the collapses.
Look for several things. Look for sudden onset. When the collapses start they happen very fast and they complete within 10, 11, 12 seconds. Second, look at the symmetry.

These buildings come straight down,
almost straight down. Asymmetric damage does not lead
to symmetric collapse. It is very difficult to get something
to collapse symmetrically because it is the law of physics
that things tend toward chaos. Collapsing symmetrically represents order.

A very strict order. It is not the nature of physics to gravitate
towards order for no reason. It will gravitate towards chaos. It is very difficult to get a building
to collapse symmetrically.

Mark Loizeaux has been
in this family business all his life. He knows what it takes
to bring a building down. The largest steel structure we've taken down,
which I think is still a Guinness Record is the J.L. Hudson Building in Detroit.

It took months to design it. It took months to prepare the structure for the placement
of the explosive charges. Months. Third, look at the rubble that is left.

It is not big pieces of steel,
big chunks of cement, it is fine particles. Surprisingly, so little rubble.
Where did all the rubble go? The concrete was pulverized, I was down here Tuesday and it was
like you were on a foreign planet. All of lower Manhattan, not just this site.
From river to river, there was dust [and] powder,
two - three inches thick. The concrete was just ...

Pulverized. You have two 110 story office buildings.
You dont find a desk. You dont find a chair.
You dont find a telephone, a computer. The biggest piece of a telephone
I found was half of the keypad and it was about this big.

The building collapsed to dust. And, they might also look at those videos to see the explosive nature of those collapses. You can see essentially
a wave of explosive demolition traveling down the building as it collapses. Explosions coming out of windows.

Huge chunks of steel perimeter beams flying hundreds of feet off to the side. Steel does not fly off the side,
hundreds of feet, due to gravity. Gravity works vertically, not laterally. There has to be a force there.
Pushing it to the side.

Otherwise it would just fall
down to the ground. It would be like dropping a ball
out of the window. It just falls straight down. Why did NIST issue a report that seems to do everything it can
to avoid investigating the most likely cause?
In this case being controlled demolition.

Why would NIST avoid that? Why would they try to do everything
they could to avoid that? The only thing I can do
is make some guesses, and I emphasize the word guess. Perhaps they were coerced.
Perhaps they were pressured. I don't know where that coercion
or pressure might have come from. But it is not typical of NIST
to do anything short of excellent.

NIST is extremely meticulous
about their research, and by necessity they need to be. That is what they excel at. This report does not fit that pattern at all. We really have a new kind of progressive
collapse that we have discovered.

One thing, I think, to understand is that NIST
is a really excellent place to work. And for many of the people who work there this is a really good position,
and they have a lot to loose. It is not all that hard to begin
to pressure people, and make offers they can't refuse,
to coerce them, and depending on the person
or people involved, that can be anywhere
from very subtle, to very overt. The best I can do is speculate
that something of that type happened.

We conducted the study without bias,
without interference from anyone, and dedicated ourselves to doing
the very best job we could. And in fact I would suggest
that the public should really, at this point, recognize that science
is really behind what we have said. Yes, so why didn't I see it? I think the painful truth is that I was living in blindness and ignorance,
as to what had actually happened. I didn't give it much thought.

I heard the official narrative,
and like many people, I believed it. Do you know anything
about the cause of the explosions that brought the two buildings down yet? Was it caused by the planes or by something else? We believe ... There were second explosions ... We believe it was caused by the after effects
of the planes hitting the buildings, we don't know of additional explosions.

... And I am ashamed to say that.
But that's the truth. Once I took a look at it, it leapt out at me. This was not a case of some subtle differences, or subtle discrepancies,
or differences of scientific opinion that needed further investigation.

This was glaring. Glaring, clear-cut. Don't have oxygen. USA! USA! I think what has allowed the official story
to stand for this long is a combination of several things.

One is complacency. Another one is fear, and the third is ignorance. There are probably many people
that just have not looked at it, don't understand it.
They just simply are not aware. In other cases it's complacency.

They have a sense of what might be going on, but they're maybe not too interested
in putting the effort in finding out. And there could be others
that have a very strong sense
of what they think is going on, but they are gripped in fear,
and paralyzed in fear. The reason that I have spoken out
about this is very simple. I spoke out because I believed
it was the right thing to do.

I have no other motive. It would be nice, at this point, if someone who is currently a NIST employee,
would also speak out. But that is up to each individual there to decide. What I am seeing, is that with respect
to the World Trade Center collapses, the official narrative is beginning to unravel.

I think there is a good chance
that that unraveling will continue, and perhaps accelerate. But it could be highly volatile. If it does continue to unravel, I think there could be
some very painful revelations, that will be very hard for our country to accept. Our War On Terror begins with Al-Qaeda, but it does not end there.

It will not end until every
terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated. And I don't in any way make light of that,
those ... It could be very painful. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign,
unlike any other we have ever seen.

But the wounds of 9/11
have remained unhealed for too long. And they are festering, and rotting,
and they are infected. And when you have a wound on the body, one of the first things you do is
you wash it out with hot soapy water. And then you bandage it up, and yeah, it hurts, it hurts while you're washing it, it stings.

It's a sharp pain, but you put
the bandage on and you know, the pain starts to die down,
and a few hours pass, it's down to just a soreness. My point is that "truth" is the hot sudsy water with which we wash out the wounds of 9/11, so that they can begin true healing..