The 9/11 Consensus Argument

scientific consensusDid you know that 100% of competent honest scientists have formed a consensus that the official story of what happened on 9/11 is entirely unsupported pseudo-science nonsense? It’s true. The problem is that very few of those scientists publicly proclaim their position. We can infer that position however by examining the facts.

Most people are conformists. They tend to go along with the group. This is particularly the case when the group is headed by experts. If you can say you have a scientific consensus for example, the bulk of the population will tend to support you, even mainstream “skeptics”. Let’s face it. Not all of us have the time or expertise to evaluate all claims. In order to get our daily tasks accomplished and enjoy life we need to take the word of experts on certain things. The problem occurs when we forget that a consensus can only help with decisions and not establish facts. A consensus does not guarantee truth.

With 9/11 we have what might first appear as a consensus of scientists that support the official story of what happened. However, upon examination what we really have are a handful of scientists and sciencey experts claiming to support the official story with the vast majority of scientists remaining silent. If the official story really were true or even likely, scientists would be out in droves trashing 9/11 skeptics like myself. They aren’t though. Why? The most likely explanation is that these scientists do see the gaping problems in the official story but remain silent to protect their careers. They saw what happened to Kevin Ryan who lost his job at Underwriter’s Laboratory for defending his company from the fraudulent NIST report.[1] They saw how Dr. Stephen Jones was strongly persuaded into early retirement for daring to question the official story.[2] They see how others are ridiculed simply for applying the scientific method and critical thinking to the 9/11 event. They probably assume some similar retaliation would befall them if they said anything. Who really can blame them? The fact is though that these scientists are definitely not defending the official story in droves. This supports the notion that they actually don’t accept the official story. The scientific consensus then is with those that rightly see the official story of what happened on 9/11 as entirely unsupported pseudo-science nonsense.

The fall of the twin Towers is the most important and fundamental event within the entire happenings of that day. This event more than any other is permanently burned into the consciousness of every US citizen that observed it. It involved iconic landmarks, the Twin Towers, and took place in New York City, the hub of the US economy. The vast majority of deaths occurred at this event. For all these reasons the attack and fall of the Twin Towers was the most traumatic event that forever changed the American people. Despite the fact that it was the most important event on 9/11 there is absolutely no valid scientific support for the official explanation of how the Twin Towers fell to the ground.

There is not one scientist anywhere in the world that has been able to produce any valid scientific evidence whatsoever that supports the official story of how the Twin Towers came down. In science, possibly the absolutely most elementary concept is that a scientific explanation must have supporting evidence. But by far the most important event within the entire day of 9/11 has absolutely not a single shed of valid scientific evidence.

Another elementary scientific concept is that an explanation must account for all observations. This is part of the scientific method taught to fifth grade elementary students. Observations that do not fit the explanation cannot be ignored. The explanation must be changed to accommodate the anomalous observation. If the explanation cannot be changed it must be discarded. No scientist anywhere in the world has ever been able to scientifically show how multi-ton pieces of structural steel could be hurled horizontally at speeds up to 70 MPH without help from explosives.[3] This fact alone proves the official 9/11 story is complete pseudo-science nonsense. Yet this is just one of many such facts.

No bona fide scientist is an imbecile. Some might be liars and some even psychotic but certainly none of them are stupid. Because there is no valid scientific evidence to support the official 9/11 story and because the official story cannot explain key evidence, no competent scientists would actually believe the official story of 9/11. We in fact have a unanimous consensus among the world’s competent and honest scientists that the official story of what happened on 9/11 is entirely unsupported pseudo-science nonsense. We have a unanimous consensus among the world’s competent scientists that the Twin Towers came down as a result of controlled demolition. We have that consensus because only that explanation has scientific supporting evidence and can explain all available observations. I urge everyone to seek out prominent scientists and ask them either how this argument is flawed or if it is in fact correct why they don’t speak up.


1. Kevin Ryan, “U.L.’s testing procedures helped make that possible”, Dig Within, March 19, 2011
2. Steven E. Jones, “BYU and Prof. Steven Jones revisited”,, May 9, 2010
3. David Chandler, “High Speed Massive Projectiles from the WTC on 9/11”, April 27, 2010

Leave a Reply