9 - 1 1 R e s e a r c h letters

Scientific American

The June 2005 issue of Scientific American contained a column in its SKEPTIC section devoted to attacking skepticism of the official account of the 9/11/01 attack. This column, critiqued in Scientific American's Dishonest Attack On 911Research, is the subject of the letters on this page.

STATUS: sent to Scientific American

Dear Editors,

Michael Shermer's SKEPTIC column in the June 2005 issue of Scientific
American contains the following statement:

"[A]ccording to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of
 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F.
 No melted steel, no collapsed towers."

911Research.wtc7.net has never published the temperature 2,777 F or its
equivalent 1,525 C.  It does contain 2,795 F, the melting point of iron.
Furthermore, we have never suggested that the fire-melting-steel claim
is a tenet of the official story, only that it was used by media-cited
experts to explain the collapses.
For example, Eduardo Kausel is quoted in your October 09, 2001 article
'When the Twin Towers Fell' as stating that "the intense heat softened
or melted the structural elements--floor trusses and columns."

Contrary to Mr. Shermer's implication that 911Research speculates about
missiles, UFOs, or Jewish conspiracies, we use the scientific method
to disprove key elements of the official account of the attack.
Drawing from over 150 photographs and 25 videos of the collapses
and applying basic principles of physics, we show that the explosiveness,
pulverization, verticality, and speed of these events are irreconcilable
with the theory that they were gravity-driven.

Jim Hoffman
webmaster, 911Research.wtc7.net

STATUS: sent to Scientific American

Editors/Scientific American -
Re: Michael Shermer's 9-11 analysis, "Fahrenheit 2777".
If the author cannot or will not address the sinister and mysterious collapse
of WTC-7, then his entire credibility as a "scientific writer" collapses.
You do your otherwise fine magazine a great disservice by providing a platform
to someone lacking in any true, scientific objectivity, distinguished by an
over-riding thirst for the truth, no matter how painful that truth may be.
Not surprisingly, you note that Michael Shermer writes "science fiction" at
the end of this piece. A true skeptic might indeed view Shermer's entire
column as a piece of science fiction rather than science fact, since he
ignores, as did the Kean Commission, any mention of WTC-7, among a multitude
of other disturbing 9-11 anomalies that are either ignored, distorted or
No, despite Shermer's claim, that "All the 9/11 conspiracy claims are this
easily refuted," the opposite is true. We true scientific skeptics do not
easily accept such absurd claims, as Sir Isaac Newton would not have accepted
This spreading of bad science, faulty fact selection, or outright
politically-motivated disinformation, is worse than complete silence on your
part. You should be ashamed. Darwin, Galileo and Thoreau are rolling over in
their graves.
Douglas Herman 
USAF 1968-1972