See also Coleen’s post on Huffington Post (3/10/10):

“Burying” the Truth: Nightline Reporter Channels Bill O’Reilly and Does a Hatchet Job

In a sad commentary on the currently disintegrating state of “main stream media”, I found myself ambushed on Saturday, March 6th, just ten minutes after I arrived at a conference outside Philadelphia on “9-11, the Wars and Our Broken Constitution”.

When young, smiling female producer Katie Hinman identified herself as being with ABC and asked for an interview, I had only just arrived at the conference. So although I was a little surprised that the Nightline TV crew was there, I immediately consented to an interview before anyone had a chance to warn me that the TV show was trying to concoct a connection between the conference and the mentally ill young man who had been killed a few days before while shooting at Pentagon guards.

continued here.

In this interview Kevin Ryan discusses the science and psychology of 9/11. He also mentions an upcoming paper that provides strong evidence of incendiary residues found in the World Trade Center dust. Ryan, who is one of the co-authors of the paper, says that it is “…much more conclusive than anything we’ve published before, and is supported by considerable physical testing.”

American Buddhist Net News
2/14/09

ABN: Kevin, you have been a central figure in the 9/11 truth movement. What have you learned from that experience?

KR: The struggle for 9/11 truth has gone on now for over seven years, although I’ve been involved only since 2003. In that time I’ve learned a good deal about history and social inertia, and I’ve made some progress in my communications skills. Many people might think that speaking out publicly, against the wishes of authority like I did, risking one’s career and public standing, can only be harmful to a person. But I’ve found that by showing that I was genuinely seeking a positive outcome, the opportunity to make such a sacrifice became a blessing. There were changes, of course, including a new job and moving to a new town, and a huge amount of work with my new “unpaid job”, but it has been worth it. This is in part due to the fact that I’ve learned that there are many people in the world who feel as I do, that the events of 9/11 were paradoxically something of a gift to mankind. We don’t all agree on the details, but in my view, 9/11 is a wake-up call that can be used for the purpose of realizing our own limitations, and thereby making adjustments to how we live and interact with each other, and how we prioritize the education of our children. Once we tap into this ongoing “inside job”, we will have the power to make lasting positive change in our society.

CONTINUED

by Crockett Grabbe

President Barack Obama’s inaugural promise that “We will restore science to it rightful place…” sounds like good news. In our article “Science in the Bush: When Politics Replaces Physics,” published on the web in September of 2007 [1], Lenny Charles and I pointed out how scientific integrity had been placed well behind politics in analysis, not only in areas such as climate change caused by humans and public health issues, but also particularly in analysis of the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001.

As we pointed out in the article, scientists who speak out publicly have been the main source of credible information on what science really portrays. The press in general selectively shows scientific results, often with errors in their stories because of their own scientific misunderstandings. Knowing their limitations, they often tend to shy away from controversial issues like the scientific facts and evidence of the mass murders in the World Trade Center. So when the government promotes ideas and conclusions that are not scientifically accurate, scientists provide the principal credible counter to these errors.

We described in some detail in the article how the physics in the NIST Committee analysis of what happened in the World Trade Center collapses is wrong. A paragraph of it was quoted from our article by noted columnist Dr. Paul Craig Roberts in his September 11, 2007 editorial “9/11: 6 years later” [2]:

Physicists have raised unanswered questions about the official explanation’s neglect of the known laws of physics. Recently, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, a Caltech trained applied physicist at the University of Iowa, observed: “Applying two basic principles, conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, the government explanation quickly unravels. NIST conspicuously ignored these principles in their reports. NIST also ignored the observed twisting of the top 34 floors of the South Tower before it toppled down. This twisting clearly violates the conservation of both linear and angular momentum unless a large external force caused it. Where the massive amounts of energy came from that were needed to cause the complete collapse of the intact parts below for each tower, when their tops were in virtual free fall, is not answered in NIST’s numerous volumes of study.”

These scientific principles are a fatal flaw for the NIST Committee’s explanations for the building collapses, as expounded in my Journal of 911 Studies Letter on January 29, 2008 [3].

Our government must correct all of the errors in their multiple studies of the collapse of these buildings. To do that, scientific integrity must be restored! So the question comes back to President Barack Obama and his new administration: will his promise to “restore science to its rightful place” allow for replacing those studies by correct science? Does it mean those 45 government reports with scientific errors put by the NIST Committee will be replaced with new reports that present correctly both the scientific facts and all the significant scientific evidence, allowing for scientific evaluation of what they may show?

We hope it does.

[1] Crockett Grabbe & Lenny Charles editorial, posted 9/8/07: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18344.htm

[2] Paul Craig Roberts editorial on 9/11/07: http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070910_911.htm

[3] Crockett Grabbe article confronting NIST on energy & momentum: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/g/GrabbeToNISTenergyMomentum.pdf