The Cause of the Destruction Of The World Trade Center Buildings on September 11, 2001

Journal of 9/11 Studies

Volume 40, March 2015

The Cause of the Destruction Of The World Trade Center Buildings on September

11, 2001 and the Admissibility of Expert Testimony Under the Standards

Developed in Daubert

v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc.

(Stevan Douglas Looney, J.D.)

ABSTRACT:

Under the standards established by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v.

Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc.

, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed 2d 469  (1993) and its progeny, expert testimony offered to support the official theory and

hypotheses concerning the cause of the destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1,

2 and 7 (the WTC) on September 11, 2001 would probably be excluded from admission

into evidence by an impartial judge in a civil or criminal proceeding. In contrast, expert

testimony presenting an alternative theory and hypotheses explaining the cause(s) of

the destruction of the WTC grounded in and adhering to accepted and reliable scientific

principles using the scientific method would satisfy the Dauberttest and would be

admitted into evidence.

If a “Daubert hearing” were held to determine the admissibility of expert opinion

evidence regarding the cause or causes of the destruction of the WTC, expert opinion

testimony presenting the official

theory would likely not satisfy the

Daubert test of reliability and would

be rejected by an impartial judge

after a Daubert hearing as

unsupported by science and

the laws of physics and, thus, unreliable and inadmissible into evidence

under the Federal Rules of Evidence

.

In that event, the official theory of

the cause of the destruction of the WTC would not be presented to and considered by

the trier of fact. Conversely, expert opinion testimony and related evidence presenting

an alternative hypothesis explaining the cause(s) of the destruction of

the WTC that are

grounded in reliable scientific principles using the scientific method, or “good science”,

would pass the

Daubert

test and would be admissible into evidence. Consequently, in a

civil or criminal proceeding the ruling or verdict on the qu

estion of the cause or causes

of the destruction of the WTC would be based only upon expert testimony and related

evidence presenting an alternative theory or theories.

I.

Introduction

.

It is well known that on September 11, 2001 New York City, New York

, suffered

an attack that resulted in the tragic death of nearly 3,000 people and the destruction of

property, most notably the destruction and collapse of World Trade Center Buildings 1

and 2 (WTC 1 and WTC 2). It is less well known that at approximately

5:21 p.m. on that

same day World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) also collapsed. Since that day there

has been a continuing debate between two schools of thought concerning the cause or

causes of the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

1

1

In this paper I refer generally to these two opposing schools of thought as the official theory and the alternative

theory.

Journal of 9/11 Studies

Volume 40

, March 2015

2

In November 2002 Con

gress appointed a bipartisan commission to investigate

9/11.

2

The investigation took approximately

eighteen months

and resulted in the

release and publication on July 22, 2004 of the

Final Report of the National Commission

on Terrorist Attacks Upon the U

nited States

, otherwise known as the

9/11 Commission

Report

. However, the

911 Commission R

eport

said very little about the cause of the

destruction of WTC 1 and 2 and nothing about the cause of the destruction of WTC 7.

3

In the years since 9/11, many peo

ple who are qualified by education, training, and

experience to give an opinion on the subject of the cause(s) of the destruction of WTC

1, 2 and 7 have come forward and have presented alternative scientific hypotheses and

theories concerning the cause(s)

of the destruction of these buildings.

4

The National

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) also became involved and over time

presented a series of reports presenting the official theory or explanation of the cause(s)

of the destruction of WTC 1,

2 and 7.

5

The official theory and the alternative theory or

theories of the cause(s) of the destructions of these buildings are not in agreement.

6

Very briefly,

7

the official theory of the destruction of WTC 1 and 2 is that

aircraft

impact damage

combine

d with intense heat from the fires created by the ignition of the

jet fuel on Flights 11 and 175 undermined the integrity of structural support systems in

the upper floors of WTC 1 and 2

.

According to NIST, as a result of this process,

“global

collapse wa

s inevitable.”

8

NIST has, however, been unable to provide a full explanation

of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

9

The official theory of the destruction of WTC 7 is that

it

collapsed

due to fire

.

10

The fires were caused by debris from the collapse of WTC

1 which ignited fires on at

2

See,

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

(Public Law 107

-

306, November 27, 2002)

3

See, generally,

9/11 Commission Report,

Ch. 9,

Heroism and Horror

.

4

A

mong such individuals is a group of over 2,000 architects and engineers who have banned together in an

organization called

Architects

&

Engineers for 9/11 Truth

.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

. See also,

The Journal of

9/11 Studies

at

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

5

NIST is a United States governmental agency and is a part of the United S

tates Department of Commerce. It is the

science, engineering, technology and measurement laboratory for the United States. See, 15 U.S.C. § § 271

et seq.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) also conducted an investigation and issued reports

.

6

It is worth noting that both the official theory and the alternative theory at their core point to an underlying

conspiracy to carry out the attacks on 9/11

. Black’s Law Dictionary

, Seventh Edition, (1999) defines conspiracy as:

“An agreement by two or

more persons to commit an unlawful act; a combination for an unlawful purpose.” This is

the generally accepted definition of “conspiracy” in all juri

sdictions in the United States.

7

It is beyond the scope of this paper to completely catalog and discuss i

n great detail all of the facts that have been

proffered to buttress expert opinions offered either in support of the official theory or in support of the alternative

theories explaining the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7. I have attempted in this paper to

introduce the reader to the

subject and to provide sources on both sides of the debate so that the reader may consult the sources and conduct

further investigation. A brief summary of the opposing views of the facts and science involved must suffice at t

his

time.

8

However, the NIST study “...does not actually include the structural behavior of the towers after conditions for

collapse initiation were reached.” In addition, the NIST study did not support the “pancake theory” of collapse

which is premised on

progressive failure of the floor systems in the towers.

9

See, footnote 42

below.

10

T

he

9/11 Commission Report

make

s

no

mention of t

he collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11/01. S

ince the publication of

the

9/11 Commission Report

the National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST) has published papers that

present an explanation of t

he collapse of WTC 7, as well as WTC 1 and 2. See,

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/