In Curious Battle: 
An Expert Recants On Why WTC Towers Collapsed
by John Flaherty and Jared Israel

[This article was posted 14 September 2001. It was called "'Explosives 
Planted In Towers,' New Mexico Tech Expert Says," which was the title of an 
'Albuquerque Journal' article we re-posted. Since then, the 'Journal' has 
posted a rebuttal to its own article. Below are some comments on the 
rebuttal. Our text also includes the original article and a link to the 
rebuttal. 26 December 2001]
=======================================

Investigators have pointed out numerous questionable or suspicious 
circumstances surrounding 9-11. However, Emperor's Clothes made a decision 
early on to limit our investigation and reports to certain central issues: 

* The creation at immense cost in money and human suffering of bin Laden's 
terrorist apparatus as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. (1) 

* The patent falsity of the claim that bin Laden broke with U.S. and other 
Western covert services at the time of the Gulf War; (2)

* The evidence that bin Laden and other Islamist terrorists have intimately 
cooperated with U.S. proxy forces (such as the Kosovo Liberation Army) and 
with the CIA in the Balkans, and that this cooperation continues; (3)

* The evidence that Washington was parent of the Taliban, supporting them 
with money and covert action (4)

* Evidence of ties between the Bush family and the bin Ladens. (5)

* The evidence that the highest officials in the U.S.A. were involved in 
9-11. (6)

Regarding the involvement of high officials in 9-11, we have studied:

* a) the failure of the air safety and air defense systems to carry out 
long-standing, well-practiced, routine procedures; 

* b) the actual behavior of these officials, which demonstrates 
consciousness of guilt and

* c) various attempted media cover-ups of a) and b), which cover-ups provide 
additional evidence of official guilt. 

One thing we have not commented on is the debate over the collapse of the 
World Trade Center (WTC) towers.

Some argue that the towers were brought down by explosives. Others 
(including defenders of the official story on 9-11) insist that the towers 
collapsed because fire weakened the steel support structure.

Regardless of why the buildings collapsed, the crucial evidence of official 
guilt is that the air safety and air defense systems were made to 'stand 
down' on 9-11. 

That said, on September 14th we did post an interesting article from the 
'Albuquerque Journal' concerning the WTC towers.

It is based on an interview with Van Romero, the director of research at the 
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. 

Mr. Romero:

'studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, 
aircraft and other structures.' 

His research institute:

'assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting 
off similar explosions and studying the effects.' 

It is funded, at least in part, by grants from the Pentagon. 

Van Romero studied the videos of the WTC collapse and concluded that the 
towers were most likely destroyed by carefully placed demolition charges. He 
told the 'Journal': 

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like 
that."

FROM EXPERT OPINION TO 'SUPPORT' STATEMENT 

We posted the 'Journal' story with a link to its Web address. But if you go 
to that address now, you will find something has been added. The 'Journal' 
has placed a rebuttal above the original story. Unless you read almost the 
entire rebuttal, you won't see the original story. 

The most striking thing about the rebuttal article is not that Romero 
changed his analysis. Indeed, Van Romero is barely quoted. Rather, the 
'Journal' speaks for him.

What we found most striking is the obviously partisan way the article is 
written, the intensity of the retraction and the atmosphere of panic. One 
gets the impression that somebody came down very hard on this scientist and 
perhaps on the 'Journal' as well.

The two articles have a very different 'feel.'

Reading the original article, it is clear that Romero is motivated by a 
desire to understand what happened. This is not surprising, since he studies 
how buildings collapse. He isn't thinking about political implications, he 
is thinking about science. He doesn't have an axe to grind. He explains 
himself clearly and he is quoted frequently.

In the retraction, Romero is only quoted twice. Instead of letting the man 
speak for himself, the reporter repeats the official position, telling us 
that Romero supports it. 

Consider the use of the word, 'supports,' in the following excerpt, 
suggesting a political rather than a scientific act:

"Romero [now] supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the 
jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point 
that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. 

Why didn't the 'Journal' let this researcher, who 'assists in forensic 
investigations into terrorist attacks,' explain for himself what new 
information caused him to change his expert opinion? What did he learn 
between 9-11 and 9-21, the date of the retraction, from 'conversations with 
structural engineers'? How could someone who has spent years researching 
"explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft 
and other structures" not know about the steel beams in the WTC?

Or had Mr. Romero confined his research to older buildings, i.e., those 
constructed prior to 1972? 

In the retraction, Romero is quoted twice: 

[Quote #1] "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail." [End 
quote]

'Certainly'?!

Why would an experimental scientist, commenting on anyone's previous 
conclusion - in this case, his own - demean the original assessment as 
'certainly' wrong? 

Wouldn't that mean Romero 'certainly' assessed this most important terrorist 
attack without first getting the facts? Wouldn't that 'certainly' make 
Romero a sloppy scientist? 

How humiliating for a man who acts as an expert witness in courts of law.

And consider the second quote:

[Quote #2] "Romero said he has been bombarded with electronic mail from the 
conspiracy theorists. 'I'm very upset about that,' he said. 'I'm not trying 
to say anything did or didn't happen.'" [End quote]

Note that the 'Journal' dismisses those who doubt the official story as 
'conspiracy theorists.' This newspaper has become a public relations service 
for Washington. And note the suggestion of desperation in Romero's comment 
that, "I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen.'" 

He's not? 

But in the original piece, he was quoted saying the WTC most likely 
collapsed due to demolition charges. And in the retraction he is quoted 
saying he 'certainly' was wrong. 

Moreover, deciding whether 'anything did or didn't happen' is precisely the 
goal of Romero's research. He 'studies explosive materials and the effects 
of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures' in order to 
determine what 'did or didn't happen.' 

It seems that in both quotes Van Romero negates himself, first as 
incompetent, then as irrelevant. Or perhaps his second comment, that 'I'm 
not trying to say anything did or didn't happen,' may be seen in a different 
light. We shall return to that.

Why did Mr. Romero recant? Consider the following paragraph from the 
original story:

"Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area 
subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon. He said he and Denny Peterson, 
vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office 
building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at 
Tech. [New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, where Romero is Vice 
President for research.]" 

Here is our hypothesis. Romero gave the original interview right after the 
WTC attacks. He said what he thought, unaware he was stepping on a land mine. 

But the powers-that-be were aware. 

The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or 
indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his 
original statement. But perhaps expressing his exasperation with this 
pressure, he added, "I'm not trying to say anything about what did or did 
not happen." Thus, perhaps, he refused to recant entirely.

Which demonstrates three facts about the new American Empire. 

First, it has great wealth, which it wields shamelessly. (And often to 
ludicrous effect. Consider the hyperbole with which the Bush administration 
praised Pakistan for 'cooperating' in crushing the Taliban, which is, by the 
way, the collective child of the covert services of Pakistan, the U.S. and 
Saudi Arabia. And consider how - immediately afterwards! - the Bush 
administration announced that Pakistan would receive millions of dollars in 
aid and cancellation of debt.)

So the first fact about the U.S. empire is: it pays for virtue.

Second fact: from the virtuous it demands servility. If the virtuous should 
err, so must the virtuous grovel. Otherwise, no cash. 

However, third, despite all its weapons and money, the U.S. Empire still has 
difficulty getting human beings to surrender. Thus, it may have been in 
order to hold onto some integrity that Van Romero said, "I'm not trying to 
say anything about what did or did not happen." The man relies on the 
Pentagon for funding; yet the man resists.

Joan T., a reader, wrote to us the other day. She said, "What good is money 
without freedom?"

What good indeed!

- John Flaherty and Jared Israel

***

The following is the original article from the 'ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL'. We 
suggest you read it first, then the rebuttal, at 
http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm We have re-posted this link to 
the rebuttal at the end.

'Albuquerque Journal' ~
"'Explosives Planted In Towers,' New Mexico Tech Expert Says."

By Olivier Uyttebrouck 
Journal Staff Writer 

Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that 
explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech 
explosion expert said Tuesday. 

The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result 
of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president 
for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. 

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the 
World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings 
that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing 
Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of 
explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures. 

Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television 
broadcasts.

Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled 
implosions used to demolish old structures.

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like 
that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C. 

Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area 
subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon. 

He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and 
finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss 
defense-funded research programs at Tech. 

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have 
been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said.

"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in 
strategic points," Romero said. The explosives likely would have been put in 
more than two points in each of the towers, he said. 

The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common 
terrorist strategy, Romero said.

"One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack 
and secondary device," Romero said.

Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts 
emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he said. 

Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would 
have been the collision of the planes into the towers.

Tech President Dan Lopez said Tuesday that Tech had not been asked to take 
part in the investigation into the attacks. Tech often assists in forensic 
investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar 
explosions and studying the effects.

(C) 2001, 'Albuquerque Journal,' Reprinted for Fair Use Only

The Rebuttal to this article is posted at 
http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm 

Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm. Receive about one 
article/day.

***

Emperor's Clothes Urgently Needs Your Help!

= = = = = = = = = = = =
Further Reading
= = = = = = = = = =

(1) 'Newspaper Articles Documenting the U.S. Creation of the Taliban
and bin Laden's Terrorist Network' can be read at 
http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/doc.htm

2) 'Gaping Holes in the 'CIA vs. bin Laden' Story' by Jared Israel at 
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/probestop-i.htm provides strong 
documentation refuting the claim that bin Laden broke with the CIA (and, 
incidentally, his family) at the time of the Gulf War.

4) "Congressman Says: 'U.S. Set Up Anti-Taliban to be Slaughtered'"
Excerpts from a most revealing hearing with comments by Jared Israel
Can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/rohr.htm
For full (very long) text of hearings go to:
http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/rohrfull.htm

4) Bin Laden in the Balkans'
Mainstream news accounts of bin Laden's involvement in CIA-linked terrorist 
organizations attacking Yugoslavia and Macedonia years after he supposedly 
broke with the CIA.
[Posted 3 October 2001]
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/binl.htm 

5) 'BUSHLADEN' can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen.htm 

6) For a list of relevant articles concerning the involvement of top U.S. 
officials in 9-11, go to http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page.htm#1