Our greatest hope is that we can prevent it from becoming expired.
And instead keeping this perspective alive.
We have to persist until we can have 
a serious discussion about it.
This coming september, it’s been exactly 15 years since the attack on the WTC in New York.
The official account is being met with increasing doubt in the public opinion...
... and is deemed unacceptable 
by various scientists and experts.
One of these experts is dr. ir. Coen Vermeeren,
...who is soon to publish 
a book titled ‘9/11 is a conspiracy’.
Coen, would you introduce yourself for the viewers?
Yes, in short my name is Coen Vermeeren, 
I’m an aerospace engineer.
And I’ve been researching 
the events of 9/11 since 2006.
What motivated you to write this book?
For starters, some years ago we did a research assigment with students within the context of Studium Generale (extra curricular University program)
On which we received enormous response.
Mostly positive response, but also 
quite unexpected and negative responses.
This motivated me to look deeper 
into, and properly investigate 9/11.
Since I’m an engineer, I primarily 
looked at the technical aspects.
And over the years an organization 
was formed around this subject,
…called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
You could say these are all colleagues of mine.
I’ve aligned myself with this organization 
quite some time ago...
...because I support their demand for answers...
...concerning the insufficient answers given by the US government regarding the collapses of the Twin Towers.
This demand was of such importance to me...
…especially seen in the light of how 
9/11 has impacted the world...
…that I had support this demand
by affiliating myself with it.
That’s one aspect.
Last year we hosted a lecture by the frontman of Architects and Engineers here in Delft.
A crowd of a thousand participants joined us and another fifteen hundred tuned in via the live-stream.
This also elicited many reactions.
Within the university people are generally 
very sceptic about this subject.
While it was my impression that 
this was a substantive discussion.
Which should be focused on the subject matter at hand.
As engineers, we understand how buildings collapse.
And what can happen with airplanes.
So we can reasonably assume it’s our 
responsibility to assess these matters.
9/11 of-course brings an enormous emotional load.
Which may make us hesitant to deal with it.
Despite all this, I think we should do this.
Primarily because the world has changed because of it.
And fifteen years later, our currently
enrolled students don’t know about all of this.
They were at the most three, four years old...
…when it happened, maybe 
seeing their parents affected.
So, they have to be told this story.
Including the fact that there is worldwide 
a significant number of professionals...
…and we’re not just talking about architects and engineers...
…but also about pilots, lawyers, people from media, politicians...
...who have significant questions and doubts 
about the 9/11 attacks...
…and if it happened according to the official account.
My expertise is engineering sciences, so I focus 
on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
I have no idea who would have done it if the official account turns out to be false...
...but I'm convinced we collectively need to address this.
This, combined with the fact that not only in the university but in the Netherlands as a whole...
...there is great interest in this subject even though we’re not prone to address it...
…has led me as an engineer
 to write things down in an understandable way...
…so we can all participate in an informed discussion.
In order to determine what really happened.
You mention negative reactions 
amongst the student-body...
…could you elaborate on that?
Well it’s actually not amongst the students...
…overall they’re pretty free and open about it.
The negativity mostly comes from staff, 
professors and lecturers who...
…would rather just ignore the whole subject.
They thus also failed to show up...
…when Richard Gage, the frontman of Architects and Engineers, gave his presentation.
I find that extremely disappointing, because 
as a university, I think it’s our responsibility...
…to engage in discussions like these, 
even if we have differing views on the subject at hand.
I’ve emphasized this in discussions 
with professors, that if they disagree...
…if they feel it’s wrong what they’re saying...
And I mean it’s quite something they put forward...
...with over twenty-five hundred architects and engineers backing this up.
They don’t speculate on who’s done it...
…they just point out that 
significant questions remain unanswered.
It’s your professional duty as an engineer 
to know what causes structural collapses...
…in order to understand these causes 
and improve upon future designs.
That in itself is an imperative to investigate.
My specialization is airplane design...
…and as you may or may not know, 
every accident is investigated to the finest detail.
In order to learn from them 
and improve upon future designs.
I’ve been trained in this way. And I really 
wouldn’t know how else to approach this.
So I’ve said, it’s O.K. if you don’t agree 
with what’s being put forward...
...but show up, participate in the debate 
and share your own perspective.
I totally respect it if you don’t feel up for this...
...but that has led me to write things down, 
so we can discuss it properly.
That in itself is quite a remarkable 
stance in a university...
…which should be directed at expanding 
and developing knowledge.
In your opinion, what could be the reason for this?
For this we should probably look at the emotional level...
…scientists are after all, also humans.
So I think there’s a risk factor involved. 
If everyone thinks...
...all is O.K., and you hold a different view, 
that may not be wise in respect to your carrier...
...status or position or what ever.
That may be a factor. But of course, also the consequences are enormous...
…if it turns out that the US government knew 
about the events in advance...
…or worse still, played an active part in them...
…what certainty or assurance do we have left?
And that is understandably a deep 
human emotion we would prefer to avoid.
Whereas we look at the current state of affairs...
…of what’s happening in our society. We just had the Nice event, the events in Turkey...
...stil numerous wars going on worldwide and events that cannot bare the light of day.
In my respect we have, as a university, 
a responsibility - noblesse oblige - ...
…to address these issues in all truthfulness...
…if we want to make this world a better place.
So the human aspect is probably the reason why 
scientists too find it difficult to look at this issue.
What are the most fundamental issues 
you put forth in your book?
The most important thing is that we examine the technical aspects of 9/11...
…which primarily revolve around the collapses 
of the Twin Towers...
…but that doesn't only include WTC 1 and 2, we’ll probably all know about these...
…but also, and that is probable unfamiliar to most, another large building...
...which collapsed late afternoon that same day.
And this is a building reaching 190 meters high, 
a hight which we don’t have in the Netherlands.
And although this largely went by unnoticed, it collapsed in close to six seconds.
Many scientists have said that this is 
a sheer impossibility.
This would indicated a controlled demolition, 
meaning explosives were employed.
So I’m examining all these aspects.
I’m also looking at whether or not 
an airplane was flown into the Pentagon.
This is very controversial. 
Basically we’ve never seen an airplane there.
There were eighty-five cameras, on the Pentagon...
...across the street, at a gasstation, a hotel.
Which have all been confiscated 
and never shared with the general public.
I personally find that suspicious.
And I think more people with me.
Nonetheless it is maintained that 
an airplane hit the Pentagon.
So this of-course raises a lot of questions.
I’d also like to examine where we find resistance.
People who are involved in researching or questioning this, are dismissed as ‘conspiracy-theorists'.
And this of-course is a very dismissive term.
So I’ve researched the origin of this term. 
When was it introduced.
And also how to deal with conspiracies.
So these are important aspects.
And I’m also looking into the flights.
Because these raise significant questions, 
with both the American and Dutch public...
…concerning the successful hijacking of four planes.
Three of them have been successfully 
employed in attacks, one wasn't.
But these have all been able to fly around in 
American airspace for up to 90 to 120 minutes...
...without being intercepted.
And that raises so much questions.
With also much information available on this.
So that constitutes yet another important 
aspect in the whole 9/11 story.
These are more or less the ingredients.
What do you hope to achieve with the book?
About three years ago I’ve written a 
book 'UFO’s simply exist’...
...which can be compared to this subject, since in aviation we avoid discussing UFO's.
While there are thousands and thousands 
of scientists, pilots...
…air traffic controllers and such who in the last 60 to 70 years came forth with remarkable stories.
That was also a difficult subject 
to discuss at the university.
So I thought I’d write it down 
in an uncomplicated manner...
…so that everyone can understand it 
and we can discuss it in a normal way.
Because I think that's an important issue.
And the same goes for 9/11.
This issue is way too important in understanding 
the way the world is as it is today.
What has changed because of 9/11...
…what wars that have been waged as a consequence...
...and the number of people who have subsequently been killed. Which by now amounts to millions.
If in this respect, the justification for all of this 
turns out to be flawed or untrue...
...then we’re basically living in a lie. 
In a theater if you will.
We deserve better than that.
So this discussion needs to be made possible 
and needs to take place.
To facilitate this, I’d like to rid this subject of it’s taboo.
I’d like to present it from the perspective of an engineer.
As someone who thinks rational and analytical, which I think are features of engineers.
To clarify this extremely complex issue, 
and it is very complex.
You easily stumble from one thing into another, 
that’s how encompassing it is.
Which makes it quite a task to summarize it all.
This is something I think I’m pretty capable of doing.
So I thought I might as well do that.
In order to make it accessible in such a manner, 
that we can normally discus it.
Of-course in the hope that something is done with it.
I’m not interested in being right.
I’m interested in a relevant and meaningful discussion...
…of which I wholeheartedly 
believe we should engage in.
