Meryl Nass Interviews Madhava Setty on CHD.TV
Dr. Madhava Setty, an anesthesiologist and science advisor to the International Center for 9/11 Justice, joined Children’s Health Defense TV to make what he describes as a strictly scientific case against the official explanation of the September 11th attacks. His argument rests not on speculation, but on physics, government documents, and mainstream media’s own contemporaneous reporting.
Why 9/11 matters to CHD’s mission. Setty frames 9/11 as inseparable from the organization’s focus on protecting children and exposing harms — arguing that war is an “age-old institution” that predates vaccines and environmental toxins in its toll on human health, and that CHD’s credibility rests on rigorous science rather than the “pseudoscience” of captured institutions.
Falling or blowing up? Setty opens with the iconic image of the North Tower’s collapse, noting that observers — including children shown the footage with no context — instinctively describe it as an explosion, not a structural failure. He argues the absence of any visible “top” of the building in these frames is a critical, overlooked clue.
Newton’s Third Law as the central argument. His core scientific claim: NIST’s official theory holds that the upper floors (”the pile driver”) crushed the lower structure during collapse. But per Newton’s third law, if the top exerted enough force to pulverize the bottom, the top — made of the same or sturdier material — would have to be pulverized simultaneously. Since the towers had no top remaining, he argues the “pancake theory” is physically impossible, not just improbable.
NIST’s report never actually explains collapse. Setty highlights language from NIST’s official report (NCSTAR 1) stating that collapse “became inevitable” and that investigators did not analyze structural behavior after that point. He characterizes this as an explicit admission that no real investigation of the collapse mechanism occurred — only of the events leading up to it.
Media “anchoring” the narrative. He points to The New York Times’ September 12, 2001 front section, which paired a detailed technical diagram with an explanatory graphic before any real investigation had occurred — arguing this functioned like hypnotic anchoring, cementing a “pancake collapse” narrative in public consciousness within 24 hours.
Evidence of explosives NIST didn’t pursue. Setty cites: a montage of 36+ mainstream news reports (Fox, CNN, MSNBC) describing explosions that morning; 156 FDNY firefighters who independently reported hearing or seeing explosions in oral testimonies; and a map showing human bone fragments found over a fifth of a mile from Ground Zero — which he says requires energy density inconsistent with gravitational collapse alone. He notes NIST stated they found no “corroborating evidence” of explosives, and admitted they never looked for any.
Building 7 as the clearest case. Setty calls WTC Building 7 — which was not hit by a plane yet collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint, including several seconds of true free-fall — the most damning evidence. He contrasts NIST’s computer model (which stops short of matching real footage) with an independent University of Alaska Fairbanks study that found the only way to replicate the actual collapse was to simultaneously destroy every internal and external column — consistent only with controlled demolition.
Foreknowledge and motive. He notes NYFD officials were told Building 7 would collapse hours in advance, and asks how this was known absent inside knowledge. He also raises the role of 9/11 Commission director Philip Zelikow, who in 1998 co-authored a paper anticipating a “Pearl Harbor”-style catastrophic event that would justify sweeping security measures — which he connects to the Patriot Act’s subsequent powers.
Broader implications. Setty situates 9/11 within a pattern of historical “false flag” pretexts (citing the Lusitania and Operation Northwoods), argues the military-industrial complex and legacy media’s uniform messaging were essential enablers, and suggests the post-COVID erosion of institutional trust creates new opportunity to revisit 9/11 with public receptiveness.
Core conclusion: Whether or not the specific perpetrators are ever identified, Setty argues the laws of physics alone are sufficient to rule out the official explanation and require an independent, genuinely scientific reinvestigation.