as well as scientists and engineers, and even members of the 9/11 Truth movement have spoken out against the film's claims about the September 11 attacks. Loose Change has been subject to criticism from a variety of sources. In March 2007, the United States Department of State published an article called "Loose Change Debunked" that says the movie makes "sloppy mistakes". The article is highly critical of the evidence cited to support the claim that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, and it criticizes the controlled demolition hypothesis of the World Trade Center claiming that, "Demolition professionals say controlled demolition of the Towers that day would have been impossible." The article goes on to say: It also notes that Loose Change has also been criticized by other members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, referring specifically to the critique Sifting Through Loose Change. Michael Green, a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement, has analyzed the film and is critical of many of its claims and methods. Several independent researchers have also written critiques of the film. Prominent social commentator Noam Chomsky has argued that any scientists with plausible evidence would have gone through the traditional channels of scientific journals to convince other professionals, and that such a course of action is extremely low-risk for the scientist. In May 2006, the blog Screw Loose Change was created to criticize the claims in the film. Another analysis of the film has been created by the Internet Detectives. Many of the critiques argue that Loose Change quote mines, uses unreliable or out-of-date sources, and cherry-picks evidence to claim that there are serious problems with official accounts of the events of September 11. One of the many aspects these critiques focus on is Loose Change's analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Center. The comparison to other notable high-rise fires that did not lead to collapse ignores differences in building design, significant WTC structural damage, and compromised fireproofing, as most steel loses over half its strength at . The comparison with Madrid's Windsor Tower fails to note its steel-supported perimeter floors that collapsed during the fire. Kevin Ryan, described by Loose Change as working for Underwriters Laboratories (UL), was actually employed in a water-testing subsidiary. Furthermore, UL does not certify structural steel, and ASTM E119 certification is not meant to predict performance in real uncontrolled fires. The NIST found no evidence of any