Also see: "Noam Chomsky and the Willful Ignorance of 9/11"

MIT's  Noam Chomsky, at a recent lecture in Florida, explained why the official account of 9/11 is true and academics who argue otherwise are obviously wrong and wrong-headed: “There’s a consensus among a miniscule number of architects and engineers. They are not doing what scientists and engineers do when they think they’ve discovered something. What you do when you think you’ve discovered something is write articles in scientific journals ...  go to the civil engineering department at MIT or Florida or wherever you are, and present your results, then proceed to try to convince the national academies, the professional society of physicists and civil engineers, the departments of the major universities, convince them that you’ve discovered something. ...”"

Is the sage of the establishment left correct? Or is he a useful idiot who peddles status quo programming on 9/11?

In fact, it is "official investigations and reports on this topic [that are] not peer-reviewed" (see report below). 

Checking the number of articles publshed in the journals "simply requires access to at least one of the relevant databases, which are available through most major universities and research libraries. Indeed, anyone can do spot checks using Google Scholar (; e.g., keywords 'controlled demolition' WTC returns 436 results." Does 426 scholarly articles constitute "miniscule?"

And If the many authors of these studies are not publishing in leading peer-reviewed technical literature (see below again), then I am the King of Portugal. I have as much claim to that title as Chomsky does his reputation as a credible spokesman of the left. Please direct all tithings, requests for imperial clemency and harem applications to me (sniff). - Alex Constantine

Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 37, April 2013 Volume 37, April 2013

WTC Destruction: An Analysis of Peer Reviewed Technical Literature

Timothy E. Eastman, Ph.D. (Geophysics), and Jonathan H. Cole, P.E.

The importance of understanding the mechanisms of collapse for the three World Trade

Center buildings on September 11, 2001 cannot be over-estimated, for these unusual

collapses and their disputed causes raise questions regarding all future steel-frame building

design. A literature review was conducted to identify the evolving trend in research results

in this area, which have become increasingly diverse over time. Recommendations for

further research are presented.

Over the past decade there have emerged two primary hypotheses regarding the mechanism of

destruction for World Trade Center (WTC) buildings 1, 2 and 7, namely, the official fire-induced

Progressive Collapse (PC) versus the alternate Controlled Demolition (CD). The question of

which of these two hypotheses is correct is singularly important because its current lack of

resolution leaves unmet the following critical needs (assuming PC):

(1) Thousands of other structures may also be subject to such catastrophic destruction by

office fires, and inspections and upgrades based on determination of what caused the

WTC buildings to collapse may be needed to ensure public safety;

(2) Significant structural design analysis tools and computer models need upgrades

to account for the potential of such catastrophic destruction;

(3) major revisions to building codes for high-rise steel-frame buildings are critically needed

(Bement, 2002).

Our goals here are to fully document the available peer-reviewed literature on this important

question, and to promote more open and in-depth research by a broader community of scholars.

Although much relevant evidence from portions of the events of 9/11 remains unavailable to

researchers as well as the general public, substantial evidence is available concerning the

destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 that is relevant to resolving the key question of PC versus CD.

Nevertheless, the diversity and complexity of the 9/11 events make it very difficult for most

citizens, and even many researchers, to obtain the quality information needed to address and

resolve the above questions. In particular, information provided officially is notoriously

incomplete; e.g., the official 9/11 Commission Report (2004) makes no mention of destruction of

the third high-rise steel-frame building, WTC 7. Further, relevant official reports produced by the

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for the Twin Towers are incomplete in that

they stopped their efforts at “collapse initiation” and could not explain total destruction. Finally,

the same NIST reports have been surrounded by controversy that remains mostly unreported in

mainstream media sources (see peer-reviewed papers referenced herein).

This controversy has been fueled in part because official investigations and reports on this topic

have been very tightly controlled and not peer-reviewed.1 Basic documentation of such work has

not been made available to independent researchers in spite of repeated Freedom-of-Information-

Act (FOIA) requests; e.g., most of the detailed documentation, coding, methodology and

assumptions employed by NIST in their finite element analysis model of WTC 7. Related to these

technical impediments to independent research, in addition to essentially no funding for such

research, the “conspiracy theorist” or “truther” label has often been used to discourage or truncate

debate on many critical questions, leaving the official theory as the default. For the most part, and

somewhat understandably, the science and engineering professional communities have stayed on

the sidelines, perhaps in part to protect their reputations and in part to avoid putting their federal

research grants at risk. This condition of obstructed research continues in spite of the fact that a

“conspiracy” by definition is “an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime.”

Thus, by definition, both the official PC hypothesis and the alternative CD hypothesis addressed

here are necessarily associated with a conspiracy theory of one form or another. Setting such

labels aside, the fundamental question remains, “which hypothesis is best supported by the

evidence?” Unfortunately, this basic question and its resolution have been systematically

subverted for the past decade.

Nevertheless, more than a hundred serious and independent researchers have taken up the question

and are actively working to examine the available evidence and report their results to the broader

research community. The subset of their research work that has been independently evaluated (i.e.,

peer-reviewed2) and published in scholarly journals, provides a critically important sample set for

addressing key questions and, in particular, the following:

Key technical question: What is the mechanism of collapse for WTC 1, 2, and 7?

Was it through Progressive Collapse (PC) or Controlled Demolition (CD)?

We propose that one of the best available solutions to this critical question can be obtained

through an evidence-based approach and a concentration on results derived from the available

peer-reviewed technical literature. Although peer-reviewed papers are a small subset of the

available literature on these topics, they generally (not always) represent higher quality, better

argued, and better referenced materials than papers that lack such peer review. Thus, an analysis

of the peer-reviewed literature over time should provide an excellent basis for evaluating the

merits of the competing hypotheses that are here in question.

We recognize that any conclusions are limited by the necessity for decisions between competing

claims and hypotheses within that literature. Further, as stated in a recent study of the National

Academy of Sciences, “Research has deepened knowledge about the fallibility of human decision

making, particularly the many cognitive biases to which people are subject.” For example,

“People have a proclivity to ignore evidence that contradicts their preconceived notions

(confirmation bias),” (NRC, 2012, p. 57).

In scientific practice, a key methodology to compensate for such inevitable fallibility is to

reproduce, when possible, the results for oneself. In the present case, the means for reproduction

are available. Indeed, we encourage the reader to personally check results of this analysis of

the peer-reviewed technical literature; e.g., spot checks can be easily done using

For this analysis of available peer-reviewed technical literature relevant to the key question above,

we have used two major databases, each accessing more than 3500 peer-reviewed journals


(1) Academic Search Complete database, from EBSCO, 1965 to present


This database provides advanced search capability and full-text access for more than 5,100 peer-

reviewed journals.

(2) The Thomson Reuters Web of Science database, similarly, provides advanced search and full-

text access for more than 3500 notable peer-reviewed scientific and technical journals, 1956 to


In addition to these standard sources, we have searched the contents of a few additional journals

which, at this time, are not included in the above databases.

Open Chemical Physics Journal, indexed by six services, among them Chemical Abstracts,

the premiere world service for chemistry; also Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Open

J-Gate, Genamics JournalSeek, MediaFinder®-Standard Periodical Directory, Astrophysics Data

System (ADS).

Open Civil Engineering Journal, indexed in Scopus, Compendex, Directory of Open Access

Journals (DOAJ), Open J-Gate, Genamics JournalSeek, MediaFinder®-Standard Periodical

Directory, PubsHub, J-Gate.

Both the Open Chemical Physics Journal and the Open Civil Engineering Journal are open

access, online journals of Bentham Open.3 The Journal of 9/11 Studies is the primary peer-

reviewed venue for the independent 9/11 research community, and has published papers on both

sides of this question (e.g., Greening (2006) argues for the PC hypothesis). Since its initiation in

2006, articles published in this journal have always been subject to two independent peerreviews.

4 Although papers prior to 2012 are not uniform in format, we have found this journal’s

reviewing standard to be comparable overall to other journals publishing on this topic.

For completeness, we have also included the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories.

Even though its submission guidelines make no reference to peer review, the phrase “Peer-

Reviewed Papers” appears in its index of papers. Unlike all other journals used for our analysis,

this journal’s title itself presupposes preferred study outcomes (to which all papers conform), and

it did not provide sustained service to its research community

(ten papers appeared in 2006, plus only one more in 2007). We encourage readers to

judge the quality of peer review from this journal for themselves.

-Systematic keyword selection based on index terms applied to known publications;

-Comprehensive search yielding 9,856 records, which is the sum of subtotals

in columns 1, 3, 4, and 7 of Table 1;

-Clear specification of selection criteria;

-Manual check of all retrieved records (titles and abstracts);

systematic identification of all cases that meet selection criteria;

-Compilation and recording of all publications meeting selection criteria

(see Table 2).

The selection criteria were as follows: (1) paper’s title and abstract and, when available, its full-

text content must support either the official (PC) hypothesis or the CD hypothesis; and (2) the

associated paper must give some specific technical argument on behalf of that claim.

The search keywords and number of records obtained for the two databases are recorded in Table

1. A larger number of retrieved records were obtained with the EBSCO database because it

included more non-technical journals. More specific keywords and search terms would have

substantially expedited the searches; however, for this analysis, we considered it a high priority to

avoid overlooking any relevant paper. As shown in Table 1, the aggregate number of records

evaluated based on the EBSCO Academic Search Complete database searches was 6,404 records

and, for the more technically-focused Web of Science database that we used, a total of 3,452

search records were obtained and analyzed.

The primary work in this analysis is that of reading and evaluating all titles and abstracts derived

from search results given in Table 1. We effectively carried out our search-and-analysis process

three times over: first, using only the EBSCO database for a preliminary study; second, using an

independent set of search strategies by co-author Cole (applied to the latest version of EBSCO) to

check the first analysis and to identify any additional papers (see “Cole” column in Table 1); and

third, using both databases as a double-check and to assure comprehensive search and analysis.

Final results of this search-and-analysis process, using both the EBSCO Academic Search

Complete and Thomson Reuters Web of Science databases, are given in Table 2 (presented

at the end of this paper). This table provides, in order, each paper’s date, title, author(s), journal

name, journal volume and issue number. Finally, some notes are given as needed. Among the

9,856 records initially obtained via the keywords given in Table 1, and including papers from the

four additional journals discussed above, a total of 84 papers were identified that are relevant to

our focus. These papers include four by Cherepanov, who hypothesizes a propagating fracture

hypothesis that does not easily fit within the PC/CD categories. In the first column, these papers

are designated “F” for the Fracture hypothesis. In some cases, a paper discusses related technical

considerations about the towers but does not provide arguments for one of the two hypotheses;

these cases are left as a blank in the first column (e.g., Newland, 2002). In some cases, a

discussion, closure5 or commentary paper (e.g, Sivakumar, Nov. 2003; Gourley, 2007) either

replicates arguments given in a previous paper (e.g., Sivakumar, July, 2003), or simply offers

commentary on related points, but without arguing (as needed for the second criterion above) for a

particular inferred hypothesis (e.g., Gourley, 2007; Flint, 2007). Several closure papers merely

replicate arguments given in their associated base paper. Bazant’s original paper of December

2001 was basically replicated, with the same title, in two journals and, with its Addendum of

March, 2002, is treated here as simply one paper (Bazant and Zhou, 2002). These latter cases and

the closure cases are represented with parentheses and are not here treated as distinct papers.


Thomson Reuters Web of Science EBSCO Academic Search Complete

10 Yrs 11 Yrs Sept. 2011

-Dec. 2012

10 Yrs 11 Yrs 11 Yrs,


by Cole

Sept. 2011

-Dec. 2012



1158 1319 193 245 298 427 76

World Trade


937 1022 87 4712 4894 6128 321

…collapse 201 212 12 116 118 129 4



65 70 6 7 8 7 1

WTC 427 473 52 399 439 659 60

…collapse 113 119 7 52 56 55 5

…mech. of


9 9 0 0 0 81 0

…building 7 9 9 0 2 2 2 0

…demolition 2 2 0 0 0 2 0

Building mech.

of collapse

311 368 64 4 5 1 2

World Trade


119 124 6 110 113 116 9

…demolition 0 0 0 1 1 1 0

Twin Tower(s) 90 95 8 413 442 591 53

…collapse 25 25 0 18 19 19 3



7 7 0 0 0 0

Totals 3042 3401 410 5883 6191 7922 521

Notes: “…” denotes addition to above keyword; “mech.” = “mechanism; Cole’s results are based on a newer

version of the EBSCO database whereas other EBSCO results were accessed at the Library of Congress.

After applying these distinctions, a total of 59 distinct papers were identified that met both

selection criteria above. These were given a designation (see first column) of either Progressive

Collapse (PC) or Controlled Demolition (CD). In many such cases, the paper in question discusses

only a mechanism of destruction for WTC 1 or 2. In cases where a paper addresses a mechanism

of destruction for WTC 7 as well, the designation “PC/7” or “CD/7” is given.

(1) Within the first ten years after “9/11” (namely September 11, 2001 through September 11,

2011), the mainstream peer-reviewed literature, worldwide, contained no paper on WTC 7

that concludes with the Progressive Collapse (PC) hypothesis (Note: Two such PC papers

appear in the short-lived Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories);


(2) Within the first ten years, there are 31 distinct CD papers (i.e., arguing for the Controlled

Demolition hypothesis, including 14 that address WTC 7) versus 19 distinct PC papers

(i.e., arguing for Progressive Collapse, including only 2 as noted immediately above that

address WTC 7);

(3) Overall, from 9/11/01 through 12/31/2012, there are 34 distinct CD papers versus 25 PC

papers; among these, 15 of the CD papers address WTC 7 whereas only 4 PC papers do so,

again indicating overall the importance of the CD hypothesis;

(4) Although most CD papers (and one PC paper) derive from the Journal of 9/11 Studies, six

qualified and distinct CD papers appear in mainstream journals.


What is most striking about our results is the fact that there is serious disagreement as to how

the WTC structures fell on September 11, 2001. While precise sequences of every building

component failure cannot be determined, the overall basic mechanism of destruction (i.e. some

type of fire-induced natural gravitational collapse (PC), or some type of planned demolition

CD) is clearly in dispute. There is no consensus. At this point, almost 12 years later, there

should not be any significant disagreement about such a fundamental issue as to how three

buildings were destroyed so completely given the magnitude of the event, the implications of

the event, and repercussions for existing and future structural design.

We note that in the early years, from 2001 to 2005, essentially all published papers supported

the official narrative of some type of progressive collapse mechanism. Subsequent years,

however, have generated numerous papers challenging the official narrative, and a substantial

number of peer-reviewed papers were published concluding that the failures were due to


The vast majority of independent investigations about other catastrophes narrow down and

converge on the solution as more and better information is obtained. Theories that do not, or

cannot, explain the additional information are discarded, resulting in a theory that earns general

scientific consensus. Precisely the opposite has happened over the past decade with the study

of how the WTC structures fell. That is, the more information that has been unearthed, the

more unanswered questions have arisen with the official hypothesis, with more people

questioning the initial theory. Thus, the demolition hypothesis is strengthened, and the

hypothesis of fire-induced collapse is further weakened. Therefore, rather than converging on

an answer, the study of 9/11 diverges over time as the scientific rift has grown and the early

consensus for the official story is undermined.

If it is true that steel-frame buildings can collapse from fire alone, it is crucial for owners of

existing structures and insurers to understand the risk of a sudden fire-induced collapse so that

structural repairs and risk adjustments can be factored in. Given the official story, it is

remarkable how little insurance premiums, or even design parameters and building construction

codes,6 have been modified (if at all) to address the possibility of catastrophic fire-induced


progressive collapse. The fact that they have not been modified indicates that insurance

companies do not accept the PC hypothesis.

Given the fact that before September 11, 2001 no high-rise steel-frame building has ever

collapsed from fire alone (Taylor, 2011), extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The

NIST Reports did not address the total collapse of the Twin Towers, truncating their study at

“collapse initiation.” Overall, our peer-reviewed literature results collectively yield a very

strong prima facie argument for CD.

Other than two papers appearing in the Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, the

only papers that address WTC 7 and argue for PC are brief summaries by McAllister et al.

(2012) of the non-peer-reviewed NIST report on WTC 7 (NIST, 2008). McAllister, it should be

noted, was herself one of the co-project leaders for the NIST report. Thorough critiques of this

paper and associated results of the NIST report are given in Legge (2009) and Brookman


When applying the scientific method, independent confirmation of an unexpected result is a

very strong form of support. Such independent confirmation occurred twice with regard to 9/11

dust contamination. First, Harrit et al. (2009) published detailed evidence for active thermitic

material in relevant dust samples, thus supporting explosive demolition. This paper also

appears to be one of the most extensively researched and professionally written of all 84 papers

appearing in Table 2. Entirely independent of Harrit’s work, Wu et al. (2010) published a case

report of lung disease in WTC responders. They reported an “unexpected” discovery of

extremely fine carbon (nanotube) structures in responder lung tissue, which are associated with

dust, thus independently confirming Harrit et al., who found the same such structures in 9/11

dust samples.

Well-qualified scientists, including physicists, have pointed out inconsistencies and violations

of basic physics contained in many PC papers. For example, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, Applied

Physics Ph.D. from Caltech, has raised many such critical problems (see Grabbe, 2007, 2010,

2012). Physics teacher David Chandler and co-author Jonathan Cole also document many basic

physics issues at their Website And Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

(, as of April, 2013, is comprised of 1,877 certified professionals who

reject the PC hypothesis and jointly call for a new, independent investigation.

The integrity of science itself is compromised when an argument that proceeds from authority

alone is given precedence over the presentation of relevant, demonstrable facts (e.g., more than

a hundred documented reports of explosions (MacQueen, 2012)), or even basic laws of physics

(e.g., violations of conservation of energy and momentum, see Grabbe (2012)).

Compiling all relevant peer-reviewed publications on this focused topic, as done here, enables a

systematic, integrated analysis to address our key question in a way analogous to how Paul

Thompson’s 9/11 Timeline has served so effectively to help integrate a large range of 9/11related

issues (Thompson, 2004). 7

The first submitted draft paper on the mechanism of collapse is that by Bazant, submitted

September 13, 2001 (see first entry of Table 2, including its footnote). It is our professional

opinion that, by any measure, a responsible, professional research paper on this complex event


that was not begun until September 11 could not have been completed and submitted by

Greater recognition is needed for the importance of evidence-based scholarly analyses

(e.g., MacQueen’s detailed analysis of eye-witness accounts of explosions), in addition

to more in-depth technical analyses and scholarly works that reveal the broader context

of 9/11 events;

We stress the importance of scientific, technical and scholarly research on these questions,

followed up with peer-reviewed publications; lacking this, the discussion

tends to be dominated by essays driven mostly by advocacy-based thinking. In contrast, the

best of science is evidence-based with systematic testing of alternative hypotheses,

falsification, and model-making (where appropriate);

In contrast to current conditions that have suppressed research and dialogue on these world-

changing collapses, achieving improved understanding of these critical questions requires

transparency, avoidance of cognitive bias (especially confirmation bias), peer-review, checks

and balances, and efforts to reduce research misconduct.8

Challenge to the Reader

Although every reasonable effort was made to locate all relevant papers, we fully acknowledge

that some papers or publications meeting the criteria herein may have been overlooked in our

search. Accordingly we challenge the reader (especially professional engineers and scientists) to

leverage the resources referenced in Table 2, and then perform for themselves such a synthesis

and, if appropriate, submit the results of such a study to a peer-reviewed journal, especially if they

conflict with our conclusions.

Such a check simply requires access to at least one of the relevant databases, which are available

through most major universities and research libraries. Indeed, anyone can do spot checks using

Google Scholar (; e.g., keywords “controlled demolition” WTC returns 436

results, and “progressive collapse” WTC returns 920 results.

We are thankful for all the independent researchers throughout the years who have courageously

stepped forward providing evidence, research, testing and analysis concerning this

catastrophic event, especially when such works contradicted official claims. In particular, we

gratefully acknowledge detailed technical and editing inputs provided by David Ray Griffin, Tod

Fletcher and two independent reviewers. Finally, we respectfully acknowledge the open access

available through the internet and public libraries, both critical infrastructures for democracy,

which makes this research possible.

Table 2. Peer-reviewed Publications Focused on

Mechanism of Collapse for WTC 1, 2, and 7




(mm/yy) Title Author(s) Publication Vol/Issue

(PC) 12/01 Why did the WTC collapse? Simple

Analysis Bazant, Zhou Int'l J. Struct.

Stab. Dyn.

Vol. 1, No. 4,


PC 12/01

Why did the WTC collapse?

Science, engineering, and


Eagar, Musso J. of Materials

Science (JOM)

Vol. 53, No. 12,


PC 01/02 Why did the WTC collapse? Simple

Analysis Bazant, Zhou

J. Engineering



Vol. 128, No. 1,


(PC) 03/02 Addendum to "Why did the

WTC…" Bazant, Zhou JEM Vol. 128, No. 3,


— 07/02 Could the WTC have been modified

to prevent its collapse?


Cebon JEM Vol. 128, No. 7,


PC 05/02 Dissecting the Collapses ASCE




Vol. 72,

Issue 514

PC 10/02 A suggested cause of the fire-

induced collapse of the WTC


di Marzo,


Fire Safety


Vol. 37,

Issue 7,

p. 707

— 07/03 Discussion [see above; Bazant and

Zhou, 2002] Sivakumar JEM Vol. 128,

Issue 7, 83915

(PC) 07/03 Closure [see above; Bazant and

Zhou, 2002] Bazant, Zhou JEM July 2003,


PC 10/03 How did the WTC towers collapse:

a new theory




Fire Safety


Vol. 38,

Issue 6,


— 10/03 A suggested cause of the fire-

induced collapse of the WTC Lane Fire Safety

Journal (letter)

Vol. 38,

Issue 6,


— 11/03 Discussion [see above; Newland,

2002] Sivakumar JEM Nov. 2003,

p. 1360

— 11/03 Closure [see above; Newland, 2002] Newland,

Cebon JEM Nov. 2003,


PC 05/04 Progressive analysis procedure for

progressive collapse Marjanishvili JEM May 2004,



Use of high-efficiency energy

absorbing device to arrest

Progressive collapse of tall building

Zhou, Yu JEM Oct. 2004,


PC 01/05 Structural responses of WTC under

aircraft attacks Omika et al. J. Structural

Eng. Jan. 2005, 6-1520

PC 06/05

Stability of the WTC twin towers

structural frame in multiple floor


Usmani JEM June 2005,


F 2005 September 11 and fracture

mechanics -a retrospective Cherepanov Int'l Journal of

Fracture 132: L25-L2622

— 06/06 WTC 7: A short computation Kuttler J. 9/11 Studies Vol. 1, 1-323

CD/7 06/06

9/11 -Evidence for controlled

demolition: a short list of


Legge J. 9/11 Studies Vol. 1, 4-16

CD/7 06/06 9/11 -Evidence suggests complicity:

Inferences from actions Legge J. 9/11 Studies Vol. 1, 17-27

Table 2. Peer-reviewed Publications Focused on

Mechanism of Collapse for WTC 1, 2, and 7




(mm/yy) Title Author(s) Publication Vol/Issue

— 06/06

Momentum transfer analysis of the

collapse of the upper storeys of


Ross J. 9/11 Studies Vol. 1, 32-39

CD/7 08/06 What is 9/11 truth? -the first steps Ryan J. 9/11 Studies Vol. 2, 1-6

PC 08/06 To whom it may concern Greening J. 9/11 Studies Vol. 2, 7-1224

— 08/06 Reply to Dr. Greening [see above;

Greening, 2006] Ross J. 9/11 Studies Vol. 2, 13-1825

CD/7 08/06 Intersecting facts and theories on

9/11 Firmage J. 9/11 Studies Vol. 2, 19-4726

CD 08/06

118 Witnesses: The firefighters'

testimony to explosions in the twin


MacQueen J. 9/11 Studies Vol. 2, 47-106

CD 08/06 NIST data disproves collapse

theories based on fire Legge J. 9/11 Studies Vol. 2, 107-121

F 08/06 Mechanics of the WTC collapse Cherepanov Int'l Journal of

Fracture 141: 287-28927

CD/7 09/06 Why indeed did the WTC buildings

completely collapse? Jones J. 9/11 Studies Vol. 3, 1-47

CD 09/06 Seismic proof -9/11 was an inside

job Furlong, Ross J. 9/11 Studies Sept. 2006,


CD/7 11/06 9/11 -acceleration study proves

explosive demolition Legge J. 9/11 Studies Nov. 2006, 1-5

CD 12/06 The NIST WTC investigation -how

real was the simulation? Douglas J. 9/11 Studies Vol. 6, 1-28

F 01/07 Progressive collapse of towers: the

resistance effect



Int'l Journal of

Fracture 143: 203-20628

CD 01/07 Statement regarding thermite,

part 1 Moore J. 9/11 Studies Vol. 7, 1-9

— 02/07

The overwhelming implausibility of

using directed energy beams to

demolish the WTC towers

Jenkins J. 9/11 Studies Feb. 2007,


PC 03/07

Mechanics of progressive collapse:

learning from WTC and building



Verdure JEM March 2007,


CD/7 04/07

Jones v. Robertson, a physicist and

a structural engineer debate the

controlled demolition of the World

Trade Center

Roberts J. 9/11 Studies April 2007,


CD/7 04/07 9/11 and the twin towers: Sudden

collapse initiation was impossible Morrone J. 9/11 Studies April 2007,


— 05/07 NIST and Dr. Bazant -simultaneous

failure Ross J. 9/11 Studies May 2007,


CD/7 05/07

The sustainability of the controlled

demolition hypothesis for

destruction of the twin towers

Szamboti J. 9/11 Studies May 2007,


CD/7 05/07 Revisiting 9/11/2001 -applying the

scientific method Jones J. 9/11 Studies May 2007,


PC/7 05/07 Good Science and 9-11 Demolition

Theories Mike King JOD 911


Vol. 1, Issue 2,

Sept. 2006

Table 2. Peer-reviewed Publications Focused on

Mechanism of Collapse for WTC 1, 2, and 7




(mm/yy) Title Author(s) Publication Vol/Issue

Theories (updated

13 May 2007)

CD/7 06/07

Some physical chemistry aspects of

thermite...system as applied to the

demise of three WTC buildings on


Lobdill J. 9/11 Studies June 2007,


CD/7 07/07

High velocity bursts of debris from

point-like sources in the WTC


Ryan J. 9/11 Studies July 2007, 1-8

CD 08/07

Direct evidence for explosions:

flying projectiles and widespread

impact damage

Grabbe J. 9/11 Studies Aug. 2007, 1-7

CD/7 09/07 9/11 -Proof of explosive demolition

without calculations Legge J. 9/11 Studies Sept. 2007, 1-8

— 10/07 The great steel caper: DEW demolition

contrary evidence Jenkins J. 9/11 Studies Oct. 2007, 1-63

— 11/07 Appeal filed with NIST Gourley et al. J. 9/11 Studies Nov. 2007,


— 12/07 Analysis of the mass and potential

energy of WTC tower 1 Urich J. 9/11 Studies Dec. 2007,


CD 12/07 9/11 and the twin towers: Sudden

collapse initiation was impossible


Szamboti J. 9/11 Studies Dec. 2007, 1-3

— 12/07 Structural response of tall buildings

to multiple floor fires Flint et al. J. Structural


Dec. 2007,


CD/7 01/08 Extremely high temperatures

during the WTC destruction Jones et al. J. 9/11 Studies Jan. 2008, 1-11

PC 01/08


Engineering perspective of the

collapse of WTC-1



J. Perf. of



Vol. 22, No. 1,


PC 02/08 Progressive collapse of the WTC:

simple analysis Seffen JEM Feb. 2008,


CD 04/08

Fourteen points of agreement with

official government reports on the

WTC destruction

Jones et al. Open Civil Eng.

J. Vol. 2, 35-40

PC/7 05/08 On Debunking 9/11 Debunking Ryan Mackey

JOD 911



Vol. 1, Issue 4,

31 Aug. 2007


24 May 2008)

CD 06/08 9/11 and probability theory Legge J. 9/11 Studies June 2008, 1-4

CD 07/08 The top ten connections between

NIST and nano-thermites Ryan J. 9/11 Studies July 2008, 1-12

F 07/08 Collapse of towers as applied to

September 11 events Cherepanov Materials

Science Vol. 44, No. 434

PC 10/08 Discussion [see above; Bazant, 2007] Szuladzinski JEM Oct. 2008,


CD 10/08 Discussion Gourley JEM Oct. 2002,


(PC) 10/08 Closure [see above; Bazant, 2007] Bazant, Le JEM Oct. 2008,


PC 10/08 What did and did not cause collapse Bazant et al. JEM Oct. 2008,

Table 2. Peer-reviewed Publications Focused on

Mechanism of Collapse for WTC 1, 2, and 7




(mm/yy) Title Author(s) Publication Vol/Issue

of WTC twin towers in New York? 892-906

CD 01/09

The missing jolt: A simple

refutation of the NIST-Bazant

collapse hypothesis


Szamboti J. 9/11 Studies Vol. 24, 1-27

CD 02/09

Active thermitic material

discovered in dust from the 9/11

WTC catastrophe

Harrit et al. Open Chem.

Phys. J. Vol. 2, 7-3136

CD/7 05/09

Controlled demolition at the WTC:

An historical examination of the


Legge J. 9/11 Studies May 2009, 1-5

PC 07/09


Dominant factor in the collapse of

WTC-1 Miamis et al.

J. Perf. of



Vol. 23, No. 4,


CD 02/10 Destruction of the WTC north

tower and fundamental physics Chandler J. 9/11 Studies Feb. 2010,


CD 03/10

Falsifiability and the NIST WTC

report: A study in theoretical



Legge J. 9/11 Studies March 2010,


CD 04/10 Discussion [see above; Seffen, 2008] Grabbe JEM Vol. 136, No. 4,


PC 06/10 How fast does a building fall? Denny European J. of


Vol. 31, 94394838

CD 07/10 Discussion [see above; Bazant et al.

2008] Bjorkman JEM Vol. 136, No. 7,


(PC) 07/10 Closure Bazant et al. JEM Vol. 136, No. 7,


PC 01/11 Why the observed motion history of

WTC towers is smooth Le, Bazant JEM Vol. 137, No. 1,


PC/7 01/12

Analysis of structural response of

WTC 7 to fire and sequential

failures leading to collapse


et al.

J. Structural


Vol. 138, No. 1,


PC 01/12

Using numerical simulations and

engineering reasoning under

uncertainty: studying the collapse of




Aided Civil and



Vol. 27, No. 1,


PC 07/12 Temporal considerations in collapse

of WTC towers Szuladzinski Int'l J. Struct.


Vol. 3, No. 3,


PC 08/12 Structural analysis of impact

damage WTC 1, 2, and 7


et al. Fire Technology Vol. 49, No. 3,


— 10/12

A discussion of “Analysis of

structural response of WTC 7...”

(see McCallister et al. above, Jan.


Brookman J. 9/11 Studies Oct. 2012,

Vol. 33

CD 10/12 Discussion [see above; Bazant, 2011] Grabbe JEM Vol. 138, No. 10,


PC 10/12 Closure [see above; Bazant, 2012] Le, Bazant JEM Vol. 138, No. 10,


CD 11/12

Were explosives the source of the

seismic signals emitted from New

York on September 11, 2001?

Rousseau J. 9/11 Studies Vol. 34, 1-23

Table 2. Peer-reviewed Publications Focused on

Mechanism of Collapse for WTC 1, 2, and 7




(mm/yy) Title Author(s) Publication Vol/Issue

PC 12/12

Equation of motion governing the

dynamics of vertically collapsing


Pesce JEM Vol. 138, No. 12,


The 9/11 Commission Report, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,

2004 (

Bement, Arden L., Jr., “Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade

Center,” statement by Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), before the

Committee on Science, House of Representatives, United States Congress, March 6, 2002.

Brookman, Ronald H., A discussion of “Analysis of structural response of WTC 7 to fire and

sequential failure leading to collapse,” J. 9/11 Studies, Vol. 33, Oct. 2012.

Grabbe, Crockett L., Direct evidence for explosions: flying projectiles and widespread impact

damage, J. 9/11 Studies, 1-7, August, 2007.

Grabbe, Crockett L., Discussion on “Progressive collapse of the WTC: simple analysis” by Seffen,

J. Eng. Mech., Vol. 136, No. 4, 538-539, 2010.

Grabbe, Crockett L., Discussion on “Why the observed motion history of WTC towers is smooth”

by Le and Bazant, J. Eng. Mech., Vol. 138, Issue 10, 1298-1300, 2012.

Greening, Frank R., To whom it may concern, J. 9/11 Studies, Vol. 2, 7-12, August, 2006.

Griffin, David Ray, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official

Report About 9/11 is Unscientific and False, Olive Branch Press, 2010.

Harrit, Niels H. et al., Active thermitic material discovered in dust from the 9/11 WTC

catastrophe, Open Chem. Phys. J., Vol. 2, 7-31, Feb. 2009.

Legge, Frank, Controlled demolition at the WTC: An historical examination of the case,

J. 9/11 Studies, 1-5, May 2009.

MacQueen, Graeme, “Eyewitness Evidence of Explosions in the Twin Towers,” Chapter 8 in The

9/11 Toronto Report: International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001, James

Gourley, ed., International Center for 9/11 Studies (, pages 171-191, 2012.

McAllister, Therese et al., Analysis of structural response of WTC 7 to fire and sequential failures

leading to collapse, J. Structural Eng., Vol. 138, No. 1, 109-117, 2012.

NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology), Final Reports from the NIST

Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, 2012 (including Releases of 2005, 2008, 2009,

and 2012) (

NRC (National Research Council), Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy, Committee on the

Use of Social Science Knowledge in Public Policy, K. Prewitt, T. Schwandt, and M. Straf, eds.,

Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2012.

Ryan, Kevin, “Are Tall Buildings Safer as a Result of the NIST WTC Reports?” from

Dig Within blog of Kevin Ryan, posted Sept. 7, 2012.

Taylor, Adam, Other Collapses in Perspective: An Examination of Other Steel Structures

Collapsing due to Fire and their Relation to the WTC, June 4, 2011.


Thompson, Paul, The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute: A

Comprehensive Chronicle of the Road to 9/11 — and America’s Response, HarperCollins, 2004.

Wu, M. et al., Case Report: Lung disease in World Trade Center responders exposed to dust and

smoke: Carbon nanotubes found in the lungs of World Trade Center patients and dust samples,

Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 118, No. 4, 499-504, Apr. 2010.

1 On December 16, 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) formally issued its “Final

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review.” Section II of the Bulletin “requires each agency to

subject “influential” scientific information to peer review prior to dissemination.” Official reports

on the destruction of the WTC buildings (NIST, 2012) were among the most “influential” such

reports to appear in the last decade and yet, contrary to requirements of this OMB Bulletin, they

were not peer reviewed.

2 Scholarly peer review is the process of subjecting research papers to critical analysis by experts

in the same or related field to help enhance the quality, value and objectivity of any final

publication (see “Peer review” in With the exception of the Journal of Debunking

9/11 Conspiracy Theories, journals included in our database represent publication venues that are

recognized by their associated research communities as providing a valuable, and sustained peer-

reviewed service.

3 The online journals of Bentham Open are described at

4 Information on the Journal of 9/11 Studies is available at its website

(, and confirmed by co-editor K. Ryan (private

communications, 2013).

5 JEM author guidelines provide for the submission of both Discussion papers and a final Closure

paper by the original author(s), both limited to 2000 words.

6 Chemist Kevin Ryan (2012) has shown that building code changes, traceable to basic causes

cited by NIST for the destruction of WTC buildings, have never been adopted, whether by the

international building community, or even New York City.

7 The History Commons website is an experiment in open-content civic journalism

(, providing dynamic timelines with summaries of over twenty

thousand events.

8 In considerable detail, David Ray Griffin has shown that “the NIST report on WTC 7 should be

exposed by the scientific community for committing scientific fraud in the strict sense.” (Griffin,


9 PC = Progressive Collapse hypothesis; CD = Controlled Demolition hypothesis; F = Fracture

wave theory; “7” added for papers applying process to WTC 7; (PC) or (CD) denotes papers not

treated as distinct papers.

10 Submitted September 13, 2001 as stated at bottom of first page; expanded version submitted to

JEM on September 22.

11 Claims steel “experienced temperatures” above 750 degrees C (inconsistent with later results).

12 Simple 1D model (same as Dec. 2001 paper but in new venue; see also 03/02 Addendum).

13 Simply presumes PC without arguing for it; paper is about adding energy-absorbing collapse


14 Basically, a Civil Engineering Committee call for more study; notes no prior case of such


15 Essentially argues for PC but refers to it as “pancaking.”

16 Applies a simple finite element analysis model.

17 Basically assumes PC without arguing for it; calls for further investigation, including controlled

demolition (CD).

18 Excellent summary of PC hypothesis, which is simply assumed. Focuses on describing four PC

procedures; however, does not specifically state that PC applies to the WTC case.

19 Does not address cause of collapse (p.1178).

20 Uses LS-DYNA computer program; presumes PC without arguing for it.

21 Seriously qualifies proposed mechanism in introduction.

22 Fracture wave theory (not PC); full text at

23 CD hypothesis not specifically stated but clearly implied.

24 Supports possibility of gravity-only collapse, but does not specifically claim “PC” hypothesis.

25 Denies Greening’s claim of gravity-only collapse; CD conclusion implied, consistent with

Furlong and Ross (2006).

26 CD hypothesis not specifically stated but clearly implied.

27 This fracture wave theory results in predicted collapse times much longer than actual fall times.

28 Resistance added to fracture wave theory.

29 As in previous work, uses a simple one-dimensional (1D) model.

30 Ross here focuses on critique of PC hypothesis, but CD clearly implied by context of this


and later paper by Furlong and Ross (2006).

31 Significant qualifications given; results applied only indirectly to WTC.

32 Requires core temperatures to get above 700 degrees C. (inconsistent with later results).

33 See critique by Grabbe (April, 2010).

34 Refutes PC hypothesis and advances hybrid model.

35 Refutes all basic claims of Bazant’s 2007 paper.

36 Confirms CD hypothesis using multi-instrument laboratory analyses of dust samples with clear


37 Refutes all basic claims of Seffen (2008); emphasizes inadequacies of 1D models using by bothSeffen and Bazant.

38 Uses simple 1D model and presumes “natural pancake collapse,” which is inconsistent with

basic observations. 39 Provides simply a review of 2008 NIST study results; no new results are presented.