New Articles at the Journal of 9/11 Studies

By Kevin Ryan

At the Journal of 9/11 Studies, we have published two new articles. The first is from Dr. Timothy Eastman and professional engineer Jonathan Cole. It is titled "WTC Destruction: An Analysis of Peer Reviewed Technical Literature." Here's the abstract:

"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."

The second article is from German researcher Paul Schreyer. It is called "Radar loss on 9/11." Here's an excerpt:

"The radar coverage of the United States airspace is nearly complete. In particular the northeastern area, where all four hijackings took place on 9/11, has no “gaps” whatsoever in radar coverage. Nonetheless there was radar loss on 9/11 with respect to the third hijacked plane, American Airlines Flight 77, which was reported to have hit the Pentagon."

Also of interest is a letter from earlier this month by Professor Lance de-Haven Smith. The letter is titled "Conspiracy Denial in the U.S. Media." Here's an excerpt:

"Many American journalists appear to be locked into a peculiar way of thinking that makes them blind to signs of political criminality in high office. This mindset is characterized by an apparent inability to differentiate groundless accusations of elite political intrigue from legitimate concerns about the integrity of U.S. political leaders and institutions. For some reason, when it comes to popular suspicions of schemes involving the nation’s political elites, many journalists in the United State make no distinctions. They categorize all such suspicions as 'conspiracy theories,' which they assume are not only untrue, but wacky and paranoid."

Professor de-Haven Smith's new book is available at Amazon:

A Most Interesting Fact

One point extracted from Eastman-Cole paper:

"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 September 13."


I've noted with incredulity this initial, rapid publishing date, but Eastman-Cole take it further suggesting that it simply could not be done. Wow. Glad to see this fact addressed in a serious, published paper.

I think they are saying that the first Bazant paper on the WTC

collapses was not done in a responsible manner, where things would be investigated first to some degree and then addressed, not that it had to be started before Sept. 11, 2001, if that is what you are implying by any chance.

It seems Bazant did try to head off criticism like this by calling it a simple analysis. However, we now know he got several things wrong in that paper that he did not check for prior to writing it. The most glaring is that when the fall of WTC 1 was finally measured it turned out there was no deceleration, which he presumed there was in his claim that there would have been a powerful jolt generating a dynamic load and causing the failure of the lower structure.

This lack of deceleration (missing jolt) is actually very real evidence that the collapse had assistance.

Hi Tony

I guess I didn't write clearly. Yes, to all which you state. This new paper seems to be saying not just that they didn't do any real measurement and analysis prior to publication, but that in the time taken that they couldn't have done a proper paper. I think it's a distinction that's worth noting and I'm glad they did.

P.S. A fan of your work -- thanks.

Yes it is an important point.......

In college we would call a rush job like that "bullshiting the professor;" I guess Bazant feels like turn about is fair play.


Bazant presumes that the top block falls for over 13ft at freefall. I feel that this is actually the big lie in his paper.

Yes, and that is impossible also

Buckling columns have a minimum resistance and even if they were all at 600 degrees C (which is highly unlikely) it would still be significant and would preclude anything near free fall.

The actual measurements of WTC 1 show it was accelerating at 5.1 m/s^2 through the first story, which is far from free fall at 9.81 m/s^2, so Bazant can be shown to be completely wrong here also.

There will be a paper published in the next few months in an appropriate journal which takes him to task for his presumption of a free drop through the first story, and recalculates the difference it makes. Amazingly, he has continued to use a free fall through the first story in analyses he did after the measurements of the fall were publicly available and brought to his attention. I know, as I sent him the Missing Jolt paper in 2009 and have confirmed through people in contact with him that he knew about it. His last paper on the issue in January 2011 still used a free drop through the first story.

There are other things Bazant does in all of his papers that are incorrect also. He assumes the building mass was 500,000 tons. However, that is the maximum design load and was not the actual mass involved. The actual in-service mass was around 320,000 tons. Bazant actually got this result with his own mass-frequency analysis shown on page 7 of the addendum to his 2001 paper, where he shows that 44% of the tower mass = 141 x 10e6 kg. This corresponds to a full building mass of 320,000 metric tons, but it seems he chose to ignore it and instead used the 500,000 ton value. He also underestimates the column strength significantly.

If the acceleration through the first story, the upper section mass, and column strength are corrected to actual values, Bazant's own analysis methods show an arrest would take place.

Thanks for the update

I look forward to the new paper. Thanks!

My e-mail to Zdenek Bazant on 11/1/2009

Dr. Bazant,

I am writing to you as it appears that you are continuing to support the notion that there was an impulsive load or significant impact of the upper sections on the lower sections of the buildings, after the initiations of the collapses of the twin towers, which caused collapse propagation by supplying the necessary dynamic load amplification to overcome the reserve strength of the columns below. I have also noticed that in a recent presentation you now state that the impact of the upper sections on the lower sections cannot be seen. While this makes sense if the collapses were naturally caused, and one cannot be faulted for thinking this would have had to happen, it appears to not conform to observation.

The fall of the upper section of WTC 1 has been measured and shows no indication of any impact having occurred. The velocity curve generated from the measured data is attached.

The reality is that while any impulse would be of too short a duration to be seen in a video, an impulse which would transfer the required energy and generate the necessary amplified load would cause a significant velocity loss. It would then take time for the upper section to recover to it's pre-impact velocity. This velocity recovery period is much longer than the duration of the impulse and would be very measureable in video with 30 frames/second such as those we have of the collapse of WTC 1. It is this velocity loss which is missing and thus proof that there was no impulse.

Attached is a graph of the velocity of the roofline of WTC 1 for the first several seconds of it's fall, which is measureable. There is no velocity loss seen whatsoever.

By contrast, I am also including a graph of the collapse of the Balzac-Vitry building demolition in France, where the demolition was performed without explosives by removing the columns of two stories hydraulically and allowing the momentum transfer by the upper section to provide the dynamic load amplification necessary to crush the lower section and itself. There is a definitive measureable velocity loss when the upper section impacts the intact lower section. This has been verified in several of these type of demolitions. Here is a link to a 54 second video of the Balzac-Vitry demolition for you to view if you have not seen it

Given this, it seems that, at least in the case of WTC 1, your current papers on this topic do not match observation and that there is no natural mechanism explanation for the collapse propagation of WTC 1. I would sincerely suggest that you consider revising your papers and/or withdrawing them for the time being and getting on board with the large number of us engineering professionals who are asking that a new investigation be undertaken. You can sign a petition for this at


Tony Szamboti
Blackwood, NJ

There is also a Discussion paper with the JEM

by Professor Richard Johns and myself which shows that the January 2011 Le and Bazant paper is erroneous and that a significant deceleration would be visible if the collapse had been naturally produced. We submitted the paper in May of 2011 and although they have not been able to refute it, they still have not published it. In the paper we show that Le and Bazant significantly underestimate column strength and overestimate mass. We did not get into the Bazant assumption of free fall through the first story there, as there was a 2,000 word limit and the other two issues were backed by actual traceable data provided by NIST which contradicted the values used by Le and Bazant and could be easily referenced. However, the paper shows there would be a significant and observable deceleration in a natural situation, even with a free fall through the first story. To get into Bazant's bogus use of free fall through the first story we would have needed to make a case against it showing the measurements and explaining things and we simply did not have the room.

In the later paper I refer to above (submitted to a different journal) we do make the case against Bazant's use of free fall through the first story, with the measurements showing it isn't what occurred and calculations showing why it would be impossible.

Already answered

I wanted to ask a question about publication protocol regarding one of the papers, then realized you've answered most of my question.

So, I will say that, in agreement with comments I've made previously about Bazant, the refutation of his papers is one of the more important tasks in making the truth publicly known. Thanks. I foresee your papers regarding Bazant's errors, as becoming breakthroughs in 911 truth efforts.


I'd like to second this sentiment.

Make it a third.

The comments in this paper and the points discussed here make it clear that the "scientific" underpinnings of the 19-guys-with-box-cutters-did-it conspiracy theory are coming apart. As the cover for this crime begins to crumble, can a public break through be far away? Will that not likely draw a response? Take care all. The people who did this are neither stupid nor asleep.

What was the reply from JEM

What was the reply from JEM regarding your submission? i.e. what reason did they give for rejecting your paper? Any follow-up?

We sent a rebuttal and they had to re-accept the paper

The paper was originally submitted in May 2011, within the five month window allowed for Discussions.

The paper was declined in May 2012.

We submitted a rebuttal and an appeal on June 7, 2012. Our rebuttal showed the review they used to decline our paper was unjustified. The reviewer clearly did not have a full understanding of the specifics involved.

The rebuttal was reviewed and we were then told in an e-mail letter by the managing editor on June 13, 2012, that our paper only needed some minor revisions and that it would only need an editorial review and not have to go back through the full review process.

We re-submitted on June 21, 2012. We haven't heard much since, other than "it is in review", on the couple of occasions we have inquired.

Thanks for the reply. That

Thanks for the reply. That timeline is ridiculous. It should not take them a year to get back to you. Reviewers typically only have about 2 months (max) before they are required to submit their reviews to the editor. The same should hold for the editor himself. I look forward to your upcoming paper.

Dr. Bazant never replied to me

but this shows he did know about the measurements and his Closure to Crockett Grabbe's Discussion of the Le and Bazant January 2011 paper shows he did measurements himself.

I also confirmed through Dr. Frank Greening that he discussed the Missing Jolt paper with Zdenek Bazant.

a side note about 7 ...

You may recall that our common friend, the civil engineering prof, was told by Greening that Bazant believes there's is no explanation for WTC 7. That was astonishing to me given how defensive Bazant is about the WTC towers. Keep up the good work, Tony.

RE: I think they are saying that the first Bazant paper on the W

But do you think that Bazant's paper was properly peer-reviewed before it was published?

Doubt it

It is pretty hard to review something like that properly within a couple of days, let alone write it. Of course, Zdenek Bazant's Sept. 13, 2001 paper had a heading of "Rapid Communication".

It seems pretty clear now that it was intended to provide a plausible explanation and head off speculation, to lessen the chances of a theory other than what was desired from taking root. In the days shortly after 911 I heard about a university professor saying it was probably a dynamic load on the order of 30 g's and that took care of me for five years. It wasn't until early 2006, after hearing about molten metal in the rubble, that I started looking into the collapses in a serious way.

RE: Doubt it

" was intended to provide a plausible explanation and head off speculation, to lessen the chances of a theory other than what was desired from taking root."

So Bazant seemed highly motivated to nip any speculation in the bud. I wonder why?

It doesn't seem that the pursuit of truth, which would be fitting for a scientist of his reputation, was his highest concern.