One year anniversary of 9/11 publication in EuroPhysicsNews

Today, August 24, marks the one-year anniversary of the publication of a widely-read paper in the EuroPhysicsNews journal.
"15 years later: on the physics of high-rise building collapses," by Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti and Ted Walter.

Europhysics News states the following:
"Europhysics News is the magazine of the European physics community. It is owned by the European Physical Society and produced in cooperation with EDP Sciences. It is distributed to all our Individual Members and many institutional subscribers. Most European national societies receive EPN for further distribution. The total circulation is currently about 25000 copies per issue."

Let's see how our paper is doing. First click on the following link:

Then off to the right, click on "Show Article Metrics."

As of 22 August 2017, there were 591,685 views/reads of the article (not counting the 25,000 in the paper-version circulation of the journal). I'm quite sure that by 9/11/2017, there will be over 600,000 reads/views of the article at the Europhysicsnews website alone.

You may look at other papers in this journal of the European Physical Society - in my checking, none comes close to this number of views/downloads. Using counting data available from the journal website, the second most widely read paper has had 6,801 views since it was published in 2003, fourteen years ago.

Note that this site allows anyone to download the PDF version of the paper, then it can be re-posted over and over. So it is difficult to evaluate precisely how many people have viewed the paper at various locations. The count at the EurophysicsNews site thus suggests a minimum count. For instance, I have re-posted the paper at my research website at ResearchGate where it has been read a number of times.

If any reader knows of other sites where our EurophysicsNews paper is available or cited, please let the community know in comments below.

Another metric for the paper is the most reads in the last 7 days. Go to then click on "most read articles." In the last 7 days for example – our paper shows 2301 reads, while the next most-read paper has only 83 views in the past 7 days. We see that our 9/11 paper is still being widely read, even though it has been available for twelve months.

Ted Walter recently called to my attention to another relevant 9-11 paper appeared on a NIST/government site earlier this year,

This paper is based on a talk I gave at the University of California at Berkeley on November 7, 2006, thus before our discovery of nano-thermite.

Evidently this paper was uploaded at the NIST site on May 9, 2017. Why it was uploaded at the NIST site last May is not known. The paper challenges a number of conclusions regarding the collapse of the WTC buildings made by NIST, as does our EurophysicsNews paper.

Subsequent to our paper, EurophysicsNews published a challenge

paper by Bazant and Le,

One can look at the metrics on that paper also -- 1,526 TOTAL views since February 2017. Meanwhile, our paper had 2,496 views in the last seven days, and 51,473 views in the last 90 days, and a total of 594,341 views as of today.

The Bazant and Le paper claims, in the abstract: "The cause of collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York on 9/11/2001, clarified mathematically by mechanical analysis, has been questioned by some lay critics without any meaningful calculations. They blame the collapse on controlled demolition, implying some sort of conspiracy. The present article summarizes the reasons why the collapse must have been spontaneous and an inevitable result of the aircraft impact damage and the subsequent fire..."
-- even though WTC7 was not even hit by an airplane! Nor do they account for the observed free-fall acceleration of the WTC7 roof - a fact admitted to finally by NIST, and discussed in our paper and other published papers. I could add more comments on the Bazant and Le paper, but that will suffice for now.

606,416 views/reads of our 9/11 paper as of 16 Sept 2017

In the blog above, I noted: "As of 22 August 2017, there were 591,685 views/reads of the article".

Subtracting, we find 14,731 views/reads of our paper in about 3.5 weeks. So our paper, which strongly challenges the official narrative of 9/11, is still being widely read.

By contrast, the response-paper by Bazant and Le (referenced in my previous comment) had approximately 70 reads/views in the same time period - and has a grand total of 1,596 views since it was published last February.


Professor Jones: First, Thanks for your contributions to all this. Second: a question. In the following quote, it seems Bazant is making an absurd comparison. Namely, he seems to be viewing a *natural gravity-driven collapse* versus a *TNT-only collapse*. The absurdity here is that the model is limited exclusively to either one (gravity) or the other (explosives). In reality, one would generally expect an explosives-induced collapse model to (also) *include* gravity.

Controlled demolition typically employs removing key supporting structures, and letting gravity do much of the work. So why--if Bazant were being forthright--would he take an extreme case in which an explosive (and presumably the wrong one--TNT) is doing all the work without help from gravity? [Additionally, the placement of TNT into countless holes, as opposed to just using some form of cutter charges, is, uh, a bit over the top.]

I should add I'm a bit tired and have been awake far too long, but your statement above, about having more to say re: Bazant, inspired me to comment. As far as I am concerned, Bazant has been exposed as a fraud. I think there remains more in his work that will expose (what I believe is) criminal legerdemain and fraudulence.

[Bazant -- tenth page of document; pagination 901]]: [Can be Googled "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?"]:

"It is nevertheless interesting to check the amount of explosives
that would be required to produce all of the pulverized concrete
dust found on the ground. Explosives are notoriously inefficient
as a comminution tool. At most 10% of their explosive energy
gets converted into the fracture energy of comminution, and only
if the explosive charges are installed in small holes drilled into the
solid to be comminuted. Noting that 1 kg of TNT chemically
releases about 4 MJ of energy, the total mass of TNT required to
pulverize 14.6 X 10 to the 7th kg concrete material into dust of the sizes
found on the ground would be 316 t. So, in order to achieve the
documented degree of concrete pulverization, solely by explo-
sives about 1.36 t of TNT per story would have to be installed
into small holes drilled into the concrete slab of each story, and
then wired to explode in a precise time sequence to simulate free
fall." [Wow. That is spectacularly stupid.]