Journal of 911 Studies
Active Thermitic Material and 14 Points of Agreement article links broken - Articles still available elsewhere.
Journalof911Studies.com and other sites provide broken links to peer reviewed papers.
The links that are currently provided were valid prior to a redesign of the Benthan web site.
Since the Benthan site has been changed, I have not been able to access the following articles through the Benthan site:
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the WTC Destruction
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Copies of the original papers ARE STILL AVAILABLE at the following locations:
A pdf copy of the 14 Points of Agreement paper is at
A pdf copy of the Active Thermitic Material Paper is at
benthan-open.org no longer seems to be a supported web site URL.
The new top level URL seems to be http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm
It seems that bentham is only allowing free access to the CURRENT ISSUE of each of their open journals. In order to see an article from a previous issue, it looks like one must order and pay for a reprint.
Profound Implications of the Observed Downward Acceleration of the North Tower -- Article by David Chandler Published
The editors of the Journal of 9/11 Studies are pleased to announce publication of the following peer-reviewed article in the February 2010 volume of the Journal:
Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics
By David Chandler
Physicist David Chandler continues his insightful analysis of the destruction of three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11/2001 in this very readable paper. From the summary:
The Hard Evidence Down Under Tour 2009 - An Amazing Success!!
by Janice Matthews
November 23, 2009
The Hard Evidence Down Under 2009 Tour has nearly wrapped up, following events in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, Australia and in Wellington, New Zealand. Every one of these events met with overwhelming success.
Noted 9/11 research Dr. Frank Legge has published a revised version of his paper with additional notes and discussion, “What Hit the Pentagon?” The paper is available at the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
His first version of the paper generated a great deal of discussion about this important issue. In presenting this revision, Dr. Legge notes:
“This version has been prepared to take into account a number of issues raised by critics and defenders of the original paper. Discussion of the implications of accepting or rejecting the official position that a 757 hit the Pentagon has been expanded and clarified. I am very grateful for the help provided. All significant alterations have been identified and discussed in footnotes.”
No doubt this revised version will encourage further discussion of what hit the Pentagon, and perhaps more importantly, a renewed push to obtain release of withheld video footage that will show unequivocally what hit the Pentagon – and a renewed interest in the whistleblower testimony of Secretary of Transportation (at the time) Norman Mineta.
The Journal of 9/11 Studies has published a new paper by Dr. Frank Legge, entitled "What Hit the Pentagon?"
Here are some excerpts:
"The most logical inference from the Pentagon attack evidence is that the perpetrators of 9/11
knew that there would be many members of the public who would become suspicious for one
reason or another. The perpetrators realized that a powerful technique for weakening the
arguments of the skeptics would be to have them arguing against one another."
"There are two essential points to note:
1. Nothing should have hit the Pentagon. This implies a stand down order existed, as
appears to be confirmed by Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission.
2. The authorities could easily show us what hit the Pentagon but they do not."
A new paper is available at The Journal of 9/11 Studies. This is from Professor Graeme MacQueen, and is called "Did the Earth Shake Before The South Tower Hit the Ground?" Here are some excerpts.
"In the debate over the collapses of the Twin Towers on 9/11, the shaking of the earth that accompanied these collapses has played an important role. This shaking registered clearly on seismographs. Less clear, however, are its causes and the times it began. The National Institute of Standards and Technology emphasizes the role of the debris from the collapsing buildings in producing the seismic signals. In assessing NIST’s hypothesis I focus on the collapse of the South Tower and attempt to determine the time the collapse began, the time the debris from the Tower struck the ground, and the temporal relation of these events to the shaking of the earth that accompanied the collapse. I consider both the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s seismic evidence and the evidence provided by a less studied form of seismic instrument, the video camera. I also draw on witness testimony. I conclude that key statements by NIST are false. Major shaking of the earth, and corresponding seismic signals, started well before the debris hit the ground. In fact, it seems certain that the shaking of the earth started before visible signs of building collapse. This evidence is incompatible with the official NIST hypothesis of the cause of the collapse of the Towers."
Thanks to Professor MacQueen for this interesting new work, and for his other great papers at the journal.
Announcing two new papers by Dr. Frank Legge (Ph.D., Chemistry):
1) "Controlled Demolition at the WTC: an Historical Examination of the Case" provides a brief history of research related to explosive demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001, from Dr. Legge's point of view. Cogent and pithy; worth the read.
2) "Frank Greening versus Isaac Newton" provides a brief expose of the "lapse" by F. Greening in understanding Newton's Third Law -- and the significance of this gaffe by Greening. Sometimes humorous, certainly enlightening.
These two important episodes of Visibility 9-11 welcomes back to the program, Kevin Ryan and Physicist Dr. Steven E. Jones.
Kevin is a chemist who is formerly of Underwriter Laboratories. Kevin became a 9-11 whistleblower when he was fired for writing his now infamous 2004 letter to Frank Gayle at the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). Kevin has been very prolific in his research since getting fired by UL and has either authored or co-authored many important papers relating to 9-11 since 2004.
Dr. Jones is a retired physics professor and first emerged in late 2005 with his important paper, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?, and has continued to do groundbreaking research into the "collapses" of all three high rise buildings on September 11th, 2001.
Kevin and Dr. Jones both sit as co-editors at the Journal of 9-11 Studies and Dr. Jones is the founder of Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice. Both have been stalwarts in the scientific and scholarly area of the 9-11 Truth Movement..
The 116th peer-reviewed paper was published today in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
“The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis,”
by Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti. Take a look!
This fine paper underwent several months of rather arduous peer-review preceding its publication in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The paper supports work by James Gourley published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and recent analysis by David Chandler. A few quotes from the paper should wet your interest:
“In its Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, the National Institute of Standards and Technology summarizes its three year study and outlines its explanation of the total collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. Readers of the report will find that the roughly $20 million expended on this effort have resulted in an explanation of the total collapse of these buildings that is so vague it barely qualifies as a hypothesis. But it does have one crucial feature of a hypothesis: it is, in principle, falsifiable. In fact, it is easy to demonstrate that it is false.
In this paper we will, concentrating on the North Tower, offer a refutation that is:
• easy to understand but reasonably precise
• capable of being stated briefly
• verifiable by any reader with average computer skills and a grasp of simple mathematics.
[snip] Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou, with whose September 13, 2001 back-of-the-envelope theory (with subsequent revisions and additions) NIST largely agrees, have never hesitated to say that the upper block fell.  Bazant has likewise been frank about the need for severe impact as the upper and lower structures met: he believes the impact may have been powerful enough to have been recorded by seismometers.  In his view, collapse initiation of the lower structure required “one powerful jolt.” Of course, if there was a powerful jolt to the lower structure there must also have been a powerful jolt to the upper falling structure, in accord with Newton’s Third Law.”
Two new papers have been published at The Journal of 9/11 Studies.
The first is "Obstacles to Persuasion: Lessons from the Classroom", by Mark Vorobej.
Professor Vorobej teaches Philosophy, and is a former Director of the Centre for Peace Studies, at McMaster University. Here is the introductory paragraph from his paper.
"From January to April 2008, I taught an unusual upper-level undergraduate Philosophy course on Argumentation Theory at McMaster University. The course focused on such questions as “What makes a good argument good?” and “What makes a belief rational?” - where an argument is understood as an exercise in rational persuasion aimed at inculcating rational belief. And approximately five weeks of the course were devoted to studying the arguments of the 9/11 truth movement."
The second paper is an updated version of a letter previously submitted by Michael Fury. It is called "The Ghost in the Machines: Evidence of Foreknowledge in the WTC Hard Drive Recoveries." An excerpt is below.
"The locations of the computers in question within the towers is unknown, but if Wagner is correct, two possibilities emerge: (1) either the "insiders" had foreknowledge of the precise impact points of the aircraft (otherwise why assume that the main frames would be destroyed?) or (2) they had foreknowledge of the total destruction of the towers."
From Steven Jones;
Kevin Ryan shows his skills as both a chemist and a “private investigator” in his paper, “The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites” – Published July 4, 2008, in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
Kevin Ryan discusses nano-thermite (“super-thermite”) and provides very important results of his own investigation of connections between NIST and researchers studying/developing nano-thermite.
Several of us have been discussing nano-thermite for quite a while now. For instance, I announced in Boston last year the observation of red-gray chips which I found in WTC dust samples. (If you need to catch up, pls see this short video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4186920967571123147&hl=en ) Research papers on this material are now being written/reviewed for publication.
Thermite is comprised of aluminum powder and iron oxide powder (or another metal oxide). When the powders are “ultra-fine grain”, less than about 100 nano-meters, then nano-thermite is formed. This form of thermite, also known as “super-thermite,” is not just an incendiary – it is EXPLOSIVE!
Two new papers have been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The first is an article by Frank Legge, called "9/11 and Probability Theory". Here is an excerpt.
"If we compare these two explanations for the collapse of the towers it is immediately apparent that they are different in a particularly significant way: the fire based official explanation is a series of events, like links in a chain, while the explosive based explanation is a parallel set of scientific studies of evidence."
The second paper is a letter from Kevin Fenton, entitled "WTC Collapse Initiation Floors: What They Were And How Much Damage They Suffered".
"It is interesting to compare the collapse initiation floor in WTC1 to the central impact floors in terms of three of the main aspects thought to have influenced the collapse: impact damage, jet fuel spilled, and debris available to remove fire insulation."
Scientists, Architects & Engineers 9/11 Truth Radio Show w' Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, Ron Brookman, Scott Grainger, Kamal Obeid
Monday May 26, 2008
Listen 10:00 pm - 12:00 midnight (CST) to Questioning War- Organizing Resistance on the WeThePeopleRadioNetwork.com and to our guests - Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, AIA, Ron Brookman, Kamal Obeid, Scott C. Grainger, PE.
Kevin Ryan is a former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Mr. Ryan, a Chemist and laboratory manager, was fired by UL in 2004 for publicly questioning the report being drafted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on their World Trade Center investigation. In the intervening period, Ryan has completed additional research while his original questions, which have become increasingly important over time, remain unanswered by UL or NIST.
Thanks to the able translators who have made the "Fourteen Points" readable now in Dutch and Italian:
It is through INTERNATIONAL efforts that I believe we can succeed in the TRUTH AND INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT (seeking Truth about 9/11 and the 9/11 wars, the NAU/SPP, the expanding US debt and falling dollar, rising oil prices, and so on -- and Independence from corrupt and decaying systems, individually and in communities).
The Italian translators are Riccardo Pizzirani and Massimo Mazzucco. Massimo wrote about this paper:
"we have just [finished] a translation of your “14 points” piece, which I personally found delightful: I never thought such fine irony could be married so elegantly to any 9/11 discourse.
Thanks for it all, on behalf of all Italian 9/11 truthers as well."
The translation into Dutch was accomplished by Frank Ho, who wrote:
"Thanks for showing interest in my Dutch translation of your 14 points study. I'm impressed by this new approach in seeking for agreements. The Journal of 911 Studies is free to use this translation for it's purposes.
"There is one remark. I translated this article with lot's of efforts because of it's main importance....
My main goal is making the information about 9/11 irresistible and inevitable for mainstream oriented public and press. Therefore I consider a smooth readability and presentation as an obligation."
Further translations are welcomed!
Dr. Frank Legge has a knack at explaining difficult concepts logically and succinctly, as exemplified in his latest paper: "WTC 1 Collapse – What if the Columns Miss?" Dr. Legge considers four possible ways in which the columns in WTC 1 could have interacted in a gravity-driven collapse, and concludes:
"None of these four outcomes was observed. Clearly all the evidence points to the use of explosives to sever the columns in a precise sequence designed to produce vertical collapse at near free fall speed. As felling of such a tall building had previously not been attempted, it is likely that a considerable excess of explosive was used to make absolutely certain that the collapse would be vertical and complete. As a probably undesired consequence of this excess, most of the concrete was pulverized, as we observe.
"We can therefore safely conclude that, regardless of how the columns of the upper section interact with the columns of the lower section, the official explanation for the collapse is false."
Please read this three-page letter, here: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/c/ColumnsMissLegge9.pdf