Journal of 911 Studies

New paper at the Journal of 9/11 Studies

At the Journal of 9/11 Studies, we've gotten somewhat behind in publishing papers. But to begin a new round of articles and letters, we've just published an interesting look at the financial implications of 9/11. This paper from Professor Olivia Jackson examines typical perspectives about the impact of the attacks on the US economy, and comes to what may be a surprising conclusion..

Here is an excerpt.

"In summary, this paper highlights the United States’ ability to continue to persevere in the wake of crisis. As highlighted, instead of weakening the economy, 9/11 played no significantly direct role in altering the direction in which the economy was headed, given that the United States was already enveloped in a recession before the attacks occurred. If anything, such a tragedy as 9/11 brought about more challenges for the country, consequently, resulting in a more heightened US awareness and increasing stamina to meet these challenges"

More at the following link.

The Impact of the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks on the US Economy

Paper by Dr. Daniele Ganser (Basel University) published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies in THREE languages

Dr. Daniele Ganser (History Department, Basel University, Switzerland) succeeded in publishing an academic paper in Sept. 2006 a significant European newspaper – quite an accomplishment! Subsequently, his article was translated into French and English. With his permission, his article is re-published for convenience of researchers in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, in THREE languages:


Français : (Actress Cotillard pls read)

English :

The editors of the Journal note that some of his views may be controversial even in the 9/11 fact-seeking movement – which is fine for publication as long as the views are substantiated and supported with solid evidence (as his are) and ad hominem-type attacks are avoided. The model of publishing an article like this in a major newspaper provides a notable good example. (Publication in mainstream peer-reviewed technical journals is even more highly encouraged!)

Eight-author paper (including 5 PhD's) pub'd in Journal of 9/11 Studies: Extremely High Temperatures during the WTC destruction

A paper that will surely rattle a few cages was published today:

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

Steven E. Jones1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Gregory S. Jenkins3, Frank Legge4, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe5.
1 S&J Scientific Co., Provo, Utah
2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
3 Physics Department, University of Maryland at College Park, Maryland
4 Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
5 Department of Physics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

A little background is in order. The paper was written several months ago with the decision to focus on the "temperature gap" between temperatures reached in the "official story" and temperatures required by the data. (No mention of "thermite" was given in the paper -- so that might have a better chance of publication in a mainstream journal. Showing the "official explanation" to be wrong seemed sufficient for this paper.)

The paper was then given to two independent Professors of Physics for peer-review. They made suggestions which were implemented. Both of these Professors then approved publication in a scientific journal (neither is a 9/11 activist).
Next the paper was sent to a mainstream journal for publication (and their own peer-review). However, this journal returned the paper with the comment "beyond the scope of this journal." No technical comments were given, whatsoever.

Meanwhile, two of the authors in the above list wrote a separate (and distinct) paper and submitted it to another mainstream technical journal, about seven months ago. This paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication about two months ago, but still has yet to appear in print. We hope it will be published within ten months of submitting the paper.
The process is glacially slow, it seems...

Given the level of activity with our 9/11 Investigation at this stage -- things are moving quickly now -- the authors decided to go ahead and submit the paper to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, where it was accepted and quickly published following final reviews.
See what you're missing -- Journal of Physics!

I should also note that three physics departments are listed in the affiliations: Brigham Young University, Univ. of Maryland at College Park, and Univ. of Iowa. (Some PhD's are sticking their necks out again... The paper, we believe, is solid.)

You will want to read this one! We hope it will generate interest and comment.

New article published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies

We have a new article today, from Professor Graeme MacQueen, entitled –

“Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories.”

Here are a few excerpts.

“In the debate over the collapse of World Trade Center 7, warnings of the building’s collapse have come to play an important role. In addition to the numerous collapse warnings mentioned in written documents, such as those I will be using in this article, we have seen a growing number of videotape fragments and interviews in which people appear to have been told in advance of Seven’s collapse. Many proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis take these cases, both written and video, as evidence that the building’s collapse was brought about deliberately.”

“But those who think that Seven’s fall was natural rather than deliberate have not shied away from the collapse warnings. They have simply interpreted them in a different way. In essence, they have said that the warnings were rational and expected given the severe damage Seven had sustained.”

Milestone Reached: 100 Papers Published in the Journal of 911 Studies with "Sudden Collapse Initiation Impossible"

Dr. Frank Legge and Mechanical Engineer Tony Szamboti team together on a paper published today in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, entitled:
"9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible"
This paper is the 100th paper to be published in the Journal of 9/11 studies in its nineteen months of existence, or about five scholarly, peer-reviewed papers per month on average (including full articles and letters). A great place to get solid facts and analyses!

This paper should be read for its cogent, pithy arguments regarding the sudden initiation of the destruction of the Towers. Quoting brief extracts:

Gregory Urich publishes "Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of WTC Tower 1" in the Journal of 9/11 Studies

Gregory Urich has analyzed WTC Tower 1 and presents his findings in a detailed in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, December volume.

This technical paper pulls together data from a number of sources and will certainly support further analytical studies of the destruction of the WTC Towers. While we as a community are calling for an in-depth investigation, note that we are NOT waiting for Congress to act; we are proceeding with our own investigation. Without external grants from the government, we have no strings attached and are free to pursue the truth and to challenge the "official story" wherever we find it incomplete or misleading. The series of 99 papers in the Journal of 9/11 Studies constitutes a strong, evidence-based challenge to the 9/11 official story.

Gregory's peer-reviewed paper is published here:

The mass and potential energy of one of the Twin Towers is calculated based on available
data. The mass for each floor is established based on floor types, documented design
loads, and estimated in-service live loads. The calculated mass of 288,100 metric tons

Two More Letters Added to the Journal of 9/11 Studies

Kevin Ryan and Michael Fury have added very informative Letters to the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Kevin's letter begins: "Just before the sixth anniversary of 9/11, Ryan Mackey, a new defender of the Bush Administration’s conspiracy theory, posted a 200-page paper that attempts to critique the NIST chapter of David Ray Griffin’s book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking.... Mr. Mackey refers to himself as a US government scientist, whose work includes the production of “strike aircraft weapon systems.” This means that his involvement in the discussion of the truth about 9/11 should be taken with the understanding that the official story of 9/11 supports an historic increase in military spending, and therefore benefits people who work for the military-industrial complex. Introducing himself, Mackey declares his allegiance to the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF)..."
Read the rest of Kevin Ryan's Letter here:

Michael Fury (pen name) writes an open letter to John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. He begins,

9/11 Blogger Features Prominently on CNN

As Chris notes below, the CNN white plane story has mysteriously re-appeared on the CNN Videos page. For those who may be visiting 911blogger for the first time, here is Shoestring's blog entry, and a link to Shoestring's offsite blog. For more detail on this story, see the PDF article, "Why Did the World's Most Advanced Electronics Warfare Plane Circle Over The White House on 9/11?" by Mark H. Gaffney, at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. -rep

CNN did a rare story about 9/11 mysteries. This one focused on the white plane which was widely seen circling the nation's capital on 9/11/01, yet was not widely reported upon in the news.

Why is CNN covering this story? Why now? What is behind this sudden interest in a plane that did not even merit inclusion in the so-called "official report" on the events of 9/11.

New Letter at the Journal of 911 Studies

We've published a new letter at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. This is an evaluation of the amount of jet fuel available to feed the fires in the WTC towers, with comparisons to more easily understood volumes.

The paper is entitled –

Non-animated Visualization Aids to Assist in Understanding the Demolitions of the World Trade Center Twin Towers

The author wishes to remain anonymous to the public.

Although it is understood that the jet fuel was consumed in only a few minutes, this letter puts the initial quantities involved in perspective.

Information Relevant to Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine

Naomi Klein's recent book The Shock Doctrine is an excellent account of how disater capitalism works, particularly in the aftermath of the attacks of 911 and hurricane Katrina. However, it only focuses on part of the story - after the disaster. As such, when asked in a recent interview if she believed that the benefactors of "shock and awe" campaigns in the aftermath of such disasters could possibly have also had a hand in orchestrating them her response was that she is "not a conspiracy theorist." I respect her work very much thus I sent this email to her publicist in the hopes that she will have the courage to consider the rest of the story - before the disasters. At the very least, for both 911 and Katrina, numerous warnings to government officials were ignored leaving the public woefully unprepared and ill-equiped to protect themselves. I'm posting this letter in the hopes that others will ask public figures to be accountable for the information they give and continue to educate themselves when given an opportunity to do so.

Two Letters Added to the Journal of 9/11 Studies

Two frequent contributors to have published letters in the Journal of 9/11 Studies: George Washington and Reprehensor.

"The legal principle called "burden of proof" can help 9/11 activists to be more effective in promoting 9/11 truth and in obtaining justice against all of the perpetrators of those attacks." -- found in "Burden of Proof" by Geo. Washington:

A new topic has been opened in the Letters section of the Journal to encourage well-written letters to Senators and Representatives. Reprehensor's "Open Letter to Jane Harman, Re: Terrorism and the Internet" is an example of such a letter. It is found here:

The editors of the Journal of 9/11 Studies encourage submission of well-researched and written articles such as these, to commence the peer-review process. All papers are peer-reviewed, unless an exception (very rare) is granted by the editors and then a disclaimer is added to the posted paper. Information on where to submit papers is found here: .

A scholarly, civilized exchange between Prof. Mark Vorobej and Barrie Zwicker

The pair of Letters added today to the Journal of 9/11 Studies illustrates how a civil discussion can take place, even when one party is critiquing another's work.

Prof. Mark Vorobej sent a Letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies which included a critique of some material in Barrie Zwicker's book, "Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11." Of course, the editors allowed Barrie to reply -- a courtesy we extend in all such cases. That is, if one finds his work criticized by another, then he or she has a standing invitation to respond. This invitation stands to all authors who find their work critiqued by another research. And most journals extend the same courtesy -- hence the importance of responding to such authors as Bazant and Seffen... But I digress...

Barrie Zwicker offers a gentlemanly, exemplary response to, and comments upon,
the paper “Cumulative Arguments and Smoking Guns” by Mark Vorobej. He writes:

Appeal to NIST pursuant to Request for Correction published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies

In April, the team of presented a Request for Correction to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a lab under the Department of Commerce. This request was published in the June issue of the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The authors were James Gourley, Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice

In their reply dated September 27, 2007, NIST states: “we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”
And they expect the requesters to be satisfied with this response?!?
Remember, NIST is making these statements to men who lost family members in the Towers destruction… Bob McIlvaine and Bill Doyle, as well as to serious researchers Jones, Ryan, Gourley, Gage and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

Further from the NIST response letter: “NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.” The next sentence admits: “NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue…”

New in the Journal of 9/11 Studies: "Islam and the 9/11 Wars: Steven Jones Interviews Kevin Barrett"

I will be interested in how people react to this article. I wanted to learn more about the many framed-victims (it must be said) of the "9/11 Official Story," and so I asked a Muslim. Thanks to Dr. Kevin Barrett, the article has significant informative content and hope you will read it here:
The Appendix contains Kevin's account of his run-in with airport security operatives -- and his great sense of humor shines through...

"How many Iraqis have fled their country due to the 9/11 wars?
According to the BBC, more than two million Iraqis have fled their country due to the US invasion and occupation."

"Approximately what proportion of Muslims question the US-official 9/11 story?