Scientific and analytical papers, published in independent peer reviewed scientific journals, questioning the official Bush Story of 9/11.
Papers can be read in full detail on www.911CA.org
You can create your own Collected Articles binder, to take with you when you give presentations about 9/11. The instructions are at www.911CA.org/articles/collected
Music: Epic Hero's Welcome by Steven O'Brien
What you need to know about "Peer-review"
Academic Papers on 9/11
October 2, 2012
Compiled by University of Waterloo 9/11 Research Group
The following articles are peer-reviewed journal papers that address issues surrounding the day of 9/11/2001 from a critical perspective. Academics are encouraged to take an interest in 9/11 research.
911truth.org: Academic Papers on 9/11
Papers Focused on Controlled Demolition of the WTC Twin Towers and WTC Building 7:
Some of the papers below are discussions papers published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. "Debunkers" have claimed that discussion papers in this journal are not peer-reviewed. This is conclusively shown to be incorrect here.
NEW! SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2014
IEEE Ethics Symposium Publishes 9/11 Truth Paper
The IEEE Ethics Symposium Process
Throughout the entire process of abstract and paper submissions, and the actual presentation in Chicago, the authors were treated cordially by the symposium's organizers and those who attended the conference. Initially, authors were asked to submit abstracts. The authors submitted abstracts for two different papers, one on World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7) and the other on the Twin Towers (WTC1/2). The abstract for the paper on WTC1/2 was reviewed by three anonymous reviewers and accepted for paper submission. The paper itself was presented at the symposium and published by IEEE without further review.
New Paper at Journal of 9/11 Studies, September 2014
ASCE Journals refuse to correct fraudulent paper they published on WTC collapses, by Tony Szamboti and Richard Johns
A new letter has been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies which expands upon the points made in the peer-reviewed paper “Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis.” As explained by the authors, what's particularly noteworthy is the JEM's unjustified reasons for rejecting their original paper. Very interesting considering that James Gourley also experienced problems with the JEM in publishing a response to Dr. Bazant et. al. I'm genuinely suspicious that the JEM may indeed have a bias towards Bazant and his "crush down/crush up" theory.
JULY 2013 - New Peer-Reviewed Paper on the WTC Collapses ---- Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis
SEPTEMBER 2012 - PhD Physicist Grabbe: Peer-reviewed paper in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ---- Discussion of "Why the Observed Motion History of World Trade Center Towers is Smooth," by Jia-Liang Le and Z.P. Bazant
One Thing Wrong and A Lot of Things Right
Response to Mechanical Engineer "tfk" at JREF
APRIL 2010 - Anders Björkman Published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"
APRIL 2009 - Another Peer Reviewed Paper Published in Scientific Journal - 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust...'
'Debunker' Pat Curley: the King of Scientific Peer-review
James Gourley Published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"
AUGUST 2008 - Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones - Published in "The Environmentalist"
APRIL 2008 - 9-11 Truth Movement: Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal ---- Source
FEBRUARY 2008 - Dr. Crockett Grabbe published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"
9/11 Free Fall-- Dr. Crockett Grabbe, Controlled Demolition Evidence (10/11/12)
2006 - Not an open journal publication: Steven E. Jones, “What accounts for the molten metal observed on 9/11/2001?”, Journal of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, 83:252, 2006.
116th Peer-reviewed Paper Published in Journal of 9/11 Studies: 'The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis'
Commenting on the Journal of 9/11 Studies, physicist Steven Jones, PhD. has noted that:
The Editorial Board which oversees content and standards has not yet expressed concerns about the standards. The board has eleven members, seven of whom hold Ph.D. degrees, and one is a structural engineer (retired)...Mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti pointed out the following on the JREF Forum regarding the standards at the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, which features 11 papers as of 7/16/12:
Based on these facts, as well as my own experience in editing scientific publications before this one and authoring or co-authoring over forty peer reviewed publications, yes, I think that people should take the Journal articles seriously.
On an earlier thread, concerning whether or not Mark Roberts' work on 911 was peer reviewed or not, I was surprised to hear from both him and Ryan Mackey, that although their respective papers appear on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, that they did not actually submit them to that journal. They both said that others had posted them there with no interaction with the authors of the papers.The Work of the National Institute for Standards and Technology Has Not Been Peer-Reviewed!
What this means is that there could have been no review feedback and potential correction by the authors due to any peer review claimed by the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories. Hmm!
Ryan Mackey says straight out that his paper is not peer reviewed by a formal process, although he did put it out in the public domain to be viewed and commented on by many.
What is the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Studies claiming for their peer review process?
Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
The NIST Investigation - National Institute for Standards and Technology Encounters Resistance, Pretends to Investigate
Debunking the Only Bad Review of 'The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False'
Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST