Recent Articles and Letters
Written by Our Members
January 24, 2016
Why Not Use a Plane? by Frank Legge and Ken Jenkins
April 10, 2014
Science, Activism, and the Pentagon Debate by Frank Legge
October 24, 2013
Released April 10, 2014
Letter to Massimo Mazzucco by David Chandler, Frank Legge, and John D. Wyndham
April 24, 2013
Response to Rachel Maddow by David Chandler
July 6, 2011
Book Review: "Among the Truthers" by William Willers
May 10, 2011
Responses to questions regarding thermite, nanothermite and
conventional explosives used in the WTC destruction by Steven Jones, 911Blogger.com.
January 19, 2011
Released April 15, 2011
Letters to John P. Holdren,
the Department of Commerce,
the Union of Concerned Scientists,
and the National Science Foundation by members of Scientists. Note:
In these copies, the sender's address has been replaced by Scientists' PO Box address.
March 19, 2011
An Open Letter to Bill Moyers by William Willers and others. The letter was in response to a
by Bill Moyers at the History Makers 2011 convention on January 27, 2011, in New York City.
March 07, 2011
A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse by Michael Fullerton, Foreign Policy Journal.
February 22, 2011
Letter to the Canadian Minister of Public Safety by Kip Warner. Responses to this letter by officials and
others can also be seen at this location.
November 18, 2010
Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11 by Kevin Ryan, Foreign Policy Journal.
September 15, 2010
Letter to the Department of Commerce by Timothy E. Eastman.
Welcome to our website and Home page. If you are new to the findings of independent, scientific research on the events of September 11, 2001
(9/11), please begin by clicking Introduction.
A new item has been added to the General section of Papers (see menu at left):
Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used
on the WTC Towers
by Steven Jones, January 16, 2007.
WTC Tower Remains
WHERE IS THE PILE DRIVER?
New Paper on the 9/11 New York Building Collapses Arouses Controversy
November 24, 2016
The high-rise building collapses in New York City on September 11, 2001 (9/11) are the
subject of a new paper by four authors who are well known in the field of 9/11 scientific
research.The authors are Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti and Ted Walter.
The name of the paper is
15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-rise Building Collapses.
The paper was published by
the magazine of the European physics community
with a current circulation of about 25,000 copies per issue and a much wider readership.The paper
immediately attained widespread interest, with almost 350,000 views to date. See the section
Paper Arouses Controversy below.
The paper's focus is on the World Trade Center Twin Towers (WTC1, WTC2) and Building 7 (WTC7).
The paper begins by pointing out that the failure, supposedly from fire, of these three steel-framed
buildings was unprecedented, nor has any such failure due to fire in a steel-framed
building been repeated since 9/11.
A growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by the government's
explanation as presented by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Prior to 9/11 and since then, the only known way to completely collapse such buildings
is through a procedure known as controlled demolition, whereby a building is wired with explosives
designed to bring it down.
The paper discusses ways to prevent high-rise failures and the techniques of controlled demolition.
It presents separate case studies for WTC7 and for the Twin Towers, and includes a discussion
of theoretical papers by civil engineering professor Zdeněk Bažant and others. In a final section, the
paper presents physical evidence ignored and unexplained by NIST, such as
the "midair pulverization of most of the towers’ concrete, the near-total
dismemberment of their steel frames," and "the ejection of
those materials up to 150 meters in all directions." Also noted is the unexplained presence of
molten metal prior to collapse and in the debris, and the presence of unreacted
nano-thermitic material in multiple independent WTC dust samples. The paper concludes that the
evidence points overwhelmingly to controlled demolition as the real cause of the building
Paper Arouses Controversy
Peter Michael Ketcham
Former NIST Employee
The paper immediately attained a wide readership numbering almost 350,000 views to date. For the
current number of views, see
METRICS. In an editorial note published with the paper, the Editors gave their
opinion that the paper contained "some speculation" and that the article content
was "the responsibility of the authors."
The next issue of Europhysics News following publication of the paper
contained four letters, including an unexpected and stunning
letter to the editor by a former employee
of NIST, Peter Michael Ketcham, who worked at NIST from 1997 until 2011.
Ketcham, who did not contribute to NIST’s World Trade Center
investigation, recently began reading the NIST WTC reports
and watching documentaries challenging NIST’s findings. In his
letter, Ketcham states that the more he read,
“the more it became apparent that NIST had reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring,
dismissing, and denying the evidence.” He ends his letter by calling upon NIST to “blow the whistle
on itself now” before awareness of the “disconnect between the NIST WTC reports and logical
reasoning” grows exponentially.Ketcham elaborates on his awakening in an interview available
as part of a
Three other letters in this
issue of Europhysics News also address the paper.
A letter by José Zorrilla, a structural engineer in Uruguay, supports
the NIST findings but never mentions any of the evidence ignored by NIST. For example, in the
case of the Twin Towers, NIST ignored all visual and other evidence that appeared after
the Towers began to collapse, an unconscionable breach of the scientific method and in itself
a compelling indication of fraud. In the case of WTC7, NIST never explained the period of free fall
shown by physicist David Chandler, a member of
Scientists for 9/11 Truth.
Previously, NIST had stated publicly that, for a collapse
under gravity as NIST had proposed, free fall would violate the laws of physics.
The Editors themselves wrote a letter that indicates a sudden loss of editorial transparency
or integrity in the
process. No doubt the editors will have come under considerable fire from those governments and
institutions opposed to an honest investigation of 9/11. The Editors admit their prior
awareness of the "controversial conclusion" of the paper, namely, that the three buildings were
brought down by some form of controlled demolition. The Editors
state that they "considered that the correct
scientific way to settle this debate was to publish the manuscript and possibly trigger an
open discussion leading to an undisputable truth based on solid arguments." After triggering such
a debate, the Editors now appear to be withdrawing from this high standard of
scientific inquiry by stating: "It is shocking that the published article
is being used to support conspiracy theories related to the attacks on the WTC buildings.
The Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views." This is a most regrettable act and development
on the Editors' part. This withdrawal from their former high ethical stance
may have been triggered by the fourth letter, a letter from NIST that the Editors themselves solicited.
In a fourth letter to the Editors, Michael E. Newman, Senior Communications Officer of NIST, stands by
the NIST investigations and recounts NIST's well-known findings that the collapses were primarily
due to fire. Newman also gives an account of some of the building code changes resulting from the
NIST investigations. Newman never mentions the evidence ignored by NIST, evidence that is now
widely acknowledged and increasingly familiar to independent professionals and the public.
It is to be hoped that this paper with its widespread readership and the debate that it has
now ignited, will continue to spread its message "exponentially" as predicted by former NIST
employee, Peter Michael Ketcham.
Steven Jones is an organizing member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth and is
known for his work on cold fusion at Brigham Young University where he was
a full professor of physics. Besides founding the
Journal of 9/11 Studies,
Jones has made significant contributions to 9/11 research as author and co-author of papers
"Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse,"
"Extremely High Temperatures during the World Trade Center Destruction"
, and "Active Thermitic Material Discovered
in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
Robert Korol is professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University
and a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering. He is lead author on
two peer-reviewed scientific papers on the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7).
Performance-based fire protection of office buildings:
A case study based on the collapse of WTC 7 and
The collapse of WTC 7:
A re-examination of the “simple analysis” approach
were published in the Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics in July 2015 and February 2016.
Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design
engineer, has over 25 years of structural
design experience in the aerospace and
communications industries. He has authored or co-authored a number
of papers on the WTC high-rise building collapses. His papers, such as
The Missing Jolt:
A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
are published in the
Journal of 9/11 Studies and
of Protective Structures.
Ted Walter is the director of strategy and development for
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,
a nonprofit organization representing more than 2,500 architects and engineers, and many thousands
of other signers of their petition for a new investigation of 9/11.
In 2009 and then again in 2014, Ted Walter acted as executive director of two
ballot initiatives in New York
City for a referendum that, if passed, would demand that the city Department of
Buildings investigate the collapse of WTC7. The 2014 initiate, called the
High-Rise Safety Initiative gathered 53,000 signatures,
nearly double the required number. In both cases, the courts denied the initiatives
which never appeared on the ballot.
In 2015, Ted Walter authored AE911Truth’s booklet,
Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says
About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7.
He holds a Master of Public Policy degree from the University of California, Berkeley.
© 2011-2016, Scientists for 9/11 Truth. All rights reserved. Contact: