Comment Policy

Comment Policy: Comments are allowed, but please keep them focused on the topic of the post you are commenting on. Comments and/or spam not pertaining to the subject of a particular post will most likely be deleted.

Monday, July 8, 2013

New Peer-Reviewed Paper on the WTC Collapses

Gregory SzuladziƄski, Tony Szamboti, and Richard Johns have successfully published a paper in the International Journal of Protective Structures, titled Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis. The abstract reads:
This article elaborates on variables associated with the collapse of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The previously published quantifications of inertia, column capacity, and the assumptions related to the beginning of downward motion, are examined and corrected. The reasons for false conclusions reached in several previous analyses are presented.
Yet another peer-reviewed article challenging the "natural" collapse hypothesis for the Twin Towers. A fantastic victory for the 9/11 Truth Movement in the debate over the collapse of the WTC buildings. Congratulations to authors on a job well done!


  1. Thanks for the info, Adam. I put it up at my blog. Would you know if there's an easy way to read the entire paper?

    1. According to Tony Szamboti, the paper isn't available online for free until 1/1/2014. However, I was sent an advance copy which I can send to you if you provide me with an email address.

    2. I asked J-MT to send it to you.

    3. Hi Adam,

      Don't know if you received my email address, but I received copy of the paper from 9/11 Blogger.

  2. It is curious that an organization claiming to have 2,000 architects and engineers has a paper published by a theologian and an individual with a Masters' degree in mechanical engineering, which has nothing to do with the collapse of building structures.

    It is also curious that an organization claiming to what to prod the US government into opening a new investigation would submit their paper to an obscure Australian journal read by virtually no one with a subscription base of 365 people.

    We could ask why wasn't this paper submitted to a dozen civil engineering journals in the US, and the comments, if not published, released?

    Now that the paper has been published, can we expect that the authors will be taking the paper to a dozen American civil engineering firms for validation so it can be sent to Congress?

    Why is a paper published in a little known Journal in Australia and then not sent around to US professionals for additional support for verification?

    1. Perhaps you should ask the authors. That might be more productive than asking someone who's just reporting on it. I find it curious that you're just nitpicking at details that have nothing to do with the actual content of the paper. Do you have any critique of the information in the paper itself?

  3. 2000 architects and engineers, putting their names and careers on the line, is highly significant. Each Petition signer had to not only sign, but also spend about 15 minutes to fax in their credentials to the AE911Truth Verification Team, plus a phone interview. No one can do that unless the cause is just.

    A person (Tony Szamboti) with a Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering certainly has to know Physics, a required subject. One only has to know Newton's 3 Laws of Motion to see that the official story of 9/11 violates the laws of physics, and is therefore impossible.

    Yes, there need to be more papers. 5 papers in Independent Peer Reviewed Scientific Journals (IPRJS) are a start, but still very significant.

    Scientific research takes time and persistence, but is the only way to go. The TM research started in 1971 at Harvard with Dr. Herbert Benson and Wallace who published in the the American Journal of Physiology. By 2014 the conservative NIH has funded over $20 million in studies on TM.

    Each member of Congress has been sent the Petition of 2000 Architects and Engineers. In 1920 the League of Women Voters had to do this. Again, it takes time and persistence, but is the only way to go.

    Yes, the glass is not full yet, but it is more than half full. From 2001 to 2006 over 90% believed the official story, including my self and even Richard Gage. An independent August 2013 poll (by YouGov, a company used by CBS News, Sun, Huffington Post, and UK's Guardian) shows that over 60% of Americans doubting the official story to varying degrees. That is highly significant.

  4. Actually, there are 9 articles published in Peer Reviewed Independent Scientific Journals (PRISJ) now, if we include financial journals. See A 10th is in progress.