On September 6, 2017, from the University of Alaska Fairbanks' Schaibel Auditorium, Dr. Leroy Hulsey presented the findings and conclusions detailed in his team’s September 2017 progress report.

The draft report of the study will be published later in the fall (2017). A six-week public comment period will follow the release of the draft report, allowing for input from the public and the engineering community. The final report, which will incorporate constructive comments and will be vetted by peer reviewers, will then be published in early 2018.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFa5ssSAXZA

Since the first peer-reviewed journal paper that critically examined the evidence of the events of September 11th, 2001, which was by physics professor Steven E. Jones entitled “What Accounts for the Molten Metal Observed on 9/11/2001?” in the Journal of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters in 2006, there have been several academics that worked very hard over the years to publish in mainstream journals despite the barriers. This is a major achievement for the 9/11 research community. The community is encouraged to read the following four recent papers, especially the conclusion of the doctoral dissertation at Oklahoma State University:

August 2017 | Conspiracy Theories and the Paranoid Style: Do Conspiracy Theories Posit Implausibly Vast and Evil Conspiracies?
Journal: Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy (Taylor & Francis Online)
Author: Dr. Kurtis Hagen, PhD (Philosophy)
Link: http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/FaiFjpuf75tJQWTkqTDi/full

June 2017 | Peer Review in Controversial Topics—A Case Study of 9/11
Journal: MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute)
Author: Dr. John D. Wyndham, PhD (Physics)
Link: http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/2/16

February 2016 | The Collapse of WTC 7: A Re-examination of the “Simple Analysis” Approach
Journal: Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics (Vol 2, No 1, 2016)
Authors: Dr. R. Korol , P. Heerema, and K. S. Sivakumaran (McMaster University)
Link: https://911inacademia.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/50-173-1-pb.pdf

July 2014 | Discourse Among The Truthers And Deniers Of 9/11: Movement-countermovement Dynamics And The Discursive Field Of The 9/11 Truth Movement (Doctoral Dissertation)
Author: Dr. R. Ellefritz (Oklahoma State University)
Link: https://911inacademia.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/ellefritz-osu-phd-thesis.pdf

To see all 28 papers, please visit the "9/11 in the Academic Community" documentary website's listing of journal papers:
https://911inacademia.com/journal-papers/

- Director, 9/11 in the Academic Community, August 22, 2017

http://911blogger.com/news/2017-08-22/28-peer-reviewed-journal-papers-critically-analyze-911

http://911blogger.com/news/2017-08-15/high-rise-fires-structurally-safeor-sudden-death

Representatives of the American Institute of Architects’ local and national governing bodies voted overwhelmingly against supporting a new investigation into the total collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) at the Institute’s annual business meeting held in Orlando on April 26, 2017.

Resolution 17-5, which was sponsored by 70 AIA members — and which initially had the backing of more than 200 members before the AIA introduced a rule late in the process that required handwritten signatures from sponsors — garnered 4% of the vote from delegates.

The 4% tally was a setback to concerned AIA members and activists who had hoped to continue the upward trajectory that saw support for a reinvestigation grow from 4% in 2015 to 11% last year.

Lack of Will Drives Most Delegates

In spite of powerful remarks by architects William Prevatel, David Mack, and Richard Gage, who urged their fellow members to follow their conscience, most of the 400+ delegates in attendance voted against putting the AIA on record as supporting a new investigation. The question is, “Why?”

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?e=[UNIQID]&u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=1906748158

To truly grasp the magnitude of this story, you really have to read the entire article. Immediately after the “pull it” controversy, debunkers claimed there was no plan to conduct a controlled demolition of the building. Now the fact that officials were considering blowing up the building is established, Silverstein’s consistent denial that this took place is a huge smoking gun. How did Silverstein expect to demolish the building safely when such a process takes weeks or even months to properly set up, even without the additional chaos surrounding WTC 7 on 9/11? How could explosives have been correctly placed on such short notice inside a burning building that had already been evacuated – unless the explosives were already in place? This new revelation is astounding and it needs to be investigated immediately.

Read full article »»

Cryptome continues to upload NIST 9-11 photos.



These photos show World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7), New York, NY, before and after its collapse on 11 September 2001. There has been considerable controversy about the cause of the unexpected collapse of the lightly damaged building. NIST asserts that the collapse was caused by an unprecedented thermal circumstance which must remain confidential.
Cryptome »»

wtc-nist-wtc7.zip(37MB) »»

Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False
by Prof. David Ray Griffin

At 5:21 in the afternoon of 9/11, almost seven hours after the Twin Towers had come down, Building 7 of the World Trade Center also came down. The collapse of this building was from the beginning considered a mystery.

The same should have been true, to be sure, of the collapse of the Twin Towers. But they had been hit by planes, which had ignited big fires in them, and many people assumed this combination of causes to be sufficient to explain why they came down.

But WTC 7 had not been hit by a plane, so it was apparently the first steel-framed high-rise building in the known universe to have collapsed because of fire alone. New York Times writer James Glanz quoted a structural engineer as saying: “[W]ithin the structural engineering community, [WTC 7] is considered to be much more important to understand [than the Twin Towers],” because engineers had no answer to the question, “why did 7 come down?”

Read full article »»

In THE MYSTERIOUS COLLAPSE OF WORLD TRADE CENTER 7: WHY THE FINAL OFFICIAL REPORT ABOUT 9/11 IS UNSCIENTIFIC AND FALSE, David Ray Griffin provides an overwhelmingly convincing case that the latest official US government account of the events at “Ground Zero” on September 11, 2001, is false. He examines in detail the whole series of publications by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) purporting to explain the highly “mysterious” collapse of World Trade Center 7, a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper across the street from the North Tower, which was not struck by a plane and yet collapsed into its footprint, at nearly free-fall speed, shortly after 5 PM that day.

That the sudden collapse of Building 7 constitutes a “mystery” is an admission of the major media and NIST itself, which for years said it was having a hard time understanding what had occurred. After a long series of preliminary attempts, admitting that a full explanation had not been achieved, NIST issued its “Final Report” in November 2008, claiming to present a scientifically-verified and complete account of the causes of the building’s collapse. As critics of the ever-changing official explanations point out, however, the “mystery” is the result of failure by government and media to consider the most likely explanation, one that accords with a vast amount of physical and testimonial evidence, which is that the building was brought down by controlled demolition.

Read full article »»