THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF ACADEMIC/PROFESSIONAL TWIN TOWER COLLAPSE MISREPRESENTATIONS





Two papers and one report stand out above all others as being the original sources of all professional/academic misrepresentations of the Twin Towers collapse modes from 2007 to 2021. They are:


Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?
By Dr. Steven E. Jones, linked here


Part 2: Closure to 'Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade
Center and Building Demolitions by Zdenek P. Bazant and Mathieu Verdure
Zdenek P. Bazant and Jia-Liang Le (BL), published in 2007, linked here


NIST Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers (2005)




The two papers are the yellow and green circles in this graphic:










All more sophisticated professional or academic misrepresentations of the Twin Towers collapse modes that exist originate in these two papers and the NIST 'Final Report on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers'

Three different types of more sophisticated misrepresentations of the Twin Towers collapses and at least two different varieties of highly deceptive and misleading debates are direct results of these two papers.

The red arrows are different debates that result from these two core papers:






The Origin of Dr Steven Jones' Misrepresentation of the Twin Towers Collapse Modes



In 2007 this author personally demonstrated to Dr Steven Jones and others in a forum
that his paper contained forged images and highly misleading and deceptive images.
This link is from of an exchange I had on that forum with Dr Jones present and commenting in 2007.
His paper, called “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?” is linked here.


I showed Steven Jones and other forum members many examples of how his 'angle-cut' column
had many characteristics common to a type of metal cutting technique using a 'thermal lance'. I showed him these images:







The top left image is what Dr Steven Jones claims is evidence of demolition. In the other 3 images
I showed Steven Jones that there is an obvious similarity with the use of a 'thermal lance' metal cutting device
that was present during the clean-up of the rubble. The slag is practically identical.
I also showed him how his 'angle cut column' had a boring hole characteristic of the use of a 'thermal lance':







I also produced a large collection of images which served as a mapping of the World Trade Center Debris.
These same images became the comprehensive mappings of Twin Towers debris shown in this link.
The collection of images as a whole demonstrated that no other 'angle-cut' column could be found in the entire World Trade Center complex. I showed all of this to him.

During the forum discussion a poster with the username 'Gravity32' which I believe was Richard Gage admitted that 'angle-cut columns' are questionable evidence.

The thread I started in their forum about how the largest and most well-known 'angle cut column' image
in Steven Jones' paper was actually made by a 'thermal lance' cutting device was then moved to a section called
'controversial theories' (this seriously happened).

This link is a summary of the arguments I made directly to Dr Steven Jones.


Before I was kicked out of the forum I warned the group very clearly that
the images should be removed and a public explanation should be issued.

Some of my last posts before I was ejected gave this prediction:
"if these images are not corrected within a year and remain online it means the paper was originally
intended to deceive the reader" (or something to that effect).
I wrote this a number of times while being kicked out the door.
I wrote it so that people who come to the forum after me could read that thread and see that prediction. That was in 2007.

It is not possible for Dr Jones to claim he was not informed of the forgeries and misrepresentations in 2007. It is now 2021 and the photos are still there.


So in this case I am forced to ask: "Why would a PhD physicist present an article to the public with forged images and highly deceptive images knowingly for 15 years?"
That is not science. It is something else.







The Origins of the NIST Misrepresentations of the Twin Towers Collapse Modes




Something happened at the NIST in 2002 or 2003 which brought about a private decision to take the collapse processes of the Twin Towers and split them into two parts.

Then they made the decision to ignore anything that has to do with the Twin Towers collapse progression modes.

It was decided that no comment more than a few words on the most massive, most visible features of the collapses should be issued.









Since the collapse progression processes were by far the most massive, most visible features of the collapses, it was decided that by dividing the collapses into two different processes and ignoring the largest parts, the NIST was only going to focus on less than 10% of what people actually saw during the collapses.









What became apparent from 2002 was that the NIST was going to make no statement on the collapse progression modes of the Twin Towers. Period. The decision was already made and there was no further reason to discuss it. All comments by the NIST in their final report on the Twin Towers collapses are highlighted in yellow at the top of this link The single most important misrepresentation in the NIST reports on the Twin Towers is the decision to strip it of any comment on the Twin Towers collapse processes more than 3 words long.










Unless one looks for it they may not notice how careful the NIST was to make sure that no comment was made in the entire set of reports that contained more than a 3 word phrase on the collapse modes of the Twin Towers.






Why did the NIST decide to make no comment on the collapse progression modes of the Twin Towers?



This decision was the origin of all academic/professional misrepresentations of the collapse modes that followed from 2006 to 2021.

How and why was this decision made? Who made it? What is their explanation for doing so?


I've extracted all information on how the NIST mission was defined and collected it here: Purpose of the NIST Reports




It is impossible to understand what is actually happening in the NIST reports by reading
their own mission statement. There are many plans but it is never explained that someone, somewhere
has already decided to split the Twin Towers collapses into two parts and make sure
nothing of any detail on the Twin Towers collapse progression modes makes it into the reports.


To read the purpose of the NIST report accurately one would have to be aware that
where ever the word 'collapse' is used it doesn't mean what we think.
The word 'collapse' means collapse initiation only.

An example:

The specific objectives were:
Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial
impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.




It is impossible to understand this statement unless you understand that
the first use of the word 'collapsed' has nothing to do with what we usually mean by the word.
In fact, it is difficult to understand what it means if one separates the collapse progression modes
from the initiation features and ignores it all. Their 'first and foremost purpose'
in their own mission statement makes little sense if they ignore the collapse progression modes of the Twin Towers.


The first and foremost stated purpose of the NIST reports on the WTC towers is to discover
how and why each of the 3 buildings collapsed. That is repeated throughout the statements of purpose.
How did the decision to ignore more than 90% of the visible features of collapse affect these objectives?


This would mean that the first and foremost stated purpose of the NIST reports is to discover
how and why each of the collapse initiations occurred and to stay completely silent on the Twin Towers collapse progression modes.


This is the new purpose with this philosophical shift, but the outside world was never told
what the new ‘first and foremost’ purpose of the NIST actually was.



House Science Committee Hearing May 1, 2002





Part 1:





Part 2:









These hearings are another example. Key comments made during this hearing are listed at this link. The private decision of the NIST to ignore all parts of the Twin Towers collapse modes is contrary to what is being said at the meeting. The comments become largely meaningless if the largest, grossest features of the Twin Tower collapses are completely ignored.


The witnesses were:

Mr. Robert Shea, Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA
Dr. W. Gene Corley, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Chair of Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) reviewing the WTC disaster, accompanied by Dr. John Barnett
Dr. Arden Bement, Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Professor Glenn Corbett, Assistant Professor of Fire Sciences, John Jan College, New York City

,


So the philosophy of the U.S. investigating agency began to shift just after this 2002 congressional meeting but few people were aware of what is going on behind the scenes.

The shift was private and secret.







During the 2002 hearing there was the belief that a careful investigation needs to take place. This is stated clearly in the videos.

Then the collapse initiations were to be completely separated from the collapse progressions of the Twin Towers and all collapse progression observations to be discarded while not informing the public it is happening.

How this philosophical shift toward the Twin Towers collapse modes was explained and justified is documented in the yellow highlighted comments here








Origins of Dr Bazant's misrepresentation of the collapse modes of the Twin Towers




I wrote a review of Bazant’s first 4 papers on the Twin Towers in 2011:

Bazant Misrepresentation of Collapse Progressions


At the time there were a number of people who refused to admit that Dr Bazant was describing the Twin Towers literally as blocks in the last 2 papers, so I wrote another simple way to spot Dr Bazant’s Twin Towers misrepresentations:

Simple Method to Identify Bazant's WTC Mistakes




Dr Bazant also went through a major philosophical shift in mid 2006. Before that time Dr Bazant only wrote of the Twin Towers collapse modes in extremely generic terms.

He also showed little interest in any need to look at the Twin Towers collapse modes once the tower begins to move. He stated that there was no reason to do so because a 10 page paper he wrote in 2001 proved it was unnecessary. (the quotes are in the next section)

But after 2006 he completely changed his opinion on this and claimed to prove for the first time what the true collapse progression modes were of the Twin Tower collapses. He claimed to have proof of two collapse modes called 'crush down phase and a crush up phase. He claimed to prove that the Twin Towers couldn't fall any other way. In his latter phase he becomes basically an expert on the collapse progression modes on the Twin Towers in professional/academic journals. And he managed to do that without knowing much of anything about the actual collapse modes of the Twin Towers, accurately mapped here.









In the first period Bazant does not explicitly misrepresent the collapse modes of the Twin Towers.

In the short middle period (BV) he is suggesting the 'crush up, then crush down' model is the true collapse mode of the Twin Towers, but it is not clear he is taking the model literally.

It is in BL (or BV conc) that Bazant fully and openly claims for the first time that the true collapse modes of the Twin Towers are 'crush down' followed by 'crush up' where the 'upper block' crushed the 'lower block' completely before being destroyed from the 'bottom up'.

From that time forward Bazant misrepresents the collapse modes of the Twin Towers in this way.

This is the series of 3 papers in which Bazant makes a philosophical shift in 2007-2008:

Part 1: Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions
Zdenek P. Bazant and Mathieu Verdure (BV), published in 2007

Part 2: Closure to 'Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade
Center and Building Demolitions' by Zdenek P. Bazant and Mathieu Verdure
Zdenek P. Bazant and Jia-Liang Le (BL), published in 2007

What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson (BGLB)


These 3 papers are linked and placed within the larger academic debate taking place at that time at this link. From 2007 onward Bazant openly and unmistakably misrepresents the Twin Towers collapse modes the same way.


This is a graphic from an article by Dr Bazant in Europhysics News from 2017:







Dr Bazant has been describing the collapse progression modes of the Twin Towers the same way since 2007.

This is a sample of some of Bazant's graphics used to describe the Twin Towers collapses since 2001.




It is revealing to watch these philosophies shift relative to each other.










These changes in philosophies are all related to each other. The NIST philosophical shift came first when for some private reason they decided to discard anything having to do with the Twin Towers collapse modes and not make a single comment on the collapse modes that is more than 3 words. That has been going on since 2002 and is still going on today.

Bazant went from having no specific concept of the Twin Towers collapse modes for more than 5 years, and then suddenly discovering their true collapse progression modes with certainty within 6 months.


The collapses happened in 2001. The red region is when a philosophical change took place in each case. In the areas before the red region the Twin Towers collapse modes were described in only the most general and generic terms by each party. Then a shift happened and the Twin Towers collapse modes were seen quite differently in each case.

Note that there is a two year gap from the time the Twin Towers NIST reports are released (2005) to the time Bazant has a philosophical shift (2007).

This is how the written history of the Twin Towers collapse modes changed after journalists, people in congress and the general public thought the Twin Towers collapse modes were already documented.

It appeared on Wikipedia on 2009 without people noticing the history was rewritten with a new misrepresentation in place of the old.

After the philosophical turn the Twin Towers collapse modes were seen clearly as consisting of a 'crush down phase' followed by a 'crush up phase' where the intact 'upper block' was then crushed 'from the bottom up'. It took Bazant six years to see it clearly and it took 8 years for Wikipedia to recognize distinctive features in the Twin Towers collapse modes for the first time.



Even though in each case it took so long to describe distinctive collapse modes for the Twin Towers, after it was done each party expressed certainty in the Twin Towers collapse modes with absolute conviction.

In the case of the NIST the philosophical shift was the most confusing of all. The stated purpose of their reports was "to discover how and why the buildings fell", but the meaning of the phrase was somehow taken to exclude the Twin Towers collapse progression modes (more than 90% of all visible collapse features). The public was not to be notified of this.

Bazant went from not knowing to knowing the Twin Towers collapse modes in 2007

Wikipedia went from not knowing to knowing the Twin Towers collapse modes in 2009

But the NIST went from not knowing to showing no interest whatsoever in knowing the Twin Towers collapse progression modes to discover "how and why the buildings fell" long before the other two shifts from 2002 to 2021.





How to change Twin Towers collapse misrepresentations without journalists, members of congress or the general public noticing



This is how it is done:








The collapses happened in 2001. The red region is when a philosophical change took place in each case. In the areas before the red region the Twin Towers collapse modes were described in only the most general and generic terms by each party.

Then a shift happened and the Twin Towers collapse modes were seen quite differently in each case.

Note that there is a two year gap from the time the Twin Towers NIST reports are released (2005) to the time Bazant has a philosophical shift (2007).

This is how the written history of the Twin Towers collapse modes changed after journalists and members of congress and the general public thought the Twin Towers collapse modes were already documented.

It shows up on Wikipedia on 2009 without any member of congress noticing the history was rewritten with a new misrepresentation in place of the old.

After the philosophical turn the Twin Towers collapse modes were seen clearly as consisting of a 'crush down phase' followed by a 'crush up phase' where the intact 'upper block' was then crushed 'from the bottom up'. It took Bazant six years to see it clearly and it took 8 years for Wikipedia to recognize distinctive features in the Twin Towers collapse modes for the first time.





To examine how the NIST studiously avoided any mention of the unique, distinct, mappable and knowable collapse modes of the Twin Towers in their reports claiming to explain "how and why the buildings fell" and the role Dr Bazant played in that studied avoidance requires a new section.


'Founding Fathers' of Professional/Academic Misrepresentations part 2

Back to website