Eight Great Reads at the Journal of 9/11 Studies

This summer will mark the ninth anniversary of the Journal of 9/11 Studies. In that time, my co-editors and I have published over 150 peer-reviewed articles and letters addressing various aspects of the 9/11 crimes. Although it can be hard, thankless work, the job of co-editor has also been rewarding and I’ve learned a great deal.

Journalof911StudiesThrough publishing articles in mainstream journals, I’ve learned that our peer-review process is at least as rigorous as that of others. At our Journal, submissions often fail to pass the editor’s initial assessment and are never reviewed. Of the remainder, dozens have failed to make it through the peer-review process to become published. It’s a disappointment when that happens but it’s important that whatever we publish lives up to certain standards. The end result is a treasure trove of reliable research, freely available on the web.

For example, here are six articles and two letters that should be widely read.

Intersecting Facts and Theories on 9/11, by Joseph P. Firmage

This short article was published in August 2006. It presents a comparison of competing theories for what happened on 9/11 with respect to known facts. The comparison clearly shows that the “create a new reality” theory, in which U.S. officials were involved in the attacks, is by far more sensible than other possibilities.

118 Witnesses: The Firefighter’s Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers, by Graeme MacQueen

This highly influential article focuses on eyewitness testimonies to the World Trade Center (WTC) destruction. The testimonies were collected by New York City officials after 9/11 and then kept secret for nearly four years. Professor MacQueen delves into these explosive eyewitness accounts in a way that makes clear why officials did not want the public to see them.

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction, by Steven E. Jones, et.al

This lucid article from January 2008 was a breakthrough in 9/11 research. Establishing the WTC thermite theory on a firm grounding of experimental evidence, it set the stage for a series of scientific articles that were published in multiple journals. In the future, this breakthrough article may be seen as one of the greatest contributions to forensic science.

Obstacles to Persuasion: Lessons from the Classroom, by Mark Vorobej

This December 2008 article is from a professor of philosophy who examined the responses of university students as they were exposed to alternative explanations for 9/11. In a five-week segment of his course on Argumentation Theory, Professor Vorobej was able to lead his students to objectively examine 9/11 from different perspectives while fostering further, constructive debate.

Falsifiability and the NIST WTC Report: A Study in Theoretical Adequacy, by Anonymous and F. Legge

In March 2010, we published this examination of the scientific principle of falsifiability in light of U.S. government reports on the WTC destruction. This often-overlooked article is well constructed and provides detail on why the official reports failed to meet some of the most critical requirements of the scientific method.

Letter on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, by Lorie Van Auken

A series of nine letters was published on the tenth anniversary of 9/11. The letters came from leading researchers, activists, and legal experts around the world. Perhaps the most compelling contribution was that of Lorie Van Auken, whose husband Kenneth was killed in the north tower on 9/11.

Letter to the Royal Society from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, from the Board of Directors, AE911Truth

In June 2012, we published a letter that was sent from the board of directors of AE911Truth to Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society in England. The letter emphasized how the official account for what happened at the WTC was in direct contradiction to the laws of motion described by one of the Royal Society’s most famous members—Sir Isaac Newton.

The “Strategy of Tension” in the Cold War Period, by Daniele Ganser

In May 2014, Swiss historian Daniele Ganser contributed this updated version of a previously published article. Dr. Ganser’s article provides important historical perspective for considering what happened on 9/11. His conclusion, based on historical fact, is that objections to U.S. government or military involvement in 9/11 are based on unsupportable, a priori arguments.

These eight papers are just a sampling of the wide-range of peer-reviewed research and commentary available at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. If you want to learn more about that fateful day through an evidence-based approach, the Journal is a great resource. For anyone interested in contributing, we continue to seek out new perspectives that have not yet been expressed. Guidelines for submission are published at the website.

Kevin Ryan blogs at Dig Within.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • This site is one of the best:

    The 23-member 9/11 Consensus Panel is building a body of evidence-based research into the events of September 11, 2001. This evidence — derived from a standard scientific reviewing process — is available to any investigation that may be undertaken by the public, the media, academia, or any other investigative body or institution. The Panel regularly features selected excerpts from its Consensus Points, with links to full supporting documentation. These featured excerpts are shown below, along with other recent News items.

    http://www.consensus911.org/

  • Rehmat

    On December 3, 2014, MP Elizabeth May, leader of Green Party, submitted a petition in Canadian House of Common calling on Stephen Harper government to set-up a parliamentary panel to investigate the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York. The Gulf Island MP stated that the petition was from petitioners in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and particularly in Ottawa area who questions the “official 9/11″ story.

    Elizabeth May’s petition was nothing more than a symbolic gesture of addressing public concerns at the country’s lawmakers forum – but it made her a target of a vicious character assassination campaign by the organized Jewry and pro-Israeli mainstream media.

    As expected, leaders of the other political parties and Jewish-controlled mainstream media ridiculed her for presenting the petition. J.J. McCullough, who judges a country based on its treatment of gay community, at newspaper SUN (December 6) called May and her Green Party of Canada being “conspiracy theorists” and having close links with “9/11 revisionists”.

    Anti-Muslim National Post and Ziocon Huffington Post also painted MP May as some kind of crazy person who believe in anti-Israel propaganda.

    http://rehmat1.com/2014/12/11/911-canadian-mp-chased-by-jewish-lobby/

  • Democracy1st

    The 24-member 9/11 Consensus Panel is building a body of evidence-based
    research into the events of September 11, 2001. This evidence —
    derived from a standard scientific reviewing process — is available to
    any investigation that may be undertaken by the public, the media,
    academia, or any other investigative body or institution.

    Please consider visiting consensus911.org
    — a peer-reviewed research source. The work is based on a
    rigorous medical consensus model, and should be widely available.

  • Dr Smileyface

    9/11 exposed both villains and heroes, and big thanks must go out to Kevin for his work and excellent blog identifying who is who in each camp.

    The articles cited are all most useful and accessible – I particularly liked the color-coded chart included as part of J Firmage’s Intersecting Facts and Theories on 9/11.

  • Steven Greffenius

    Thank you for your good work, Kevin!