Europhysics News (2016) — and the Editors’ Note
artifact
A physics magazine published the demolition argument, printed a note calling it speculation, and then asked the agency it attacked for a reply and printed that too.
Who they are
A 2016 feature in Europhysics News by Jones, Korol, Szamboti and Walter[1].[2]
What they do
The engine holds this one as much for how it was published as for what it says.
How it works
The authors argue the collapses are better explained by shaped charges, the focused explosives used in commercial demolition to cut steel columns diagonally. The fourth author is listed in the paper itself as working for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. In the same issue the editors printed a box: 'This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation... Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.' Weeks later they published a further note saying they had contacted NIST for a response, and printed it: 'NIST firmly stands behind its investigation results.'
Why it matters
People cite this as a physics journal endorsing the demolition case. The journal did the opposite of endorsing it - it published it, labelled it speculation, disclaimed it, and solicited the rebuttal. That is a publishing process working as intended, and it is why this sits in the map as a document rather than as a finding.
The engine's record — word for word
"15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses", Europhysics News 47/4, pages 21-26, by Steven Jones (Brigham Young University, early retired), Robert Korol (McMaster University, emeritus), Anthony Szamboti (mechanical design engineer in the aerospace industry) and Ted Walter — whose affiliation is given in the paper itself as "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth". The argument: that the kinematics of the three collapses are better explained by shaped charges, since "the use of shaped cutter charges became the norm" in commercial demolition because "shaped charges have the ability to focus explosive energy, they can be placed so as to diagonally cut through steel columns quickly and reliably". WHAT THE JOURNAL PUBLISHED ALONGSIDE IT, and what makes this node worth holding — a boxed NOTE FROM THE EDITORS in the same issue, verbatim: "This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors." The editors went further, publishing a separate note on 3 October 2016 stating they "have contacted the National Institute of Science and Technology in the USA to share their conclusions" and printing NIST's reply: "since our study of the World Trade Center building (WTC 1, 2 and 7) collapses ended in 2008, there has been no new evidence presented that would change our findings and conclusions... NIST firmly stands behind its investigation results." THE STRUCTURAL POINT: a physics magazine published a contested claim, labelled it speculation, disclaimed responsibility for it, and solicited the rebuttal of the agency it contested — all in the same venue. That is the publishing apparatus behaving as designed, and it is the reason this is held as an artifact rather than as a finding.
Follow the trail
Walk this on the live map →