Every source listed above has misrepresented the Twin Towers collapse modes over the last 20 years.
This is a study of how the misrepresentations are interconnected.
The original source of a 'crush down, then crush up' collapse mode of the Twin Towers was a series of paper in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (JEM) from 2007 onward.
The same idea using the 2007-2008 sources appeared in Wikipedia in 2009 as an explanation for the Twin Towers collapse progression modes.
It showed up in an article in New York Magazine in 2011.
Two papers, one by David Chandler and another by Tony Szamboti, were reactions against the JEM papers. They also used the idea of blocks.
All the interactions shown in red were misrepresentations of the Twin Towers collapse modes, both sides describing them in terms of blocks. An overview of the whole collection of papers describing the collapse modes literally as 'blocks' is at this link
Both sides were misrepresenting the blocks as literally being part of the collapse modes of the Twin Towers.
The collection of images linked here show approaches both sides took toward (mis)representing the Twin Tower collapse modes.
A collected set of quotes by David Benson near the bottom of this page, a coauthor of one of the JEM papers, also shows how the Twin Tower collapse modes were understood literally as blocks.
News archives demonstrate that by 2006 at the latest very few news, alternative news, or investigative news sources had any questions about the collapse modes of the Twin Towers and had little patience with those who did.
This is at a time when the NIST made no comment on the Twin Towers collapse progression modes the year before in their final report,
there was no concept of any unique or distinct collapse progression mode for the Twin Towers in any professional/academic publication,
and Wikipedia described the Twin Towerss collapses in only the vaguest of terms.
So who or what could have been the source of certainty among journalists at that time? (or now?)
The large majority of news sources seemed certain no questions of importance remained a year before a 'crush-down, then crush-up' two stage model for the Twin Towers collapses emerged in 2007 and remaied ever since.
The blue interactions and the red interactions were like two different worlds where the journalists in the blue regions couldn't read what was being published in the red regions.
But the blue regions were completely dependent on the red regions for technical information on the Twin Towers collapse modes.
Journalists were completely dependent on technical sources from the professional/academic community, but the first papers on a 'crush down phase' followed by a 'crush-up phase' of the Twin Towers bagan appearing in 2007.
There is no evidence that any journalist understood this. They couldn't have known what they were supporting after 2007.
It was as if they lived on a different planet than those in the red regions.
A similar pattern could be seen in Wikipedia. The Twin Towers collapse modes were described in extremely generic terms until 2009.
They were then described as going through a 'crush-down phase' before a 'crush-up phase'. They are described that way in 2021.
All comments on the Twin Towers collapses on Wikipedia from 2004 to 2021 are collected this link. The comments are grouped and analyzed at this link.
All the sources above were misrepresenting the Twin Tower collapse modes directly to the general public.
When the certainty of journalists of the Twin Towers collapse modes (blue) is combined with the 'crush down, then crush-up' misrepresentations (red)
and misrepresentations directly to the general public (green), a more complex interaction can be seen.
Note the role of the NIST in all these interactions. They were the only ones that offered no comment on the collapse modes.
The NIST made no comment on the collapse modes in 2005 and journalists expressed certainty in their own misrepresentations of the collapse modes by 2006.
The first 'crush down, then crush-up' explanation ot the Twin Towers collapse modes appeared in JEM in 2007.
It appeared in Wikipedia in 2009. It appeared in New York Magazine as an explanation to people from New York in 2011.
Also note the relationship between the blue, the red and the green portions:
The blue region expressed certainty there was nothing more of significance to learn about the Twin Towers collapse modes since 2006.
They didn't know what was being published in the red region.
It was as if blue and red regions were not on the same planet.
The blue region, among others, misinformed the general public (green interactions) and misrepresented the Twin Towers collapse modes to the general public.
They did this without knowing the actual collapse modes themselves and without being able to read the technical literature being written.
The same continues in 2021. It is as if a large majority of journalists and news media remain stuck in 2006 in their minds. That was reality for them then. It still is.
Note how the circled sources do not misrepresent the Twin towers directly to the general public. This comes through journalist sources and 'truther' sources.
But if we look at these interactions together in a timeline the role of journalism becomes clearer.
Note that in the yellow zone of professional publications the Twin Towers collapse progression modes were described vaguely, as something unknowable.
They took a distinct form for the first time as literal 'blocks' in 2007.
This same pattern occurred in Wikipedia. The Twin Towers collapse modes were described only in the most general terms until 2009. Then they were described as 'blocks'.
In the green region journalism acted as a barrier between the written history of the Twin Towers collapse modes (to the left) and public knowledge of the collapse modes (to the right).
Within news archives I cannot find any examples in the green region of journalism communicating to the public what was occurring in the written records of the Twin Towers collapses.
From 2006 to 2021 I cannot find anything on the Twin Towers collapse modes in journalism that wasn't already present before 2006 (except for 'blocks'). There is no evidence of any change since.
Also note that the entire chain of interactions starts when the NIST issued final reports on the Twin Towers collapses in 2005 with no comment on the collapse progression modes.
Many people assume the NIST analyzed the collapse modes of the Twin Towers and that professionals and those in the academic community checked the NIST results.
This information was then passed to journalists and through them to the general public. Something like this:
But none of this happened. In reality something like this took place:
The NIST was a no show. They never commented on the largest, grossest features of the collapses.
Since the U.S. Government investigating agency made no comment on the Twin Towers collapse modes,
that left the entire explanation to the professional/academic community and ASCE journals.
News media and journalists clearly could not read these journals. They basically acted as if they could. This became obvious from 2007 onward.
This left the general public exposed to misrepresentations of the Twin Tower collapse modes from a number of sources (green in diagram).
This was allowed to continue unchecked ever since.
During this time the NIST never issued any model or concept of the unique, highly distinct modes by which the Twin Towers actually collapsed.
They remained silent. Journalists filled that silence with a strange collective certainty.
A year later the Twin Tower collapse modes were described literally as 'crushing blocks' which 'crush down' before the 'upper portion crushes up' from 'the bottom up'.
Journalists remained as certain as before, hardening to absolute conviction in 2011, as Wikipedia described the Twin Towers collapse progression modes as the same "crush down, then crush up' process.
We zoom in on 2005 to 2008 to see from where the first written record of 'block' misrepresentations emerged.
Two different types of 'block' misrepresentations appeared close together in 2007. Both began in ASCE publications.
One later became a series of 'truther' misrepresentations and the other continued in a series of ASCE publications.
It is this latter misrepresentation which is treated as the way the Twin Towers fell in the 'real world' today.
Both misrepresentations split from a series of 3 ASCE published papers in 2007-2008
The first of these papers (Bazant and Verdure) does not represent the Twin Towers literally as crushing blocks as strongly as the second paper.
The second paper (Bazant and Verdure closure) is where the first open, explicit, repeated literal description of the Twin Towers collapses as 'crush down' followed by 'crush up' was established.
In this same paper two 'truthers' use the same 'block' misrepresentation of the collapses as Bazant, just interpreted in a different way.
This means this paper is the original source of 'block' misrepresentations for both branches.
In 2008 the next paper to misrepresent the Twin Towers collapses as 'crushing down, before 'crushing up' from the 'bottom up' established this misrepresentation in ASCE publications until 2021.
The other 'block' misrepresentation of the Twin Towers collapse modes was further developed in papers by David Chandler and Tony Szamboti.
The relationships between these papers are studied in more detail at this link.
This author wrote a critique of the series of Bazant papers in 2011 at this link. When I wrote it there were many people who couldn't believe Dr Bazant was describing the collapse modes of the Twin Towers literally as 'blocks' so I wrote a much simpler version linked here. Ten years later nothing has changed.
The same information is rearranged showing the central sources and the two branch sources of 'block' misrepresentations.
Note the sequence of events began with the NIST making no comment on the Twin Towers collapse progression modes and ended with two different 'block' misrepresentations of the Twin Towers collapse modes and a highly deceptive, misleading debate between them from 2007 to the present.
No comment on the Twin Towers collapse modes by the NIST changed to two misrepresentations by two people with PhDs in physics and structural engineering within two years and a highly deceptive, highly misleading debate between them ever since.
The articles containing both types of 'block' misrepresentations of the Twin Towers collapse modes are listed here:
The path of the misrepresentation proves beyond doubt that it comes from professional ASCE journals
The original misrepresentation of the Twin Towers collapse modes as a 'crush down phase followed by a 'crush up phase' is by Dr Bazant in 2007
The establishment of this misrepresentation of the Twin Towers collapse modes comes from a series of articles from 2008 to 2017 by Dr Bazant
This was established in ASCE publications from 2007 to the present while the NIST made no comment on the Twin Towers collapse progression modes.
The misrepresentation would not have been possible without the silence of the NIST.
The 'truther' version of misrepresenting the Twin Towers collapse modes literally as blocks came as a response to Dr Bazant's original claim.
ASCE publications and Dr Bazant are soley responsible for this misrepresentation of the collapse modes of the Twin Towers from 2007 to 2021.
What were the original sources of academic/professional misrepresentations of the Twin Towers collapse modes?
They are the Dr Steven Jones paper and the Dr Bazant and Verdure paper.
The diagram shows the earliest appearances of papers with an air of scientific legitimacy misrepresenting the collapse modes of the Twin Towers.
The diagram also shows how these two opposing forces joined in agreement to misrepresent the Twin Towers collapse progression modes literally as 'blocks' from 2007 to 2021, but in two different ways.
It is important to understand the role these papers played since 2006:
The Dr Jones paper was the most important one in forming the 'Architects for 9/11 Truth' and the 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice'.
It was the central early paper in the Journal of 9/11 Studies
Both Dr Jones and Dr Bazant had PhDs in the physical sciences and engineering.
Both were treated as the central author of authority among their readers and organizations
It is also important to see their common weaknesses:
Neither show any evidence of understanding the highly distinct and unique, knowable and mappable collapse progression modes of the Twin Towers
Any debate between them was certain to be void of knowledge of the actual collapse modes of the Twin Towers, and therefore largely meaningless
Both had absolute conviction in the correctness of their misrepresentations of the Twin Towers collapses
The simple dynamic in this graphic shows how these two poles of misrepresentation began:
This is where more sophisticated misrepresentations of the Twin Towers collapses began. All key contributors are from professional/academic culture. All key contributors hold PhDs in the physical sciences or engineering.
New York Magazine included an article with the title: "Total Progressive Collapse: Why, precisely, the towers fell." in 2011. This graphic appeared at the beginning:
The same article linked here now begins with this graphic:
The 'block' explanation for the 'crush-up phase' has been removed and all captions are now missing.
The original graphic was taken from these images.
The article appeared 10 years after the collapses
It appeared in New York Magazine, in the same city where the Twin Towers fell
It claimed to "explain, precisely, how the towers fell"
It claimed the Twin Towers fell by "crushing-down' before 'crushing-up; from the 'bottom up'
It later censored its own article without informing its readers
The graphic was intentionally edited to remove the 'upper block' crushing upward from below to mislead the readers
In 2021 it still claims to "explain precisely how the towers fell"
Special note: Since this information first appeared on this website at the end of July, 2021, the article has been further edited to remove the comment that claimed to “explain, precisely, how the towers fell”. It disappeared sometime between August 1 and August 24, 2021. The editor of that article is clearly aware of what is being written here.