What official statements did the American Society of Civil Engineers publish about the World Trade Center collapses in 2001 and 2002?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) participated in early technical work after 9/11 through experts and its Structural Engineering Institute, contributed to and publicized peer-reviewed analyses (including Bažant’s early ASCE‑published papers) and helped assemble the FEMA/ASCE Building Performance Assessment Team that produced the May 2002 FEMA “World Trade Center Building Performance Study” findings—concluding aircraft impact plus multi‑floor fires led to collapse—and later endorsed NIST’s fire‑driven collapse conclusions while calling for professional discussion of recommendations [1] [2] [3] [4]. Available sources do not list a single, stand‑alone ASCE “official statement” text from 2001 but do document ASCE’s role in studies, journal publications and institutional commentary [2] [1] [3].
1. ASCE moved from immediate technical assistance to formal study
ASCE experts were among the earliest engineers on site and, together with FEMA, formed an initial Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) that gathered steel, documented damage and produced the preliminary FEMA/ASCE building performance study published in May 2002; that study framed the technical questions that NIST later investigated [5] [3] [6]. The organization functioned as a technical contributor rather than issuing a single decisive public proclamation in 2001 [5] [3].
2. ASCE’s peer‑reviewed scholarship shaped public explanation
Individual ASCE‑affiliated researchers published technical explanations very soon after the attacks. Notably, Zdeněk P. Bažant and colleagues published analyses in ASCE venues (Journal of Engineering Mechanics and related ASCE outlets) arguing that progressive, gravity‑driven collapse followed aircraft damage and prolonged heating of columns and floors—work that influenced subsequent official investigations [1] [7] [8]. These papers are part of the record of what “ASCE” researchers published, even if they reflect individual authors’ scholarship more than a single society declaration [1] [7].
3. ASCE’s institutional messaging and later positions
ASCE’s public webpages and Civil Engineering Magazine pieces summarize the consensus view that the towers collapsed because fires—fed by jet fuel—combined with structural damage to critical members, and they report NIST’s finding that no corroborating evidence supports controlled‑demolition hypotheses [3] [2]. ASCE’s Structural Engineering Institute issued statements calling for further discussion of NIST’s recommendations on building standards and practice, indicating the society engaged constructively with official investigator conclusions rather than disputing NIST’s core cause findings [4] [2].
4. How ASCE’s role related to FEMA and NIST investigations
ASCE helped produce the early FEMA building performance study (BPAT) and provided subject‑matter experts and institutional channels for disseminating engineering analyses; FEMA issued the early May 2002 report and in January 2002 asked NIST to take over a more extensive, mandate‑driven investigation that culminated in final NIST reports in 2005 (twin towers) and 2008 (WTC 7). The ASCE role was collaborative and contributory in these official government investigations rather than the lead federal investigator [5] [6] [9].
5. Contested reception and alternative viewpoints
Some advocacy groups and critics challenged ASCE‑affiliated analyses; for example, organizations such as Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have attacked Bažant’s work and asserted it is flawed—representing a dissenting, activist viewpoint documented in the sourced record [10]. By contrast, ASCE‑linked summaries and NIST concluded that aircraft impact plus fire explain the collapses and specifically found “no corroborating evidence” for controlled‑demolition theories [2] [6]. Both positions appear in available sources; ASCE and mainstream engineering journals broadly supported the fire/damage explanation while some activist groups disputed the math and conclusions [2] [10].
6. What the sources do not show
Available sources do not provide a single, framed ASCE “official statement” text from 2001 that declares a final cause; instead the documentary record shows early ASCE‑authored technical papers, participation in the FEMA BPAT and later institutional commentary aligning with NIST’s fire‑driven collapse findings [5] [1] [2]. Sources also do not show ASCE as the lead federal investigative agency—NIST held that role under the National Construction Safety Team Act [6] [9].
7. Why this matters for public understanding
The distinction between ASCE’s roles—as a forum for peer‑reviewed engineering analysis, a participant in FEMA’s BPAT, and a commentator on NIST findings—helps explain why some critics conflate individual ASCE‑affiliated papers with a single “ASCE official statement.” The society’s documented outputs supported the technical conclusion that aircraft damage plus multi‑floor fires drove the collapses and explicitly note the lack of evidence for pre‑planted explosives in NIST’s and ASCE summaries [1] [2] [6].
If you want, I can extract and compile the specific ASCE‑published articles, FEMA/ASCE BPAT excerpts and the Structural Engineering Institute’s statements cited above into a single timeline with direct links to each source [5] [1] [2].