Which professional engineering groups outside ASCE examined the WTC collapses and what alternative hypotheses did they propose?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Multiple professional engineering teams and independent researchers investigated the World Trade Center collapses beyond ASCE/ASME-led efforts; prominent groups include university researchers (e.g., Zdeněk P. Bažant at Northwestern/MIT), Thornton Tomasetti for Silverstein Properties, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Institute of Northern Engineering — each advancing different mechanisms ranging from gravity-driven progressive collapse initiated by fire-damaged connections (Bažant and others) to a fire-not-credible hypothesis for WTC 7 advanced by UAF [1] [2] [3]. NIST and many structural-engineering specialists rejected controlled-demolition explanations and found no evidence of pre-planted explosives [4] [5].
1. Engineers who studied the towers: academic modelers and practitioners
Independent academics and institutional engineers produced leading non‑ASCE analyses. Zdeněk P. Bažant and collaborators developed and refined a gravity-driven progressive-collapse model that matched video records, seismic timing and debris patterns and was published in structural‑mechanics journals [1] [6]. Private forensic engineering firms and consulting teams such as Thornton Tomasetti performed nonlinear thermomechanical analyses for stakeholders (Silverstein Properties) and produced a failure sequence that linked aircraft debris, sprinkler damage and prolonged fires to a global collapse of WTC 7 [2].
2. The dominant alternative within engineering: progressive, fire‑weakened collapse
Several professional studies converged on a mechanism in which aircraft impact dislodged fireproofing and damaged structural elements, and subsequent fires weakened floor systems and connections until local failures cascaded into global collapse. Prominent engineering authors (Eagar, Musso, Bažant and others) explained that fires did not need to melt steel to cause loss of structural capacity; shifting loads and failure of connection elements (angle clips, joists) led to progressive failure—this is presented as the principal engineering alternative to exotic explanations [7] [8] [6].
3. University of Alaska Fairbanks: a contrarian conclusion on WTC 7
The UAF Institute of Northern Engineering published a detailed study concluding that fire did not cause WTC 7’s collapse and instead argued for a near‑simultaneous, global failure of many columns — a conclusion explicitly at odds with NIST and other private engineering analyses [3]. UAF released large datasets and simulations supporting their result; UAF’s position has fed debate and public controversy because it contradicts the mainstream fire‑induced collapse findings [3] [5].
4. NIST and mainstream structural‑mechanics response
NIST’s formal investigations, supported by ASCE experts and the Structural Engineers Association of New York among others, concluded that aircraft impact plus uncontrolled fires produced the collapses and found no corroborating evidence for demolition explosives or melted‑steel claims; NIST also reported scarcity of some physical evidence but maintained that available inspections did not show molten steel from jet‑fuel fires [9] [4]. Specialist groups in structural mechanics generally accepted the fire‑induced, gravity‑driven collapse model [5].
5. Controlled‑demolition claims and the engineering community’s rebuttals
Conspiracy hypotheses that the towers were brought down by pre‑planted explosives have been explicitly examined and rejected by mainstream professional investigators; NIST and most structural‑engineering specialists found no evidence supporting controlled demolition, and many academic and professional engineers published critiques of explosive theories [5] [4]. The public debate, however, persisted because some non‑mainstream researchers and advocacy groups highlighted perceived anomalies in videos and witness reports [5].
6. Methodological limits and points of disagreement
Investigations were constrained by limited early access to all wreckage and legal/administrative barriers; FEMA and follow‑up reviewers acknowledged scarcity of physical evidence and the challenge of remnant‑steel recovery, which shaped both the scope of conclusions and the room for dissenting analyses [9] [10]. Disagreements center on whether available data and modeling sufficiently discriminate between competing hypotheses (e.g., UAF’s claim versus NIST’s) and on interpretations of video, seismic and material evidence [3] [4] [1].
7. What sources say — and what they do not
Available sources document the principal professional groups (academic teams such as Bažant’s, consulting firms like Thornton Tomasetti, university labs such as UAF) and outline the main competing hypotheses: gravity‑driven progressive collapse due to impact+fire versus UAF’s contention that fire could not have caused WTC 7’s failure [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention a vetted professional engineering body that concluded explosives were used; NIST and specialists explicitly found no corroborating evidence for that hypothesis [4] [5].
Limitations: this summary relies exclusively on the supplied reporting and links; it reports the principal groups named there and their headline conclusions but does not attempt to adjudicate technical minutiae beyond those sources’ claims [1] [3] [2] [4].