Steven Jones debates Leslie Robertson

milesalpha said:
Cough, as the forum's resident old stoner, I can unequivocally state that even I couldn't get stoned enough to consider the "Journal for 911 Studies" a journal, let alone appropriate.
Click to expand...

It always cracked me up that the name of the journal is the Journal Of Nine-Eleven Studies (i.e., JONES).
 
Laith said:
Could you provide a link to the publication? I never heard he was planning to teach it...
Click to expand...


Does not matter if he was teaching it or not, he was using BYU equipment and resources to investigate it, while accusing other in the Mormon community of committing or covering up for capital crimes.
That violated the ethics codes.
Also there are several reasons that molten metal even steel might have been created in the collapse other than thermite-thermate devices those include natural thermite-thermate like Metal Oxidizing reactions.
 
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/

this is jones' journal

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001. All content is freely available online.

no laughing class

ferris
 
For the newcomers here, structural engineer Zdenek Bazant of MIT wrote a much-quoted paper on the collapses that was released just a couple of days after 9/11 and updated a couple of times. He didn't have the benefit of the knowledge gathered by NIST, whose conclusions about the mechanism of the collapses were different. The paper remains an interesting read for its calculations showing that the force exerted by the falling tops was an order of magnitude greater than that necessary to stop the collapse. http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

In June, 2006 Bazant released another, detailed paper on the mechanics of progressive collapse:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf


Chemist and WTC sleuth Frank Greening's calculations in two papers cover the collapse, momentum transfer, etc. The math is beyond me, but seems to stand up according to knowledgeable people. By necessity, the collapse scenario is much simplified. As others have pointed out here, even the most powerful computers running the latest failure analysis software would have trouble accurately modeling the collapses beyond initiation. There are millions of variables.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf
 
Augustine said:
I think Leslie Robertson really is baffled by the insanity of Jones. As an aside, I've met Leslie Robertson, attended a few seminars where he presented, very nice man.
Click to expand...
If you run into him again get him to sign a statement that he didn't put a concrete core in the buildings:D
 
Piggy said:
I understand what you are just saying, but you happen to be just wrong.

There is no justification for "assuming" that the lower floors would stop the momentum.

Here's what some qualified people have to say....

A very early analysis from The University of Sydney:



There's no great mystery here at all. The laws of physics, of mass and energy, together with the realities of economics going into building design and construction, make it implausible that a structure such as the WTC could somehow arrest the collapse of so many upper floors.

An article in JOM:



Subsequent analysis by qualified persons and organizations has never come to any significantly different conclusions.

Therefore, if you want to argue a case which proposes that the collapse could have been somehow arrested by lower structures which were never designed to carry anywhere near an equivalent load, you're going to have to present some evidence.
Click to expand...
Piggy, the conclusions in that JOM article were superseded by those of the NIST study. NIST did not support the "pancake" collapse theory, which begins with the separation of floor trusses from walls. Instead, NIST concluded that the floors sagged, pulling the outer columns inward, which led to buckling and collapse. This is borne out by photos of the exterior walls bowing in, and by reports from helicopter pilots who reported the same.

NIST's FAQ page is handy to have when the CTs come knocking.
 
Augustine said:
I believe Dr. Bazant is on the faculty of Northwestern. He has been there since 1969. Licensed Structural Engineer (SE) in the state of Illinois. (Me too!:p )
Click to expand...
Of course. Thank you. I was looking at the first URL, which said MIT.
 
Gravy said:
The paper remains an interesting read for its calculations showing that the force exerted by the falling tops was an order of magnitude greater than that necessary to stop the collapse. http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
Click to expand...

Bolding mine.

I think this is meant to read "the force exerted by the falling tops was an order of magnitude greater than the force the underlying structure could withstand" or something similar. It doesn't really make sense as it is (unless I have had a brain meltdown).
 
I see I missed the latest sock puppet. I wonder how many you have to make before the admins start talking to ISPs?

Anyway, I note that we have a sticky for 911 conspiracy editorials. Perhaps we should have a sticky for 911 peer reviewed studies of the collapse. The zhou paper, Bazant, and others could be listed as a quick counter to the 'did anyone do the calculations' nonsense.
 
kookbreaker said:
I see I missed the latest sock puppet. I wonder how many you have to make before the admins start talking to ISPs?
Click to expand...

I don't think it would ever come to that - he hasn't broken any laws or anything, he's just being a douche.

On the LC forums he is telling everyone Gravy got him banned because he put him on ignore! :p
 
qarnos said:
I don't think it would ever come to that - he hasn't broken any laws or anything, he's just being a douche.
Click to expand...

Yes, but being a douche and wasting admin's time on purpose is enough to makes ones own ISP take a few steps. I know the BautForum has a process where they contact the ISPs if a sock keeps trying to show up. It seems to work, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom