Debunk Alert: New Ryan/Jones Article in Peer Reviewed Journal

[WildCat]

sdemetri, do you acknowledge that the fires in the WTC were not oxygen-starved and there was no "controlled environment" once the planes struck?

 

[sdemetri]

And that illuminates a bigger point (sorry to run off on a tangent like this): Real criticism illuminates. False criticism stated with an agenda in mind - in the case of 9/11 Trutherism, the impugnment of the US Government - obsfucates. How many people are still stuck on the notion of steel having to have melted for the towers to collapse? How many people can be led into thinking incorrectly of the military response that day because some conspiracy peddler asked "Why did the planes fly around for 40 minutes without being intercepted"? It's necessary to retail the first narrative in order to build the case for thermite, and the second for the stand down, but it doesn't truly shed light on what really happened that day. Inquiries like Astaneh-Asl's - even if the engineering world ends up falsifying the charges - lead to better understanding of the engineering issues involved. Look at the true, genuinely considered criticisms that have occurred: Arup, Edinburg, Quintiere's statements for example... all those may pose more questions, and in regards to the fireproofing in those specific examples actually contradict NIST's model, but they ultimately build a path towards further illumination. What about conspiracy fantasies does the same thing?

A movie critic - was it the late Gene Siskel? I forget... - once said that the real difference between independent and mainstream movies wasn't the production company, the funding, the director, or anything like that. It was whether the storyline confirmed or challenged the dominant view of whatever subject matter the film was covering. A most independent source of funding for a film with a most un-Hollywood director would not result in an independent film if the storyline confirmed society's views on the subject, whereas the most commercial studio using the most inside-Hollywood director could make an independent film if they chose to challenge how the audience normally looked upon a topic. While incomplete, the definition is useful in separating what truly chooses to exist outside the zeitgeist, and what chooses to flow with it. This framework is very much applicable to conspiracy fantasists and the entire subject of 9/11. Who really challenges existing thought? And who simply chooses to follow the current of the particular zeitgeist? When Astaneh-Asl, for example, questions the view of the towers being properly constructed, he may be doing so within the rigid rules of engineering, and he is doing so from well inside the engineering community, but he's very much offering an illuminating challenge to the dominant mode of thought regarding the towers. Were they in fact truly well built? We're the builders' "10 unusual elements" truly bad practices? Regardless of code, was the choices made in the design of the towers truly bad ones to make? Against those questions, you have the dominant NIST model which exonerates the design. Where lies the truth? Who knows, but the interplay between the positions will shed light on that question.

Now, consider the conspiratorial claims: Thermite. Stand down. Pull it. Claims like these and others pose as though they stand against the dominant paradigm, but do they really? Do such claims that tap into the common feelings of powerlessness in the face of such a large government as the United States's one really challege orthodox thinking? Does tapping into the common mistrust of government really stand as independent thought? Does any of the conspiratorial narrative truly achieve any real state of rebellion? Or are they mere confirmations of the lazier parts of the zeitgeist that says this monster in Washington is all-powerful and all-capable, and willing to do whatever it takes for power/money/influence/forward the "NWO"/etc.? And on top of that, what do conspiratorial claims illuminate? Is it anything original? Does it truly generate genuine scholarship, and really illuminate new considerations inside well known fields? Or is it yet another "confirmation" of government's willingness to act against society, as the zeitgeist says?

In the end, the disappointment I feel towards the conspiracy addicts is not merely in their lack of discriminating thought (although that is certainly a component of it), nor in their abuse of freedom of speech (many "abuse" this right). It is that the energy spent on the faulty narrative ultimately does not challenge or change anything. What are all these arguments we have here, other than bricks in the ediface of the conventional? Even when Christophera, Balsamo in his various sock puppets, Swing Dangler, RedIbis, etc. put forth superficially challenging arguments, what puzzle are they completing other than the conspiratorial one that ultimately says "Government bad"? For all the poses of original thought, what they put forth is every bit as conventional as the arguments we muster; they simply have the flaw of being contextually or outright factually wrong as well. They don't plow new ground; they only tred in the tracks of previous paranoids. And they do nothing to get people to look at anything in any new way. Even those who consider 9/11 an "Inside Job" end up painting a picture no different from that painted by those who looked askance at government for Ruby Ridge, the JFK assasination, Waco, the Oklahoma City Bombings... calling government an antagonist, a contravida, is as old as the history of formal governments, and every bit as established. So what do they accomplish, other than forward a conventional narrative disguised as rebellion?

Ultimately, the problem in the so-called truth movement is that they neither illuminate, nor challenge. Much energy is wasted to convey a message that is ultimately flawed, and no true enlightenment comes of it. Whereas looking at the critiques of Quintiere, Astaneh-Asl, or other genuine critics really gets you thinking outside the mainstream. They challenge conventional wisdom: Was NIST's presumptions regarding the fireproofing truly erroneous, therefore demonstrating that the fireproofing is actually irrelevant in these situations? Were the building practices truly deviated from? Those of us outside the engineering community cannot definitively answer those because we don't know; the answers would be genuinely original scholarship. And even inside the community, I'd bet that the questions stimulates thinking, even if it does not ultimately result in change. But the point is that the rebels who are creating genuinely original thought are not the ones proclaiming "Inside Job" or finding ways to spin Steven Jones's latest findings. They're in fact very much a part of the establishment they seek to criticize.

Interesting post, ElMondo... If I were being rebellious simply for the sake of rebellion, you might have pegged my feelings and opinions about the towers coming down. Or, if my opinions were formulated to regard the US government as corrupt from head to toe, and complicit, you might have something.

But I arrived at my opinions through neither of those routes. For several years I bought the official line. I didn't buy the links of Al Qeada to Iraq and the necessity to invade Iraq, but, aside from moral concerns about bombing Afghanistan after their twenty years of war already and adding to the misery of the civilian population, I more or less supported that invasion. Al Qeada needed to be dealt with. To the degree that Al Qeada and copy cat organizations are real threats, and there is much debate about what that threat actually entails and how it is best treated, I think extremists need to be pursued, prosecuted, and jailed. I imagine we agree on that.

I left the official line when questions raised about the response (victim's family members raised alot of those initial concerns), questions raised about the large spread of debris in Pennslyvania, and lack of it at the Pentagon, and questions about surprising destruction of the towers... when these questions were raised and left so unsatisfactorily answered, that is when I decided there is more to this than what I am being told. When Quintiere speaks to a national conference saying NIST data and documentation should be independently examined, he is challenging the prevailing orthodoxy. And I agree with him. It should be. The story will remain incomplete, until it is. Being trained in science, I subscribe to the method that independent confirmation of the hypothesis is absolutely necessary. It is incomplete, until it is confirmed. NIST's conclusions are only a hypothesis, and not a very good one, for obvious (in my pov) reasons.

I think the contingent involved is quite small in the government, not the entire "US Government." As there is a history of this, and other governments, harboring contigents specific to tasks such as what I suspect took place here, and that directly impinges on my health, wealth and pursuit of happiness in not a few ways, I will question the current orthodoxy. I have opinions as to how the conspiracy took place, but they are really irrelevant. The official explanations for many of the inconsistencies in the offical story ought to be answered, my theories notwithstanding. Quintiere was correct to support independent confirmation of NIST's work. Lincoln Chafee is correct to support the NY ballot initiative into a real investigation. We can debate the private conspiracy theories, in a civil manner or not, but the real questions remain regardless.

 

[R.Mackey]

The highest level of benzene recorded was in February at 610,000ppb.

Yes, I know. But you must keep in mind this is the maximum instantaneous value measured anywhere. The maximum average is quite a bit lower, as in orders of magnitude lower.

3000ppb of what?

I take it you didn't check my link in the post previous. 3,000 ppb of benzene! And that's average, output from a normal charcoal fire, under ordinary ventilation.

The readings were thousands of times higher than those recorded, not at a weekend barbeque, but in other large office bldg fires with large concentrations of plastic, about 26ppb. Is this figure far too small?

It could be. Recall, once again, that the large office fire is highly ventilated. And it isn't clear that burning plastics, at least in this situation, favor benzene production. A smouldering fire does, and as the paper I linked before shows, this doesn't require plastic combustion; ordinary wood is fine.

If the EPA data is accurate, you can certainly call it an anomaly.

Not really. Again, we're comparing spot maxima to overall averages. I also expect the WTC case to be somewhat higher than typical cases due to its size, geometry, etc. Until we get a better handle on the variation expected due to these factors, we can't say.

This is a series of contradictions. First, the concentrations do appear absurdly high. I'm not sure what "we" you're referring to because the presence of some of this material was not expected and remained unexplained.

Not expected because it was novel. Remained unexplained, yes, until mid-2002, when the DELTA group started publishing papers on it. It's kind of like saying the progressive collapse was unexplained until Dr. Bazant started publishing. Nobody had really thought about it before then, but the mathematics and structural dynamics were really quite straightforward.

Fair enough. So why don't we forget about Ryan and Jones and try to answer the difficult question of what would cause those spikes. I'm not quite sure when you'll be ready to say, but it's been almost 7 years.

I was asked about it yesterday, not seven years ago. And the DELTA group, again, had results in under a year. Hold your horses. Good science takes time.

I know it's difficult for some around here to grasp, but I do find your contributions helpful. Even if I disagree or follow up with more questions, an even informed tone is the proper one to gain understanding through discourse.

Well, good. I agree, and I advocate this in my Irreducible Delusion whitepaper. The level of deception in the Ryan/Gourmley/Jones paper is rather irksome to me personally, but I'll try to keep it in check.

 

[The Big Dog]

sdemetri

"We can debate the private conspiracy theories, in a civil manner or not, but the real questions remain regardless."

Well, then lets be civil. You can start by acknowledging two major fallacies of the Twoof movement:

1. There were not small fires only in the WTC towers;

2. Fires that release black smoke are not oxygen starved.

Truth be told, you are not exactly covering yourself in glory when you come here repeating Truther talking points that have been systematically debunked time and gain on this site.

You should also acknowledge that your one line rejection of Mangoose's analysis was wrong, because it appears not only that you did not understand it, but that you don't care if you don't understand it.

 

[sdemetri]

You've missed the point, unsurprisingly. What's convincing is the calculation of the dynamic loading and the strength of the support columns, which gives the result that collapse propagates. If you don't understand why the dynamic loading is greater than the static loading, then a visualisation might be useful. If you refuse to believe the results, then there's nothing I can say to convince you that you should accept the known properties of materials and Newtonian mechanics as a basis for your reasoning. However, as long as you choose not to do so, nobody with any influence will pay you the slightest bit of attention.

Dave

No, I didn't miss your point. Of course dynamic loading is greater than static. You haven't said anything to convince me that in the case of the towers, dynamic loading was greater. Sorry.

I followed the thread with Greg Urich at the time it was happening. I have also read his paper on the Journal of 911 Studies site. The arguments made in the thread were interesting, but, again, unconvincing.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No, I didn't miss your point. Of course dynamic loading is greater than static. You haven't said anything to convince me that in the case of the towers, dynamic loading was greater. Sorry.

Then why not try to convince me instead? The maths is fairly simple; work out the mass of the upper block, assume a freefall drop of one storey, determine the deceleration needed to bring the falling mass to rest within the elastic limit of the structure below (can we agree that's about 0.2% for structural steel?), and that will give you a required structural strength for collapse arrest. Divide that by the static loading of the upper block, and you've got the safety factor required in the building for collapse to have been arrested, assuming no damage from the airliner impacts. If that number somes out as something reasonable, post it here, show your working, and a lot of very highly qualified people will take a look at it. Until you've done that, all we've seen is an argument from incredulity.

Dave

 

[lapman]

I left the official line when questions raised about the response (victim's family members raised alot of those initial concerns), questions raised about the large spread of debris in Pennslyvania, and lack of it at the Pentagon, and questions about surprising destruction of the towers... when these questions were raised and left so unsatisfactorily answered, that is when I decided there is more to this than what I am being told. When Quintiere speaks to a national conference saying NIST data and documentation should be independently examined, he is challenging the prevailing orthodoxy. And I agree with him. It should be. The story will remain incomplete, until it is. Being trained in science, I subscribe to the method that independent confirmation of the hypothesis is absolutely necessary. It is incomplete, until it is confirmed. NIST's conclusions are only a hypothesis, and not a very good one, for obvious (in my pov) reasons.

This is the fatal flaw in all of your arguments. You claim to have been trained in science, but you threw out all of that when you looked at the concerns. You should have been trained to look at the full body of evidence. However you have done nothing close to that. You talk about the lack of debris at the Pentagon. However, if you had done proper research, you would know that there was a plethora of evidence at the site. See here for more info on that. As far as Dr. Quintiere is concerned, he still supports the "official story" of damage and fire brought down the towers. He just feels that NIST wasn't thorough enough. Your parroting of the CT lies and distortions only shows that you've completely thrown out objectivity. Most, if not all, of us "debunkers" and "skeptics" know that the FEMA, NIST and the 9/11 Commission reports are not 100% accurate. However, they are infinitely more accurate that anything put out by the "Truth Movement."

 

[sdemetri]

Then why not try to convince me instead? The maths is fairly simple; work out the mass of the upper block, assume a freefall drop of one storey, determine the deceleration needed to bring the falling mass to rest within the elastic limit of the structure below (can we agree that's about 0.2% for structural steel?), and that will give you a required structural strength for collapse arrest. Divide that by the static loading of the upper block, and you've got the safety factor required in the building for collapse to have been arrested, assuming no damage from the airliner impacts. If that number somes out as something reasonable, post it here, show your working, and a lot of very highly qualified people will take a look at it. Until you've done that, all we've seen is an argument from incredulity.

Dave

I am afraid I have to point out, again, as much as that perturbs you, that engineering is not my specialty. Why should I presume to try to convince engineers in their own language (especially in as merciless a place as this forum) why they are incorrect in that calculation? I have read Ross, I have read Greening's replies to Ross, I have read Bazant... as, I hope, a relatively intelligent guy, I claim nothing more than perhaps the status of a jury member listening to expert witnesses debate highly technical points. And if called upon to vote which argument is more cohesive, more in line with many other articles of evidence, and observations I have made myself, I vote for Ross and Kuttler. I'm sure that doesn't satisfy you, but, again, sorry.

The statement I made to someone else's post, "a lack of structural integrity equals a lack of resistance," as an intuitive way of looking at it, describes my thoughts about why the upper block accelerated rather than decelerated or deflected. Your explanation for a lack of structural integrity appears to come through MG>F1+F2. Mine comes from the addition of large, external forces. I don't see how your explanation explains in thermodynamic terms the pulverization of tons and tons of concrete, office materials, people to a fine dust. My explanation better handles that additional energy requirement. But that's my intuition for you.

 

[SDC]

"Intuition"?? Someone wants us to rely on his "intuition"? Sheesh. In post 268, first he says he lacks qualifications to decide; and then he says he has decided, and it appears to be because of his "intuition."

My "intuition" says that this is silly.

I'm sorry, we have just been invited into Fantasyville.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I am afraid I have to point out, again, as much as that perturbs you, that engineering is not my specialty. Why should I presume to try to convince engineers in their own language (especially in as merciless a place as this forum) why they are incorrect in that calculation?

Your argument, in effect, is that you are better able to determine who is in error by virtue of the fact that you are unable to carry out the required calculations. Sorry, but when it came to put up or shut up time, you did neither. I'm not interested in your intuition; Ross and Kuttler are simply, factually, even embarrassingly wrong, and the fact that I'm able to see that and you aren't, is simply the result of the fact that you're dabbling in areas you don't understand.

Dave

 

[WildCat]

sdemetri, do you acknowledge that the fires in the WTC were not oxygen-starved and there was no "controlled environment" once the planes struck?

Can you answer this please sdemetri? Your answer will reveal whether or not you are a rational person with which this topic can be discussed, or so driven by agenda that you are not only blind to the facts but hostile towards them.

 

[rwguinn]

]I am afraid I have to point out, again, as much as that perturbs you, that engineering is not my specialty. Why should I presume to try to convince engineers in their own language (especially in as merciless a place as this forum) why they are incorrect in that calculation?[/B] I have read Ross, I have read Greening's replies to Ross, I have read Bazant... as, I hope, a relatively intelligent guy, I claim nothing more than perhaps the status of a jury member listening to expert witnesses debate highly technical points. And if called upon to vote which argument is more cohesive, more in line with many other articles of evidence, and observations I have made myself, I vote for Ross and Kuttler. I'm sure that doesn't satisfy you, but, again, sorry.

The statement I made to someone else's post, "a lack of structural integrity equals a lack of resistance," as an intuitive way of looking at it, describes my thoughts about why the upper block accelerated rather than decelerated or deflected. Your explanation for a lack of structural integrity appears to come through MG>F1+F2. Mine comes from the addition of large, external forces. I don't see how your explanation explains in thermodynamic terms the pulverization of tons and tons of concrete, office materials, people to a fine dust. My explanation better handles that additional energy requirement. But that's my intuition for you.

Stundied!

 

[sdemetri]

rocket science

...Ross and Kuttler are simply, factually, even embarrassingly wrong, and the fact that I'm able to see that and you aren't, is simply the result of the fact that you're dabbling in areas you don't understand.

Dave

Perhaps, but their arguments are much better than anything I have seen here, or read elsewhere. And I walk, throw things, pick things up, drop things, use levers, or rollers, or pulleys... physics (and engineering) is not all rocket science. Don't mean to burst your bubble.

 

[johnny karate]

Can you answer this please sdemetri? Your answer will reveal whether or not you are a rational person with which this topic can be discussed, or so driven by agenda that you are not only blind to the facts but hostile towards them.

Seconded. It would be refreshing to have a Truther come here and engage in discussion with some intellectual honesty.

 

[johnny karate]

Perhaps, but their arguments are much better than anything I have seen here, or read elsewhere. And I walk, throw things, pick things up, drop things, use levers, or rollers, or pulleys... physics (and engineering) is not all rocket science. Don't mean to burst your bubble.

Stundied.

 

[Mooseman]

Where's Red, he at least can think straight.

 

[Myriad]

Intuition is usually wrong when it comes to the effects of scaling.

Look at the wine glass analogy for instance. You seem to think that a building is stronger than a wine glass. But the wine glass is far stronger relative to its own weight and mass.

The wine glass needs to be far stronger, because it is designed to:

- Be picked up with only a few points of contact (such as, between the fingers).

- Be filled with more than its own weight in liquid.

- Be tilted at significant angles from vertical.

- Be collided against a second similar object at relative velocities exceeding 1 foot per second.

- Undergo all of the above simultaneously.

If you tried to do any of those things to a 100-story office tower (regardless of the construction details), let alone all of them in combination, you'd end up with a pile of rubble.

So much for intuition. The important factor is the ratio of strength to the magnitude of the forces experienced. When the forces experienced derive from the object's own mass (e.g. gravitational forces and dynamic loads), the relevant comparison becomes the ratio of the strength to the mass. Even the most delicate wine glass can support many times its own weight. Even the strongest office buildings cannot support many times their own weight. The comparison isn't even close. The wine glass is far stronger.

That's why your intuition fails, and knowing that your intuition fails for that reason and similar reasons is why people with real knowledge of the subject and the ability to calculate results will not be convinced by your argument from intuition.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Spud1k]

Sorry to join this one late, but I couldn't resist dropping a couple of points in because the subject matter is getting perilously close to my dayjob.

First off, I've never come across The Environmentalist before, but apparently Thompson ISI doesn't seem to find it worthy of indexing, which is always a bad sign.

Secondly, to set the matter straight, black smoke is specifically a sign of incomplete combustion. While this can be caused by oxygen starvation or a low combustion temperature, it can also e a sign that whatever the fuel is does not break down cleanly when it burns. The complex polymers found in car tyres are a good example of this. As are the synthetic materials found in fire-resistant office fittings, décor, furnishings and equipment. Not that I'm saying the WTC was full of car tyres or anything.

 

[sdemetri]

Your argument, in effect, is that you are better able to determine who is in error by virtue of the fact that you are unable to carry out the required calculations.

No, I am better able to determine, at least for myself, who is in error by evaluating the broader body of evidence. It is always better to have indisputable facts on one's side, and having the expertise to perform the calculations is a plus. I hold myself able to determine where weaknesses are in at least some of the conceptual arguments the calculations by Greening or Bazant refer to, if I am unable to perform the calculations myself. And I have never seen anyone defending the official argument from an engineering pov account for the energy requirement for pulverization to the extent it took place. I realize it is extremely complicated, but I think you would agree it is an important component to the energy requirement calculation.

I might refer to Greening's own words when he was asked to present his calculations (although I don't think he was less justified in his response than myself):

"You want me to produce my calculations! Why? So you can scrutinize them and pick at them like a vulture attacking a carcass..."

 

[sdemetri]

Meant to say "I think he was less justified than myself..."