Interview with Prof. Charles Clifton, who published an independent study on 9/11

[DaveThomasNMSR]

There's been an excellent interview published on Feb. 3rd, 2014 of Dr. Charles Clifton, associate professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). Dr. Clifton published an independent analysis of the tower collapses in September of 2001.

The interview, published by the UNDICISETTEMBRE ("11 September") blog here, is described by author Hammer as follows:

The collapse of the Twin Towers and of Building 7 at the World Trade Center is one of the most controversial aspects of the events of 9/11. Proponents of conspiracy theories often back their arguments with claims that are apparently precise and scientific but are actually based on superficial and often incorrect knowledge.

To clear the field of these misconceptions, Undicisettembre has interviewed Charles Clifton, associate professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Auckland (New Zealand), who published an independent study on the collapse of the Twin Towers.

As you can read below, Clifton's professional opinion dispels all of the doubts raised by conspiracy theorists regarding the three collapses and makes it very clear that for the experts there is no mystery at all.

We wish to thank Charles Clifton for his kindness and for making himself available for our questions.

Please note that Dr. Zdenek Bazant of Northwestern University is not mentioned even once in the interview. Also note that Dr. Clifton is an independent scientist, is not an American, and is not employed by NIST. Here is a snippet of the interview, regarding the collapse of WTC 7:

The first theory was that the fires in the substation beneath the core weakened the core and triggered the collapse but the NIST report states that didn’t happen, based on the observed amount and intensity of smoke released from the base of the building during the interval those fires were burning. However, computer simulations with the core intact don’t generate the final observed collapse sequence. I think the NIST report is wrong in this regard and that those substation fires did cause a progressive failure in the core, so that when the gravity system failed on the north east side and put more load suddenly into the core, it gave way at the lower levels.

Please feel free to comment. However, this thread is specifically about Dr. Charles Clifton of New Zealand. There are many threads already existing about NIST and Dr. Bazant, and I beseech the mods to feel free to re-direct any off-topic conversations in this thread to a better location).

 

[jaydeehess]

Very nice Dave. I may repost this elsewhere if you don't mind

 

[jaydeehess]

Boeing data on this type of plane. The plane would have been traveling at around 800 kms/hour at impact. This gives a momentum of 150x800/3.6=33,333 tons.m/sec. If the plane was arrested by the building in effectively 0.6 seconds, which is a reasonable estimate based on a linear deceleration over the 63.5 m width of the building, then the force exerted on the building is the momentum/effective time to arrest, i.e. Force=33,333/0.6=55,555kN. To put that in perspective, the ultimate limit state design wind pressure over the entire height of the building is 220 kg/m 2 . This gives a ULS wind force on one face of the building of 58, 400 kN. Thus the potential force of impact from the plane is 95% of the design ultimate limit state wind load on the building!

Hmmmm, interesting.

 

[DGM]

<truther>

"Independent RESEARCHER from New Zealand PROVES NIST is wrong!!!!!!"

I think the NIST report is wrong in this regard

"Claims 9/11 was an inside job!!!!!"

</truther>

 

[JSanderO]

<truther>

"Independent RESEARCHER from New Zealand PROVES NIST is wrong!!!!!!"

"Claims 9/11 was an inside job!!!!!"

</truther>

He should have listened to me... hahahaha

 

[ozeco41]

We needed him five years back:

Look at the history of this topic on this forum and the prominence of two schools of thought:
1) The Bazantian School of 1D modelling which has dominated thinking and continues to influence false reasoning in several areas. (Two prominent examples being (a) both sides - support for and rebuttal of - "Missing Jolt" style claims and (b) also both support and rebuttal of claims in the area of "Tilt v axial impact". Arguments in both areas - they are really different aspects of the same issue - based on wrong premises flowing from 1D modelling. And debunkers tacit acceptance of the truthers false premises....) (And my frustrations over the years from 2010>>> )

2) The narrow focus engineering seen in FEA analyses of improperly defined sub-systems- see all the girder walk off stuff. All dominated by "forest v trees" syndrome. Lost the plot-itis. OR "alligators v swamps" - choose your own favourite metaphor.

THEN Along came the minority school of "what really happened" explainers who dared to suggest that some interpretations of Bazant may not be correct....and got accused of lèse majesté plus daring to side with truthers who were right.

So, as I said, we needed him five years ago.

It is nice to see support for "what really happened" thinking even if too little too late.

And I serve notice that I still disagree with his interpretation of "transition" to "ROOSD (Or Three Mechanisms) Progression"

This bit:

Charles Clifton: From a momentum point of view, if one floor collapses on another in a building, the force that that floor invokes on the floor below is slightly greater than what the floor below is designed to withstand. So if one floor fell into another floor the chances of the first floor causing the second floor to collapse are possible but not particularly likely. But if the second floor is almost on the point of failure when the first falls on it they will both collapse. If you have two floors falling on a third one the ability of the third floor to hold the top two is very low. By the time you have three floors falling on a fourth is just not physically possible for the fourth floor to hold three. So by the time you have twenty floors falling on the intact floors below they will just go straight through.

He is still seeing accumulation of floor debris as the sole or primary mechanism.

Don't forget those "knife edges" of perimeter columns.

 

[ozeco41]

He should have listened to me... hahahaha

Or me, or femr2 or a growing number of long term JREFers who have broken the shackles of hyper Bazantianism.



Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this the first prominent academic to explain "What really happened" without the handicap of trying to simultaneously support Bazant?


I'll even overlook the fact that he is a Kiwi - wrong side of the Tasman Sea.

 

[jaydeehess]

He should have listened to me... hahahaha

I noticed he is your kinda guy, JSO

 

[beachnut]

Or me, or femr2 or a growing number of long term JREFers who have broken the shackles of hyper Bazantianism.



Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this the first prominent academic to explain "What really happened" without the handicap of trying to simultaneously support Bazant?


I'll even overlook the fact that he is a Kiwi - wrong side of the Tasman Sea.

I found a few more independent studies though the years from the USA and down under. The problem is they are in real journals, in ordinary libraries. It cost money to see them, or you have to be in school with access. There are many independent studies. I should have taken note, and may have but I have nearly a teraByte of junk to go through related to 911, then 12 teraBytes in my other hobbies, besides 10s of thousand of photos now pushing into the TeraByte range for my other interests. Anybody have a professor whose office was filled with stacks of papers, books, projects? That is my multi-computer mess here, I have stacks of 1, 2 and 3 teraByte drives sitting on desks and selves, for back up of my hobbies. Unlike my professor, when asked for a project, he would walk over to a pile and hand you the data you needed for your thesis project, I can't find anything...

That study is not the first, it is the next one in a long line of independent, rational studies on 911.

Years ago it was easier to google studies on 911 and find some reality based sources, where you could buy access; now the woo is thicker.

 

[ozeco41]

I found a few more independent studies though the years from the USA and down under. The problem is they are in real journals, in ordinary libraries. It cost money to see them, or you have to be in school with access.

Could be. My focus was specifically on "Explainers of the Real Event" rather than "School of Academic Abstraction". The abstract ones nearly all having strong Bazantian influence and not usually seeing the limitations of the B&Z assumptions for limit case. This forum was "somewhat opposed" when I made a "disagree with Bazant" comment back in - when? - 2010? and pgimeno started the "Limits of Bazant" thread. It was a long battle not helped by the anti truther noise directed at femr.

There are many independent studies. I should have taken note, and may have but I have nearly a teraByte of junk to go through related to 911, then 12 teraBytes in my other hobbies, besides 10s of thousand of photos now pushing into the TeraByte range for my other interests. Anybody have a professor whose office was filled with stacks of papers, books, projects? That is my multi-computer mess here, I have stacks of 1, 2 and 3 teraByte drives sitting on desks and selves, for back up of my hobbies. Unlike my professor, when asked for a project, he would walk over to a pile and hand you the data you needed for your thesis project, I can't find anything...

I'm nearly as disorganised except less than a terrabyte so far. Web/Mail server plus 4 workstations and provision for several more on eight station KVM for computer servicing - tho' I've nearly given that game away. Very few videos and other large files. But I can locate all my emails except spam going back 8 or 10 years. Upgraded the 1TB + 500GB mirrored raids a couple of months back - to up the network access speed to 1G from the old 100MBs. Then the new box blew up and...still settling down. Lost nothing due to my "belt and braces" approach to backup. I routinely copy clients entire hard drive before doing rescues - have only once had a situation where clients data could not be protected - the hard drive totally failed.

That study is not the first, it is the next one in a long line of independent, rational studies on 911.

It is the first one I've seen linked from the "Explain Real Event" school as stated above.

Years ago it was easier to google studies on 911 and find some reality based sources, where you could buy access; now the woo is thicker.

Don't I know it. I make life easier by (trying) to sit behind the "burden of proof" barrier - unless they are prepared to discuss rationally my patience rapidly runs out. As you may know through another personna elsewhere.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Another independent investigation was that done by Weidlinger Associates, described here. Their detailed FEM modeling helped show that the Twin Tower collapses were separate events, and that without the second plane, Tower 1 (North) would have remained standing.

Some of the results:

FYI, Dave

P.S. Of course, there was a Purdue Study as well.

 

[Spanx]

Another independent investigation was that done by Weidlinger Associates, described here. Their detailed FEM modeling helped show that the Twin Tower collapses were separate events, and that without the second plane, Tower 1 (North) would have remained standing.

Some of the results:

[qimg]http://www.nmsr.org/tower2_dmg.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.nmsr.org/tower1_dmg.jpg[/qimg]

FYI, Dave

P.S. Of course, there was a Purdue Study as well.

Don't forget this one http://www.ae911truth.org/

Oh hang on, they are only demanding a new investigation

 

[ozeco41]

and that without the second plane, Tower 1 (North) would have remained standing.

Is that what you intneded to post?

 

[JSanderO]

Or me, or femr2 or a growing number of long term JREFers who have broken the shackles of hyper Bazantianism.



Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this the first prominent academic to explain "What really happened" without the handicap of trying to simultaneously support Bazant?


I'll even overlook the fact that he is a Kiwi - wrong side of the Tasman Sea.

I was kidding... there were several independent thinkers who appeared to show good understanding of the observations and the mechanisms driving them.

 

[ozeco41]

I was kidding... there were several independent thinkers who appeared to show good understanding of the observations and the mechanisms driving them.

I decoded your hahahaha - but thought I could pretend to be offended.

 

[JSanderO]

I decoded your hahahaha - but thought I could pretend to be offended.

Not to worry Ozzie, you already know I pretty much agree with 100% of your rants... even when you trample upon my brilliance. hahahaha

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/scratch.gif[/qimg]
Is that what you intneded to post?

I was trying to get at the idea of two planes, two building collapses. Of course the first plane crash affected the north tower, but the second plane hit the south tower, which collapsed first (primarily because it was hit lower down). Thanks

 

[ozeco41]

I was trying to get at the idea of two planes, two building collapses. Of course the first plane crash affected the north tower, but the second plane hit the south tower, which collapsed first (primarily because it was hit lower down). Thanks

 

[Vitiare]

As one of my hobbies (I need better hobbies) I argue with a tinfoil nutter that will refuse to believe anything that isnt "Peer reviewed, refereed and published"

Can someone please tell me this document was peer-reviewed?

BTW - this is my first post here. Happy to be here. Sorry Im late to the party!

 

[911KookDetector]

As one of my hobbies (I need better hobbies) I argue with a tinfoil nutter that will refuse to believe anything that isnt "Peer reviewed, refereed and published"

Can someone please tell me this document was peer-reviewed?

BTW - this is my first post here. Happy to be here. Sorry Im late to the party!

Doesn't being a tinfoil nutter entail believing in tinfoil nutter evidence?

What tinfoil nutter evidence has been peer reviewed, refereed and published?