Most detailed scientific papers for and against controlled demolition

[Zeuzzz]

After reading the NIST reports on the collapses and being severely disappointed by the post-initiation engineering models of the collapses I was wondering what the main scientific papers about the physics of the collapses (WTC 1,2+7) for each side of the argument are, so I can compare the two?

Seem to remember that user GregoryUrich wrote a quite detailed paper a while back here which i was impressed with by its impartiality, but there are probably better ones that have been written since on each side of the argument.

Links anyone?

 

[grandmastershek]

Bazant, Z. et al (2007). What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York. Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

 

[TJM]

Ryan Mackey's White Paper.

http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

 

[sheeplesnshills]

After reading the NIST reports on the collapses and being severely disappointed by the post-initiation engineering models of the collapses I was wondering what the main scientific papers about the physics of the collapses (WTC 1,2+7) for each side of the argument are, so I can compare the two?

Seem to remember that user GregoryUrich wrote a quite detailed paper a while back here which i was impressed with by its impartiality, but there are probably better ones that have been written since on each side of the argument.

Links anyone?

I don't know of a single detailed paper for CD not am I expecting one anytime soon.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Bazant, Z. et al (2007). What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York. Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Ryan Mackey's White Paper.

http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

"Version 2.1, 24 May 2008
Original Release 31 August 2007"

Both pretty old, was hoping for some papers released after the "official" WTC7 NIST report.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Seem to remember that user GregoryUrich wrote a quite detailed paper a while back here which i was impressed with by its impartiality, but there are probably better ones that have been written since on each side of the argument.

Gregory Urich wrote a paper on the weight distributions of the Twin Towers, which by its very nature had very little, if any, bearing on the questin of demolition. This was published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. He then wrote another paper analysing the various contributions to the collapse time, concluding that the evidence indicated that no demolition devices contributed to the propagation of the collapse after initiation. When he submitted this paper to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, they pretended to have ceased operations in order to avoid having to give a plausible reason for refusing to publish it. That's what you get for impartiality in the world of 9/11 truth.

So far, probably the most detailed pro-CD paper is Tony Szamboti's "missing jolt" paper. I'd be hard pushed to describe it using the word "better", although to be honest the truth movement has succeeded in producing worse.

Quite simply, all the respectable papers on the WTC collapses agree with the collapses having been initiated by fire and impact damage, and propagated by the inability of the structures to resist the forces in the collapse. All the papers suggesting any alternative mechanism have been published in vanity journals or on websites masquerading, albeit incompetently, as serious journals, and none of them meet the minimum standard of competence required to be taken seriously.

Obsessive truthers will now post links to some of these incompetent ramblings and claim they're irrefutable science, I'm sure. I'm bored in advance.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Both pretty old, was hoping for some papers released after the "official" WTC7 NIST report.

"official"?

Classy.

Dave

 

[dafydd]

After reading the NIST reports on the collapses and being severely disappointed by the post-initiation engineering models of the collapses I was wondering what the main scientific papers about the physics of the collapses (WTC 1,2+7) for each side of the argument are, so I can compare the two?

Seem to remember that user GregoryUrich wrote a quite detailed paper a while back here which i was impressed with by its impartiality, but there are probably better ones that have been written since on each side of the argument.

Links anyone?

If the papers are pro CD then they are not scientific.

 

[Zeuzzz]

If the papers are pro CD then they are not scientific.

Science does not work like that.

 

[Zeuzzz]

So far, probably the most detailed pro-CD paper is Tony Szamboti's "missing jolt" paper.

Read it, and I have to agree with his point about the lack of deceleration of the upper block implying an inordinant lack of resistance from the structure below.

Are there any publications that refute his work? Or do engineering journals not recognize the journal he published it in?

Quite simply, all the respectable papers on the WTC collapses agree with the collapses having been initiated by fire and impact damage, and propagated by the inability of the structures to resist the forces in the collapse.

What are the main reasons for the inability of the lower structures to have provided basically no resistance to the falling top section? As implied by the roofs velocity curve.

 

[Oystein]

Read it, and I have to agree with his point about the lack of deceleration of the upper block implying an inordinant lack of resistance from the structure below.

The structure below does resist, as evidenced by the <g acceleration. Resistance does not imply deceleration, it only implies less acceleration. How do you decide how much less acceleration is ordinate or inordinate?

Are there any publications that refute his work? Or do engineering journals not recognize the journal he published it in?

No, he published in a pseudo-journal that enjoys no professional and academic reputation whatsoever. Therefore, there is no published and peer-reviewed refutation, afaik.

We have discussed the paper at length here at JREF. Try the search-function.

What are the main reasons for the inability of the lower structures to have provided basically no resistance to the falling top section? As implied by the roofs velocity curve.

Your claim of "no resistance" is false. No resistance would mean acceleration at g from roof to ground. This didn't happen.

Szamboti claims that "jolts" (vaguely defined as either sudden episodes of decelaration, or near-instantanious decreases of acceleration) should be measurable in videos of the collapse.

Several JREFers have pointed out, among other things, that
- decreases of acceleration are in fact present in Szamboti's data, contrary to his claims
- Szamboti did not estimate margins of error inherent in his data
- Szamboti overlooked that at the sampling rate given by the video cameras (frames per second), it would be possible to overlook real jolts (actual decelerations)
- Szamboti assumes that all severed columns of the falling upper block could make full contact with their counterparts of the still intact lower block; however, this is impossible because of the observed tilt of the upper block. Any resistance would be smeared out over longer frames of time, precluding any measurable jolts.

So basically, as I understand it, the refutation consisted of showing that the jolts Szamboti was looking for would be expected to be too small to be distinguishable from noise in the data.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Read it, and I have to agree with his point about the lack of deceleration of the upper block implying an inordinant lack of resistance from the structure below.

Read it, refuted it. (1) His data actually shows the deceleration he claims not to see; in fact it appears to be measurement error, but he doesn't address that. That alone demonstrates that he's not actually analysing the data, just deciding what he wants it to show and claiming that it shows it. (2) If the upper block has rotated through more than about half a degree before contacting the lower block, no significant deceleration would be seen. I've presented results on this forum that demonstrate that; his response is to deny that I've done so, even though he's seen the results and commented on them. It's quite bizarre, really.

Are there any publications that refute his work? Or do engineering journals not recognize the journal he published it in?

A considerable body of work refuting it has been published on this forum, which is as scientifically respected and as thoroughly peer-reviewed (i.e. effectively not at all) as the original publication. Nobody outside the truth movement takes the Journal of 9/11 Studies seriously, because it's perfectly obvious that papers are only accepted or rejected on whether or not they support a specific theory. As someone once said, "Science does not work like that".

What are the main reasons for the inability of the lower structures to have provided basically no resistance to the falling top section? As implied by the roofs velocity curve.

(1) The velocity curve used by Szamboti et al contains features indistinguishable from the jolt they claim it does not exhibit. Therefore, the statement that there is no jolt in the data is simply wrong.
(2) Better quality analysis of the positional data indicates smaller discontinuities in the acceleration, comparable with the magnitude of discontinuities that would be expected from the fact that the upper block is rotated and that the impacts of different columns are not therefore simultaneous.
(3) The average acceleration is about 2G/3, so the claim that the lower structures provided "basically no resistance" is also incorrect. Szamboti's argument is entirely based on the time-dependence of the resistance of the lower structure, and ignores its average magnitude.

In summary, Szamboti's paper is entirely devoid of merit.

Dave

ETA: As you can see, Oystein and I agree entirely on this.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Brilliant replies, thanks. I better get searching.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Looks like The author of that paper signed up here and discussed his work in some threads. Makes a good read, although im still trying to find the final points he makes when posting here and if he thinks they still stand...

Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140639&highlight=missing+jolt&page=6

Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6302874#post6302874

Care to Comment
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6000597#post6000597

 

[Oystein]

Looks like The author of that paper signed up here and discussed his work in some threads. Makes a good read, although im still trying to find the final points he makes when posting here and if he thinks they still stand...

Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140639&highlight=missing+jolt&page=6

Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6302874#post6302874

Care to Comment
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6000597#post6000597

Yes, Toni has participated in the debates here, and yes, such threads are a tough read with lots of noise and both sides being quite unwilling to concede errors.

However it is noteworthy that even femr2, who is clearly leaning to the truther side of the spectrum here and who is skeptical to the commonly accepted narrative and open towards CD, provides input to refute Toni.

 

[carlitos]

Looks like The author of that paper signed up here and discussed his work in some threads. Makes a good read, although im still trying to find the final points he makes when posting here and if he thinks they still stand...

Don't waste your time.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Obsessive truthers will now post links to some of these incompetent ramblings and claim they're irrefutable science, I'm sure. I'm bored in advance.

Sorry to be so pessimistic but this makes me think that maybe there have been some detailed ones recently written by more competent scientists that are hard to refute ... its just ive seen the tactics employed by both sides of this argument many times. Both as bad as each other sometimes. Its extremely hard to separate the people that are posting blind emotively fueled reactionary debunking material from the people that really have started with a completely open mind and looked only at the definite facts. Of course the usual (sometimes psychotic esque) people/tw00fers who think that it was a laserbeam weapon fired from a UFO run by jews and funded by the Queen are easy to spot by the amount of garbage they spew everywhere.

 

[Zeuzzz]

However it is noteworthy that even femr2, who is clearly leaning to the truther side of the spectrum here and who is skeptical to the commonly accepted narrative and open towards CD, provides input to refute Toni.

I'd like to ask femr2 which work he believes is the most thorough paper that implies some sort of conspiracy. Especially WTC7.

I would also ask for any paper refuting it, but it looks like that will have already been done here in this forum

 

[Jackanory]

I'd like to ask femr2 which work he believes is the most thorough paper that implies some sort of conspiracy. Especially WTC7.

Dont bother. Anyone who mistakes the undercarriage & fairings of an aircraft for 'POD' bombs and attempts to convince the kids of youtube of such isnt really worthy of giving sound advise. Unless of course you have been suckered too and femr2 is sat across the table............mmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Dont bother. Anyone who mistakes the undercarriage & fairings of an aircraft for 'POD' bombs and attempts to convince the kids of youtube of such isnt really worthy of giving sound advise.

Someone who makes a mistake should be ignored you say? hmm. These are the kind of irrelevant posts I hate about this section. Attack the messenger not the message.