Most detailed scientific papers for and against controlled demolition

[beachnut]

What idiot has ever said that the Twin Towers "collapsed in under 15 seconds from one-hour upper floor fires"?

Clearly, only some fool who never read the NIST report would say something this dumb.

The morons in 911 truth make up lies, they don't read NIST. They have no clue how to apply physics practically, and don't understand fire, or gravity.

There are many paper on 911 which 911 truth will not be reading or using to form rational conclusions.

 

[grandmastershek]

So ergo about 2 weeks ago I posted some references from the list you misrepresented & danced around. Come up with anything yet?

 

[Scott Sommers]

Ergo, thank you for your reply. The best answer I can provide for your question about my sources is that I wrote a whole paper documenting this. If you'd read it, you'd have a better idea of what I'm talking about. Seriously, since you're being reasonable, I'll be reasonable and that's the best the answer I can give you. I have presented the results of this work publicly and in a place that's accessible to you. If you want to talk about it, that's fine. Until then, I have to interpret what you're saying here as a refusal to look at anything that's not on the Internet.

I don't think I have used the term 'skeptic' except to quote others. It is not an important term for me. Michael's problems are his own to solve, but he does have a PhD in Psychology, so that would make him Dr. Shermer.

Once again, you did state,

I've noticed that most self-described "skeptics" are actually scientist wannabes. Few have real scientific credentials. Even their social science credentials are sketchy.

I can understand things got a little out of hand earlier, and this may just have been one of those bulls*** sort of things we all end up saying in emotional discussions. But if you did intend it to be a real statement that you want me to believe, clarifying it would help.

And once again, if you read my published results, many of the points you raise here would be clarified. I give a lot of detail about how I arrived at these numbers, so once you read the paper, I am quite sure many of your questions about why I say what I do about Truthers will be answered. I'm sure you'll still have issues with me, but we can deal with those as they arise. If you're not just a troll calling people names, take a look at my article and then we can talk about it. Otherwise, I don't really have anymore to say.

 

[ergo]

Seriously, since you're being reasonable, I'll be reasonable and that's the best the answer I can give you. I have presented the results of this work publicly and in a place that's accessible to you. If you want to talk about it, that's fine.

It would be great to have a reasonable conversation with you, and with many other JREF bedunker posters. But your credibility is severely strained when you make ridiculous comments such as what you make here.

It's obvious that you can't substantiate this. Your sole purpose is to discredit 9/11 inquiry with a broad brush stroke based on what is most likely simply personal opinion.

And in the very statement where you seem to want to appear to be reasonable, you say, in the very next breath,

Until then, I have to interpret what you're saying here as a refusal to look at anything that's not on the Internet.

when you in fact have no knowledge of what kinds of information I access.

I may one day get down to the library and read your article, but the title of it alone tells me that it is intended as a hit piece, and not an honest investigation of anything. The numbers of 9/11 official story doubters have only been increasing, and have done so exponentially in the last three years - since the final NIST reports came out. So right off the bat, your title is grossly inaccurate. Why would I read an article which so obviously seeks to misrepresent?

In any case, this thread is a discussion about scientific papers for and against controlled demolition. So far, I've noticed that no one has presented any scientific papers outside of NIST and Bazant that corroborate the NIST findings and Bazant's collapse progression model -- which, I believe, is the only collapse progression model that has been officially endorsed or is in currency at the moment.

 

[Scott Sommers]

This is very strange. I publish these results. I tell you how to find them. You tell me that anything I say with regard to these published results is making something up. This speaks for itself. I will be putting you on IGNORE from now on.

 

[ergo]

This thread isn't about your opinion piece about truthers. But you could start a different thread. I might also start one. I'm interested in your methodology for your survey of "thousands" of self-described official story doubters. You know, the one that is "almost completely true."

 

[Telltale Tom]

How can someone be on a fence, between reality and fantasy? 911 truth is entirely fiction.

911 truth is like Zeitgeist, agitprop, and lies. 911 truth, evidence free, fooling those who lack knowledge.

People who don't understand 911 will not understand a new "independent inquiry" and they never read the studies already done; asking for a new investigation is a sign of shallow research and woo. Did you exit the rabbit hole and land in 911 truth fantasy-land?

LOL, there was no controlled demolition, the evidence proves it. You have been fooled by idiots in 911 truth.

Papers, 911 truth failed to find them in 9 years, were they looking?
Some old independent investigations - the ones 911 truth never found...

Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards
Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072

High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures
Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671

Collapses of the world trade center towers
[No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (8), pp. 11-16

Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report
[No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15

Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures
Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse
Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses
Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370

World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment
Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory
Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533

Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center
Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks
Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C. Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse ? Science, Engineering, and Speculation JOM v. 53 N°12 2001
Clifton, Charles G., Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers, Innovation in Metals 2001

Pinsker, Lisa, M. Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site Geotimes v. 46, no. 11 2001
Zdenek P. Bazant, Yong Zhou Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse ? - Simple Analysis Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128 N°1 2002

Anne Powell Dissecting the Collapses Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72 N°5 2002
Quintiere, J.G.; di Marzo, M.; Becker, R. A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers, Fire Safety Journal v. 37 Issue 7 2002

Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse ? Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128 Issue 7 2002

Monahan, B. World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3 2002

Brannigan, F.L. WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings Fire Engineering v.155 no. 4 2002

Fema Construction and Collapse Factors Fire Engineering v.155 no. 10 2002

Corbett, G.P. Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster Fire Engineering v.155 no. 10 2002

Norman J. Glover Collapse Lessons Fire Engineering v. 155 no. 10 2002

Burgess, I.W. Fire Resistance of Framed Buildings Physics Education v. 37 (5) 2002

Marechaux, T.G. TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering JOM v. 54, no. 4 2002

Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center Journal of Impact Engineering v. 28 2003

Usmani, A. S.; Chung, Y. C.; Torero, J. L How did the WTC towers collapse ? A new theory Fire Safety Journal v. 38 2003

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A. Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1 2003

Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center Microscopy and Microanalysis v. 9 2003

Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W. Tim. Foecke The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers Advanced Materials & Processes v. 162 no10 2004

Nadine M. WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design ENR v. 253 no17 2004

Marjanishvili, S.M. Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities v. 18 (2) 2004

Corley, W.G. Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities v. 18 (2) 2004

Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 130 (10) 2004

Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 131 Issue 10 2005

Usmani, A. S Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 131 Issue 6 2005

Omika, Yukihiro.; Fukuzawa, Eiji. Koshika, Norihide Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks Journal of Structural Engineering v. 131 no1 2005

Chang, Jeremy; Buchanan, Andrew H.; Moss, Peter J Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses Fire and Materials v.29 : 4 2005

Abolhassan, Genady P. Cherepanov September 11 And Fracture Mechanics, a Retrospective International Journal of Fracture v. 132 No. 2 2005

Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 2005

G. Flint, A.S. Usmani, S. Lamont, J. Torero and B. Lane, Effect of fire on composite long span truss floor systems Journal of Constructional Steel Research v. 62 (4) 2006

Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention v. 6 (5) 2006

Mohamed, O.A. Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities v. 20 (4) 2006


Zdenek P. Bazant, Mathieu Verdure Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 133 No. 3 2007

Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers Welding Journal v. 86 (9) 2007

Gayle, F.W. The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view MRS Bulletin v. 32 (9) 2007

Hansen, B. Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation Civil Engineering v. 77 (9) 2007

Graeme Flint, Asif Usmani, Susan Lamont, Barbara Lane, and Jose Torero Structural Response of Tall Buildings to Multiple Floor Fires Journal of Structural Engineering v. 133 Issue 12 2007

Ayhan Irfanoglu, Christoph M. Hoffmann An Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-1, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities v. 22 No. 1 2008

Keith A. Seffen Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 134 No. 2 2008

Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, David B. Benson What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 134 2008

Cherepanov, G.P. Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events Materials Science v. 44 2008
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11 Fire Safety Journal 2008

Kodur, V.K.R. World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations Indian Concrete Journal v. 82 2008

Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities v. 21 Issue 6

Genady P. Cherepanov Mechanics of the WTC collapse International Journal of Fracture v. 141 No. 1-2

B.A. Izzuddin, A.G. Vlassis, A.Y. Elghazouli, D.A. Nethercot Progressive collapse of multi-storey buildings due to sudden column loss — Part I: Simplified assessment framework Engineering Structures v. 30, Issue 5 2008

A.G. Vlassis, B.A. Izzuddin, A.Y. Elghazouli, D.A. Nethercot Progressive collapse of multi-storey buildings due to sudden column loss—Part II: Application Engineering Structures v. 30, Issue 5 2008

Jeom Kee Paik, Bong Ju Kim Progressive collapse analysis of thin-walled box columns Thin-Walled Structures v. 46, Issue 5 2008

Cheol-Ho Lee, Seonwoong Kim, Kyu-Hong Han, Kyungkoo Lee Simplified nonlinear progressive collapse analysis of welded steel moment frames Journal of Constructional Steel Research v. 65 Issue 5 2009

Feng Fu, Progressive collapse analysis of high-rise building with 3-D finite element modeling method Journal of Constructional Steel Research in press 2009

A.G. Vlassis, B.A. Izzuddin, A.Y. Elghazouli, D.A. Nethercot, Progressive collapse of multi-storey buildings due to failed floor impact Engineering Structures in press 2009

Santiago Pujol, J. Paul Smith-Pardo A new perspective on the effects of abrupt column removal Engineering Structures, v. 31, Issue 4 2009

Hyun-Su Kim, Jinkoo Kim, Da-Woon An Development of integrated system for progressive collapse analysis of building structures considering dynamic effects Advances in Engineering Software v.40, Issue 1 2009

Jinkoo Kim, Taewan Kim, Assessment of progressive collapse-resisting capacity of steel moment frames Journal of Constructional Steel Research v.65, Issue 1 2009






And some conferences:


Lu Xinzheng, Jiang Jianjing Simulation for the Collapse of WTC after Aeroplane Impact International Conference on Protection of Structures 2002

Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr. “Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center” Committee of Science House of Representatives 2002

Abboud, N., M. Levy, D. Tennant, J. Mould, H. Levine, S. King, C. Ekwueme, A. Jain, G. Hart. Anatomy of a Disaster: A Structural Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapses Third Congress on Forensic Engineering 2003

Beyler, C., D. White, M. Peatross, J. Trellis, S. Li, A. Luers, D. Hopkin Analysis of the Thermal Exposure in the Impact Areas of the World Trade Center Terrorist Attacks Third Congress on Forensic Engineering 2003

Thater, G. G.; Panariello, G. F.; Cuoco, D. A. World Trade Center Disaster: Damage/Debris Assessment Third Congress on Forensic Engineering 2003

Choi, S.K., Burgess, I.W. and Plank, R.J. The Behaviour of Lightweight Composite Floor Trusses in Fire Designing Structures for Fire 2003

Venkatash K. R. Kodur Role of fire resistance issues in the collapse of the Twin Towers International Conference on Tall Buildings 2003

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl World Trade Center Collapse, Field Investigation and Analysis the Ninth Arab Structural Engineering Conference 2003

Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures IEEE International Conference on Systems 2004

Kuldeep Prasad and Howard R. Baum Coupled fire dynamics and thermal response of complex building structures Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 2005

Jowsey et all Determination of Fire Induced Collapse Mechanisms in Steel Framed Structures 4th European Conference on Steel and Composite Structures 2005

Usmani et all Collapse scenarios of WTC 1 & 2 with extension to generic tall buildings Congress on Fire Safety in Tall Buildings 2006

Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition 2007

Pfatteicher, S.K.A "A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world International Symposium on Technology and Society 2007

Razdolsky, L. Fire load in a steel building design 4th International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference 2008

Rini, D., Lamont, S. Performance based structural fire engineering for modern building design Structures Congress 2008

There is more studies, hundreds are proprietary, but you can buy them.

After you finish these papers and study the conference notes; if you are still on the fence, you are not going to fall for rational work on 911, and you will prefer the Zeitgeist, agitprop kind of woo.

At last years structures congress there were four sessions on the design of structures for fire, there was a lot of papers that talked about progressive collapse. All of them directly influenced by 9/11 but not many referencing it. Except for the likes of John Gross' presentation.

Unfortunately there were no papers about protecting your building against controlled demolition. I think that the common view in the engineering community is that if the government can be so clever with their controlled demolition techniques that none of today's leading engineers can distinguish it from an impact and fire induced collapse, that there is no point trying to prevent it.

 

[tfk]

What idiot has ever said that the Twin Towers "collapsed in under 15 seconds from one-hour upper floor fires"?

This is merely a description of what is observed. What part of that description is incorrect? And where do the NIST reports contradict this statement?

Yeah, and like most truther descriptions of "what is observed", it leaves out about 90% of "what was observed".

Including ...

Airplane impact.
Physical damage
Loss of insulation.
Loss of sprinklers.
Sagging of floors.
Progressive tilt (of WTC2).
Slow, progressive buckling of external columns.
Buckling of external columns.

And all of "what was determined to have occurred by competent, professional analysis".

Including...

Load redistribution from physical damage.
Heating of columns, beams & trusses.
Thermal expansion.
Load redistribution from thermal effects.
Creep.
Load redistribution from creep.


Except for all the above, and the high probability that if there were just "a one-hour upper floor fire", then both towers would (to a high probability) still be standing, I guess that "collapsed in under 15 seconds from one-hour upper floor fires" is a perfectly good description...

... if your specific intent is to mischaracterize the event or to mislead the clueless with a fundamentally incorrect platitude, that is.

Of course, ergo, I recognize that mischaracterizing any aspect of these events is the FURTHEST thing from your alleged mind...


tk

 

[TruthersLie]

It would be great to have a reasonable conversation with you, and with many other JREF bedunker posters. But your credibility is severely strained when you make ridiculous comments such as what you make here.

HI Ergo. It is hard to have a "reasonable conversation" with you because you keep showing your blatant ignorance and incredulity.

Case in point
into vs onto (have you figured out the differences yet? They are very important)
essentially vs actually (again, have you figured out the differences yet? They are very important)
Then we get into the physics ignorance of
center of mass vs debris field the "size of the moon."

And it continues from there... in fact you use another word later on that you don't seem to understand... i'll highlight it for you when we get there.

It's obvious that you can't substantiate this. Your sole purpose is to discredit 9/11 inquiry with a broad brush stroke based on what is most likely simply personal opinion.

And in the very statement where you seem to want to appear to be reasonable, you say, in the very next breath,

He lays out EXACTLY where he gets his numbers and his claim. It is in a published (I'm not sure if it is peer reviewed...) journal. If you actually READ the article you could then talk about what is written, the methodology (if you have taken any kind of research methods class) and the results. it isn't hard to do... but instead you talk out of your ass.... (which makes it hard to have a "reasonable discussion" with you.

I may one day get down to the library and read your article, but the title of it alone tells me that it is intended as a hit piece, and not an honest investigation of anything. The numbers of 9/11 official story doubters have only been increasing, and have done so exponentially in the last three years - since the final NIST reports came out. So right off the bat, your title is grossly inaccurate. Why would I read an article which so obviously seeks to misrepresent?

Another word/term that you don't understand. "exponentially." Wowsers batman... with exponential growth over 3 years, the entire earth would be truthers now... in fact there would be truthers over the entire galaxy.... (look up what exponential growth means.... do the 1 penny per day and expand that exponentially... 1 penny, 2 pennies, 4 pennies, 16 pennies. and it grows and grows and grows... After 30 days it would be over 1,065,353,080 truthers So after 30 days you would have 1 BILLION truthers.... that is one month... That would mean that after 33 days the entire population of the earth would be truthers... oh wait... maybe you mean a different scale of time... maybe it is "exponential" for each year.... so that your miniscule number is doubleing every year? Oh wait... the numbers dont' support that... but keep on trying. (you might want to add exponential to the terms you need to look up though)

As for the second part of this... I LOVE the handwave. you refuse to read a very straight forward study which outlines a group of people who responded to telephone interviews about their political views coupled with their education levels and income.... Talk about ignorance and laziness... The study is laid out in a very straight forward manner... But you have decided it is a "hit piece" and choose to ignore it, then bad mouth it, then bad mouth the research without ever having read the research....

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

In any case, this thread is a discussion about scientific papers for and against controlled demolition. So far, I've noticed that no one has presented any scientific papers outside of NIST and Bazant that corroborate the NIST findings and Biazant's collapse progression model -- which, I believe, is the only collapse progression model that has been officially endorsed or is in currency at the moment.

Gish Galloping in the other direction. You are the one who went after Scott's statement and qualifications. You are the one who got schooled on it, then went after him again and earned a nice 3 day vacation.

Usually when people are wrong (and publically wrong) they acknowledge it and say "my bad" before they try to gish gallop.... but not truthers...

The only thing that seems to have grown "exponentially over the last three years" is your own ignorance.

 

[TruthersLie]

This thread isn't about your opinion piece about truthers. But you could start a different thread. I might also start one. I'm interested in your methodology for your survey of "thousands" of self-described official story doubters. You know, the one that is "almost completely true."

All you have to do is go and READ the article... which you refuse to do. it is rather amazing how lazy you are...

but then again if I had your problems with reading for comprehension, I wouldn't want to read a scientific article either.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

HI Ergo...

Another word/term that you don't understand. "exponentially." Wowsers batman... with exponential growth over 3 years, the entire earth would be truthers now... in fact there would be truthers over the entire galaxy....

Even better. Assuming that we started off with just one truther and he/she had a life to live (work, school, partying, commuting and so on) and only had the time to convince just one new person per month and then that new truther only had to convince only one person per month and so on then every American would've been a truther sometime in February 2003 and by June 2003 every human on earth would've been a truther. But I know that can be such hard work to really convince someone down to their very fiber of being so it would've taken until about August of 2008 to convince every cell of every human on the face of the earth that 9/11 was an inside job.

This month (Feb 2011) is the point where they should've passed the milestone of one Nonillion or 1x ⁽³⁰⁾ or to be more precise 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 truthers. And that's allowing them each one month to convince someone else of their rock solid theories.

Truthers sure are a lazy bunch.I mean by now they've had enough time to convince every single living being on the planet several times over, from humans down to single celled amoebas (somewhere around a few Octillions or so).

That must be it right?

Exponential. How does it work?

 

[TruthersLie]

Well, we know that in Ergo world words don't always mean what the dictionaries say.

After all a footprint doesn't mean the base of the building, but it includes buildings across the street, and even the ROOF of a buildling across the street.

But from someone who doesn't understand the difference between into and onto, or the difference between essentially and actually, can you really blame him?

So in Ergo world, I think it means having dwindling numbers of people as years go by, coupled with an increase in moronic activity online. That must be Ergo exponential.

 

[carlitos]

This is very strange. I publish these results. I tell you how to find them. You tell me that anything I say with regard to these published results is making something up. This speaks for itself. I will be putting you on IGNORE from now on.

If you can't 'ignore' ergo without using the ignore feature, I think that's your best bet. He's just trolling, as evidenced by ... everything he's ever posted. Don't sweat it.

 

[ergo]

Usually when people are wrong (and publically wrong) they acknowledge it and say "my bad" before they try to gish gallop.....

Go right ahead, Truthers. No one's stopping you.

 

[beachnut]

If you can't 'ignore' ergo without using the ignore feature, I think that's your best bet. He's just trolling, as evidenced by ... everything he's ever posted. Don't sweat it.

He has proved he can't read and comprehend the hundreds of work on 911 which expose 911 truth is a delusional movement of lies and failed claims. Ignore does clean up his evidence free posts, it make the screen clean of woo.

 

[TruthersLie]

Go right ahead, Truthers. No one's stopping you.

into vs onto Have you figured it out yet?

essentially vs actually have you figured it out yet?

center of mass vs debris field the "size of the moon" have you figured it out yet?

have you figured out how the construction of the caracas towers prevented it from having a global collapse yet?
So when can we expect those retractions?

And with your reading comprehension problems it is no wonder you missed this.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6886065&postcount=166 That would be my reply to you. I have never claimed that those 100 peer reviewed papers fully supported the common narrative. Just that in parts they combine to support the common narrative. But what else can we expect from someone who things that into means onto, and that footprint has a different defintion that supports what they want...

this time try to read for comprehension.

 

[ergo]

Relevance of center of mass, Truthers. Have you figured it out yet?

Do you know what onto means yet?

Have you modeled a moonful of debris yet?

One hundred engineering papers, Truthers. Go find them. See ya.

 

[ergo]

Airplane impact.

Yeah, this is what caused the one-hour fires. Did I not mention the one-hour fires?

Physical damage

Physical damage didn't bring the buildings down. Look at WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6. Look at the Murrah federal building. Look at the WTC bomb blast in 1993. Look at other buildings that have been bombed. Physical damage has nothing to do with it.

Loss of insulation.

This was not observed. This is conjecture. In any case, it is supposedly what gave the one-hour fires their supernatural powers.

Loss of sprinklers.

Sorry, did I not mention the one-hour fires?

Sagging of floors.

The alleged sagging floors were allegedly due to the one-hour fires. Did I not mention the one-hour fires?

Progressive tilt (of WTC2).

Which has nothing to do with causing the rest of the building to collapse.

Slow, progressive buckling of external columns. Buckling of external columns.

Which were supposedly caused by the floors sagging from the one-hour fires. Did I not mention the one-hour fires?

You still lose.

 

[TruthersLie]

Relevance of center of mass, Truthers. Have you figured it out yet?

I understand what crushed that car... how about you? Gonna keep dodging that?

Do you know what onto means yet?

I know that it doesn't mean INTO. Now if only truthers would use the right preposition. ONTO (as bazant did) vs INTO (as gage and truthers use incorrectly) Big difference. have you figured it out yet?

Have you modeled a moonful of debris yet?

I understand that center of mass of a debris field the "size of the moon" (notice the difference? I am quoting your exact words, not the attempted dodge) would crush the towers... (and any building erected by man)

How about essentially vs actually? Figured that out yet ergo? Didn't think so.

One hundred engineering papers, Truthers. Go find them. See ya.

[/quote]

Please show me where I made the claim that you are strawmanning? I never did. I said there are about 100 papers which support different parts of the common narrative. How many do you have which state the common narrative are wrong? (I understand that with your limited abilities for comprehending english that you might mistake it... after all you have no idea what into vs onto is, essentially vs actually, or your newest one growing "exponentially." So of course you don't actually pay attention or understand what folks are talking about.)

Nice attempted dodge.
So does that mean you DON'T know the differences?

Oh... why did the caracas tower stay standing? I have absolutely no idea... maybe you can figure it out after looking at some pictures of it.

 

[ergo]

I know that it doesn't mean INTO.

No, 911 bedunkers don't understand what "onto" means.

How about essentially vs actually? Figured that out yet ergo? Didn't think so.

Yes, "essentially onto its footprint" means the buildings fell essentially straight down onto their footprints. I'm the one who brought that quote to bedunkers' attention. There was no frothing at the mouth about "into vs. onto" before I pointed that out to all of you. I'm not sure why you continue to perpetuate an argument you don't even understand.

Please show me where I made the claim that you are strawmanning? I never did. I said there are about 100 papers which support different parts of the common narrative.

It's linked to just a few posts above. We know you have difficulty reading and understanding what others post. Is this a problem for you with your own posts as well?

So we have about 100 peer reviewed engineering journal articles which agree with different parts of the NIST reports (no matter how badly stundie Ergo wants to handwave away) That isn't counting that the NIST reports themselves are peer reviewed.

So go get 'em. And don't come back til you're done.