Most detailed scientific papers for and against controlled demolition

[beachnut]

Why can't ergo understand all the studies and work done on 911? Where is his evidence to support his idiotic claims? Does he/she have any claims based on facts with evidence? No


All he does is make cute remarks, that expose his ignorance on engineering, math, physics, fire science and 911.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6869710&postcount=96

 

[TruthersLie]

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

Does into mean onto?

(hint for the terminally stupid... no they don't. A 5 year old can tell the difference... but you can't.)

Yes, "essentially onto its footprint" means the buildings fell essentially straight down onto their footprints.

No one is arguing the buildings didn't fall ONTO their footprints and have debris thrown OUTSIDE of the footprints... It is just terminally stupid truthers who claim that ONTO=INTO. Truthers claim they fell INTO their own footprints (including YOU). INTO/=/ ONTO.

There is a big difference.

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.

Yup.... the frothing at the mouth was over the word INTO. Does Bazant say INTO? No. He says a preposition that means something else entirely. Do you know the difference?

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

Again reading for comprehension bites you in the ass.

 

[TruthersLie]

Sorry.. had to go out.

Back to smacking stundie around.

On the into vs onto... You are right. We were pointing out how the words into and footprint have been abused by the truth movement. Even you... who defines footprint to mean pretty much anything you want it to mean, including the roof of adjacent buildings...

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.

Yup... I said that. Hey ergo (the person who doesn't know what into means vs onto) take a look at the highlighted part.

it is an important distinction.... kind of like the differences between into and onto. I'll give you a hint... they agree with the common narrative. They support many different PARTS of the common narrative. They also have two other important distinctions.

1. They are all peer reviewed and showed up in respected peer reviewed journals.
2. NONE of them say anything besides building damage (towers) and fires (towers and wtc7) brought down the towers.

it is rather amazing when you read for comprehension what you find.

p.s. have you managed to figure out why the caracas tower stayed standing yet? I mean the way you stepped ONTO your dick was rather amusing. (notice the key preposition... )

 

[Andy_Ross]

Ergo knows there isn't a shred of evidence to support his point of view (I won't call it a theory because I haven't seen a truther supply any kind of theory yet)
All he has is armwaving and dodging.

 

[ergo]

Hey ergo (the person who doesn't know what into means vs onto) take a look at the highlighted part.

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.

it is an important distinction.... kind of like the differences between into and onto. I'll give you a hint... they agree with the common narrative. They support many different PARTS of the common narrative. They also have two other important distinctions.

1. They are all peer reviewed and showed up in respected peer reviewed journals.
2. NONE of them say anything besides building damage (towers) and fires (towers and wtc7) brought down the towers.

That's super, Truthers. Just a few things:

1) There aren't 100 of them. In fact, I doubt there are even 15 of them.

2) Very few of them are engineering papers, and therefore

3) Very few are journal articles, and

4) You haven't actually shown which papers these are.


Oh, and you still don't understand into vs. onto. If you did, then you would be able to explain how "into" makes a difference from "onto" when we are discussing the direction of a building's descent.

 

[ergo]

Awaiting the inevitable off-topic diatribe of Beachnut....

 

[ozeco41]

... If you did, then you would be able to explain how "into" makes a difference from "onto" when we are discussing the direction of a building's descent.

ergo, you do seem to be a law unto yourself on the difference between 'into' and 'onto'.

 

[TruthersLie]

That's super, Truthers. Just a few things:

1) There aren't 100 of them. In fact, I doubt there are even 15 of them.

That list of the peer reviewed papers which is passed around, on which you handwaved sooooo nicely is still a list of ABOUT 100 peer reviewed engineering papers which support different parts of the common narrative. Handwave away...

Scoreboard baby. Scoreboard. How many have you guys managed in any engineering venue? Oh... none. Man that has to chap your hides.

2) Very few of them are engineering papers, and therefore

almost all of them are published in engineering/physics or "hard" science journals.

Again, how many are there (in any language) which state it wasn't the common narrative? Oh... none.

scoreboard.

3) Very few are journal articles, and

Almost all of them are journal articles which passed peer review or at the very least are conference papers which are/were available for a review standard.

Again, how many (of either type) do you have which disagree with the common narrative? Oh.... none. (well you do have vanity journals which publish methodological trainwrecks....)

4) You haven't actually shown which papers these are.

You have been given a simple list which you have handwaved away. But then again, considering you have been talking about Scott Summer's article in Skeptic magazine without ever having read it, I have some serious doubts about your abilities to understand or discuss any of those other papers you have been given.

Again, how many other types of "papers" do you have which says the common narrative is wrong? Oh.... none.

Oh, and you still don't understand into vs. onto. If you did, then you would be able to explain how "into" makes a difference from "onto" when we are discussing the direction of a building's descent.

[/quote]

<facepalm> Hey Ergo... go tell an 8 year old to put their toys ONTO the toy box. Then go and ask them to put their toys INTO their toybox. You will see there is a difference.

But the funny part is that your inability comes from your trying to datamine Bazant to support your bs about the "footprint." You were getting your ass handed to you about what a "footprint" means, then ran away for a few days.... found that Bazant says "footprint" datamine it and come back trying to hammer the "beedunkers" and get completely owned on the fact that bazants FOOTPRINT means exactly what we said. And that the quote "falls essentially onto its own footprint" is VASTLY different than it "fell into its footprint." It is a vastly different expression.

Go ask a grade school english teacher for clarification... try to listen.

into vs onto
essentially vs actually
center of mass vs debris field the size of the moon
your newest gem.... exponentially
and the list keeps on growing and growing.

How about the caracas tower ergo? Have you figured out why it stayed standing?

 

[ergo]

Yes, readers, here's a sample of that list of "100" engineering papers that 9/11 bedunkers are circulating: Notice any strange similarities between entries?

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It goes on and on like this. Sad.

I guess this is what 9/11 bedunkerism is left with.

 

[Jackanory]

I guess this is what 9/11 bedunkerism is left with.

It's not 911 that is being debunked. Nothing to debunk. You just don't get it.

Laughs and giggles at those scraping the barrel of ct stupid. Boredom during lunch. Crap on TV. Comic relief. A spare half hour. Too cloudy/windy so no skydiving today. No skiing holiday till next year. Weather/visibility too bad for scuba diving etc etc. Those are the real reasons for being here. lol.

 

[ergo]

Laughs and giggles at those scraping the barrel of ct stupid. Boredom during lunch. Crap on TV. Comic relief. A spare half hour. Too cloudy/windy so no skydiving today. No skiing holiday till next year. Weather/visibility too bad for scuba diving etc etc. Those are the real reasons for being here. lol.

Yes, I'm sure these are the reasons for faking a list of papers, most of which have nothing to do with the supposed subject in the first place.

Sure are a lot of non-skydiving days in JREF land.

 

[DGM]

Yes, I'm sure these are the reasons for faking a list of papers, most of which have nothing to do with the supposed subject in the first place.

Sure are a lot of non-skydiving days in JREF land.

Are you claiming these papers are not related to 9/11 or they just don't "debunk" your flavor of "truth"? The point is they do all relate to the fact that no explosives were needed and that all these people believe this to be true.

I don't expect your ideology to allow you to understand.

 

[twinstead]

ergo you'll NEVER get just how irrelevant you are. It's sad really

 

[grandmastershek]

God I love truthers. Its a never ending self delusion fest. Start with a claim, have that claim refuted so just move the goal posts and keep the same claim. An example would be the "no steel framed building" meme. But Ergo does it with the peer reviewed papers. He claims there are not a large number of peer reviewed papers supporting NIST or Bazant ( a standard he made up). So when its pointed out that there are dozens of papers supporting progressive collapse due to fire, he then continue to self delude himself by claiming papers in other journals aren;t independent confirmation. Sorry Ergo, but even if authors were part of the NIST investigation it proves our point even more that an external agency scrutinized their work. Keep moving those goal posts.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

ergo you'll NEVER get just how irrelevant you are. It's sad really

I learned quite a while back that the image he makes for himself with other people criticizing his views is something he doesn't care about. He deems his "evidence" for inside "jorb" as 100% confirmed; he knows he's not gonna get any converts, so he's here for little more than to tell everyone how stupid the so-called "OCT" is instead of moving on to the next stage of his program. It's not unlike how many debunkers feel towards truthers for the repetitive crap that comes around from the movement really, other than the latter is incapable of making a case that is remotely sane... I've only seen a couple of write ups "favoring" the inside job idea that were nearly sane, but I'm not sure you can call those people "truthers," even those people get dejected from the mainstream part of the movement once they start disagreeing with their principal claims. That's where this tread becomes relevant, I doubt you'll find anything from the truther movement that is worthwhile in making a case for demolition of the buildings. In the end, the most sane arguments contend that if there was any 3rd party intervention it was going to be done at the site of the plane impacts, and that the collapses progressed on their own once they started, even those are pretty whackey, but compared to the other TM tenants those are almost believable

 

[triforcharity]

Zeuzzz, you may have seen this link bandied about by fake debunkers:
Blah blah blah....

So, you're telling me that you have read each and every one of these papers? Or did you just read the abstracts?

 

[triforcharity]

And yet, every other steel-framed highrise in history has.

I guess this is why, thankfully, you're not an engineer.

Link me to another highrise fire that had immense damage from a 767 plowing into it, that had fires started on 5+ floors instantly, that was NEVER fought by firefighters.

I'll wait....

BTW, can you link me to the ones that you use to support your theory?

This aught to be fun.

 

[triforcharity]

So he posts the same crap list.

Actually, it's the same crap list with a number of repetitions - with names switched around. How pathetic.

How about we pick ONE and debate that one ergo?

How about this one?
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.

Go read it, and tell me their conclusions. Don't just read the abstract. Read the WHOLE thing!

Get cracking kid!

 

[triforcharity]

That's super, Truthers. Just a few things:

1) There aren't 100 of them. In fact, I doubt there are even 15 of them.

Notice the one simple word you missed? It's called a modifier. It is RIGHT BEFORE the hilited words. The word is "about". Do you know what that means?

2) Very few of them are engineering papers, and therefore

99% of them are. I agree that the PBS one should not be on the list, and the Congressional hearings one, even though absolutely applicable, is not a paper.

However, I find no fault with the rest of the list.

3) Very few are journal articles, and

Minus two, every one appears in a journal of some sort.

4) You haven't actually shown which papers these are.

It's been posted numerous times. Stop reading the abstracts.

Oh, and you still don't understand into vs. onto. If you did, then you would be able to explain how "into" makes a difference from "onto" when we are discussing the direction of a building's descent.

Would you rather fall ONTO a wood-chipper, or INTO? Take your pick. Not that it really matters, since NOBODY uses "into it's own footprint" to describe the collapse itself. That is you shift shift shifting those goalposts. You're trying to cover for the incompetance of Gage et al. who do use that term exactly as I described.

Even using it the way you intend, maybe you can explain Fitterman Hall?
And the very noticable lean?

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

Need help answering a Truther

I've been back and forth with a Truther who is a civil engineer, and today he sent me this. I've requested the flight path locations he is using to determine the aircraft trajectory.

Any comment, insight?


" The 767 is a low-wing cantilever monoplane with a conventional tail unit featuring a single fin and rudder. The wings are swept at 31.5 degrees and optimized for a cruising speed of Mach 0.8 (533 mph or 858 km/h). "

Note the Monaghan Analysis below uses a flight velocity of 545 MPH, p. 11 top 1/2.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Monaghan_Analysis.pdf

Turn radius is assumed to be 55,000 ft++ or approx. 10 miles, in Monaghan.

I am going to calculate a g-force using a final turn radius of 5 miles, or 26,400 ft. at 545 MPH in air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMQWzdc175A

http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/Acceleration.pdf

I am assuming the weight of the plane, fuel and passengers, full load, was about 300,000 pounds MASS.
This would give a vertical gravity force of 9,660,000 pounds force in air, for the wings to support. 32.2 ft./(sec.-sec.)
Since the official Boeing specs for runway design use pounds and kilos, this is a mass designation, not force, hence the
conversion I just showed you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)

Now we add the acceleration of the turn at 545 MPH in air - or 799 ft./second

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rotq.html

alpha (angular acceleration) = [V x V]/r or v-squared divided by r, radius......

alpha = [ 799 ft./sec. x 799 ft./sec. ] / (26,400 ft. radius)

alpha = 24.18 ft. /(sec.-sec.)

So if the turn was circular, we have the two accelerations acting on the wings. I am assuming the angular acceleration acts 90 degrees to the acceleration of gravity, and will combine in a vector as such, below:

V (down ) = 32.2 ft./sec.-sec. plus > (horizontal) = 24.18 ft./sec.-sec.

These two accelerations give a vector of 40.27 ft./sec.-sec. of combined acceleration.

Multiply this by the weight in pounds MASS and you get the force on the plane's wings during the turn -

12,080,402 or rounded, 12,080,000 pounds FORCE on the aircraft wings.

The g-force on the passengers would have been about 1.25 times gravity.
If the final turn was tighter, which is what I observed from the videos, the
whole situation becomes magnified. I don't have any access to the Boeing design parameters for breakup of the 767 mid-air.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For argument, assume a 2 mile final turn radius. Lower Manhattan is about 4.5 miles wide......
[this would be around a 4 mile diameter turn, which is what is shown on the video)

Horiz. angular accel. = 60.45 ft./sec.-sec.

combined acceleration is then 68.49 ft./sec.-sec.

This gives a wing loading of 20,547,000 Pounds Force on the AIRCRAFT wings.
This turn radius produces about 2.127 g's on passengers.

So you have an inexperienced pilot with a box cutter, who actually had NO in-air training on a large commercial Boeing 767 aircraft, making an extremely tight MID-AIR turn while manually piloting this huge aircraft,
and hitting a building of some 200 ft. horizontal measurement dead center into the side of this subject building, all under a g-force of likely 2.1 times gravity.