Most detailed scientific papers for and against controlled demolition

[Edx]

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?

There are no peer reviewed scientific papers in legitimate journals that argues for the controlled demolition of the towers.

 

[Zeuzzz]

So who would people say is the person on this forum who gives the best most thorough scientific arguments for a controlled demolition that people here find hard to find errors in?

Or is that like asking for a respected homeopath?

Just that no matter which official report I read explaining it I can find problems with. Likewise the conspiracy papers are often riddled with issues. Both sides seem to be very good at debunking each other but not proving their point.

 

[Edx]

Or is that like asking for a respected homeopath? .

Yes.

 

[Dragon37]

So who would people say is the person on this forum who gives the best most thorough scientific arguments for a controlled demolition that people here find hard to find errors in?

Honestly? I haven't heard of a single CD paper that has passed through and been published in a scientific journal. So whatever person is considered an "expert" would have to be taken with a grain of salt. IMO.

 

[carlitos]

Just that no matter which official report I read explaining it I can find problems with.

Perhaps you could start a topic discussing the particular problem that you have found in any "official report" and that might be more productive?

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

Then you should send a PM and ask. What's the problem?

As for his own work, femr2 doesn't do papers, he does youtubes. This is not an insult; he refuses to write a paper when asked.

 

[Jackanory]

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.

Then don't ask questions.

'irrelevant posts' lol. 9 years and still going strong with 'irrelevant posts'. lol.

Not 'attacking' anyone or anything. Simply responding to your 'perhaps i should ask femr2's advise' statement. I replied that you shouldnt. If you don't like my response.......dont ask for it.

Have you anything to say that hasnt already been said a million times before you?

 

[WildCat]

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?

Here is a link to every single scientific paper ever published which argues for controllled demolition on 9/11:

 

[Jackanory]

So who would people say is the person on this forum who gives the best most thorough scientific arguments for a controlled demolition that people here find hard to find errors in?

Or is that like asking for a respected homeopath?

Just that no matter which official report I read explaining it I can find problems with. Likewise the conspiracy papers are often riddled with issues. Both sides seem to be very good at debunking each other but not proving their point.

It would help if you could explain what experience you actually have with explosives or controlled demolition. Reading what other people think about it is pointless unless you have the fundamentals yourself. Hands on stuff. Real experience with the stuff. Your response may give us a better idea and understanding of why you say "Just that no matter which official report I read explaining it I can find problems with".

 

[ergo]

Zeuzz, most of the papers written by skeptic researchers are about the impossibility of the current explanation (official collapse theory) and less about how CD may have played a role. The first objective is to communicate the evidence that the official theory is based on flawed science and, indeed, pseudoscience.

These papers are found on the AETruth site and the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

 

[WildCat]

Zeuzz, most of the papers written by skeptic researchers are about the impossibility of the current explanation (official collapse theory) and less about how CD may have played a role. The first objective is to communicate the evidence that the official theory is based on flawed science and, indeed, pseudoscience.

These papers are found on the AETruth site and the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

He asked for scientific papers, not wild speculation, conjecture, and lies.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Read it, and I have to agree with his [Szamboti's] 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?

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.

I've a take on this, here:

• How Does a Building Crush Itself?
• The Towers' Collapse: Fast, But Not Freefall
• Chandler's Data Support a Gravitational Collapse!

The second page has a model for reduction of acceleration to less-than-gravity via collisions and conservation of momentum.

The third page discusses Chandler's measurement of this very reduction, and explains it in terms of "jolts". It also points out that Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper is based on such poor sampling that the jolts won't be seen, even if they exist. The main reason the real jolts were smaller than what Szamboti suggests is that he vastly over-estimates the resistance of the lower section of each twin tower to the upper section falling upon it, in a sort of "conservation-of-momentum-be-damned" exercise.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Zeuzz, most of the papers written by skeptic researchers are about the impossibility of the current explanation (official collapse theory) and less about how CD may have played a role. The first objective is to communicate the evidence that the official theory is based on flawed science and, indeed, pseudoscience.

Ok this is where I was going wrong then, the paper doesn't have to be about controlled demolition rather a refutation of the official explanation for the collapse.

This begs the question though if the first objective is to debunk the official collapse explanations then after that people will have to address what did really happen. If there was a good explanation surely it would have been put forth by now.

 

[Zeuzzz]

He asked for scientific papers, not wild speculation, conjecture, and lies.

Well it appears that I really dont give a crap about your personal opinion about the material and I'll make my own mind up.

Thanks for the links.

 

[carlitos]

This begs the question though if the first objective is to debunk the official collapse explanations then after that people will have to address what did really happen. If there was a good explanation surely it would have been put forth by now.

Just that no matter which official report I read explaining it I can find problems with.

If there were problems with the reports you read, surely you could briefly list them here?

 

[Jackanory]

Zeuzz, most of the papers written by skeptic researchers are about the impossibility of the current explanation (official collapse theory) and less about how CD may have played a role.

lol. Have a guess as to why that is!

Interesting that zeuzzzz is having difficulty in finding a 'scientific paper on CD' and you direct him away from further searches for it. Can't you find any either? lol.

Let me give you a hint as to why you will have difficulty...........no one who uses the stuff for real, in real life, for a living who actually knows what they are talking about agrees with you. No one who use explosives in the demolition industry would be daft enough to tell some kooks on the internet 'how to'. That would be irresponsible and illegal.

If you are looking for a real explanation on CD then look in the phone book for your most local demolition company and pay them a personal visit. Ask all the questions you want. Show them all the videos you like. Give me your nearest city and I will direct you to your nearest expert. Let us know how you get on. Hurry now. No time to waste. Get to it.

 

[NutCracker]

So who would people say is the person on this forum who gives the best most thorough scientific arguments for a controlled demolition that people here find hard to find errors in?

Or is that like asking for a respected homeopath?

Just that no matter which official report I read explaining it I can find problems with. Likewise the conspiracy papers are often riddled with issues. Both sides seem to be very good at debunking each other but not proving their point.

You seem to hold the position that there are two sides to the tables. That "both sides" employ the same tactics. That "both sides" positions have their strengths and their weaknesses.

I believe you are mistaken. Although emotions can run high at both sides of the table, giving the superficial impression that there is a debate going on where both sides employ intellectual dishonest tactics, when we look beyond the emotions and inspect the facts presented, the logical soundness of the arguments put forward, we find that there is no real debate between those that are satisfied with the accepted narrative and Truthers.

It is like evolutionists vs. creationists. The former group base their conclusions on a wealth of evidence whereas the latter group has not a shred of evidence and has only pseudo-science and logical fallacies like arguments from incredulity to offer.

The accepted narrative is based on facts, radar data, FDR data, CVR recordings, phone calls from the hijacked planes, ATC radio traffic recordings, photographic and video evidence evidence, DNA profiling, etc.

Truthers have no such evidence. None. They have no science behind their contentions. They have no peer reviewed publications. None, zero.

 

[Zeuzzz]

If there were problems with the reports you read, surely you could briefly list them here?

Um yea, very generally:

They tend to focus on the pre-collapse conditions not the collapse
They tend to avoid addressing resistances and velocities from video evidence
They tend to ignore momentum and angular momentum considerations
They tend to ignore WTC7
They tend to use worst case scenarios by assuming they are true
They tend to have a lack of previous progressive collapse examples to compare to
There appears to be no coherent definitive model in the literature for progressive collapses that agrees with the video

 

[Jackanory]

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.

Does that include those here who have real life experience and employment doing/using the things/stuff that you dont seem to understand?

If I spent the majority of my adult working life using explosives, would you consider me knowlegable enough or open minded enough to use only definite facts about that very stuff? I actually sit with a grin on my face at the stupidity that I read here. No wonder you cant find what you are looking for.

 

[carlitos]

Um yea, very generally:

They tend to focus on the pre-collapse conditions not the collapse

Think about how police analyze a traffic accident. Shouldn't they focus on the conditions and actions that led to the crash, vs. hiring engineers to figure out why the fender dented 6 inches instead of 8?

They tend to avoid addressing resistances and velocities from video evidence

For example?

They tend to ignore momentum and angular momentum considerations

For example?

They tend to ignore WTC7

The 9/11 Commission report has to do with terrorist acts. Therefore, it doesn't address WTC7. Or 6. Or 5. Try this - http://wtc.nist.gov/

They tend to use worst case scenarios by assuming they are true

This is the first time I have heard of this. Have you read this paper? It assumes the best case scenario, and the results still show that collapse was inevitable.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

They tend to have a lack of previous progressive collapse examples to compare to

I think that this might be incredulity, as in "first time in history..." but perhaps you could clarify. Other progressive collapses for steel structures have been discussed here; perhaps try the search function.

There appears to be no coherent definitive model in the literature for progressive collapses that agrees with the video

In the video, you can't see the inside of the building, so I'm not sure that this will ever happen. Sounds like more incredulity, but perhaps you could clarify.

 

[DGM]

Ok this is where I was going wrong then, the paper doesn't have to be about controlled demolition rather a refutation of the official explanation for the collapse.

This begs the question though if the first objective is to debunk the official collapse explanations then after that people will have to address what did really happen. If there was a good explanation surely it would have been put forth by now.

I think you figured the "truth" movement out. Yes, they will question everything that's considered "official". No, they can not back it up.