Most detailed scientific papers for and against controlled demolition

[grandmastershek]

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

AKA- Kooks who can't meet real academic standards.

 

[WildCat]

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.

Here's a complete list of all the scientific rebuttals to the NIST investigation:

 

[WildCat]

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.

Yes, make up your own mind. Use your common sense, that's all you really need in order to refute the 99.9999% of structural engineers who don't question The Official Story^TM.

I'm sure thre's a very good reason why no truther has ever had a single paper published in an actual peer-reviewed science journal. I bet it's because of NWO gatekeepers!

 

[WildCat]

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

And I bet you figured all that out by watching a video on youtube! That's where all the good science is done these days.

 

[tsig]

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.

Planes>fire>gravity.

 

[tsig]

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.

You asked for it, got it, didn't like it.

I think you're mind's made up already.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Sorry, what? There is a huge mass of literature detailing investigations of the collapses, all of which agrees with the conclusion that the collapses were entirely caused by impact and fire damage. There is no literature that presents even the beginnings of a reasonable hypothesis for any other cause of collapse. And your deduction from this is that there must be good papers out there, but we're suppressing them?
(a) That's idiotic, and (b) pretending that evidence exists but has been suppressed is a tactic used solely by the truther side.

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?

Pretty much. Nobody has written the paper you're looking for, and nobody ever will. It's like looking for the most coherent and plausible arguments for Young Earth Creationism. The problem with the truther side of the argument is not that the opposite side is using unfair tactics; it's that the opposite side includes reality.

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.

There is a difference of degree. Official reports (which, I should point out, include a large number of reports that are in no way official, and come from sources completely unafilliated to the US government) disagree with one another on fine details of the mechanism by which collapse occurred. Conspiracy papers generally disagree with each other, the physical evidence, and (usually) other parts of the same paper. One side falls slightly short of perfection; the other falls woefully short of rationality.

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.

Again, this will never happen, because what you disingenuously refer to as "the official explanation" is in fact the only explanation, in broad terms, that's consistent with the evidence.

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.

There is a good explanation, which is accepted by virtually all competent engineers, scientists and historians. Your disinclination to believe it is, I'm sorry to say, your own problem.

Dave

 

[Zeuzzz]

Wildcat, the reason why I said that I dont give a damn what you think is because everything ive seen you post is not worth even responding to. Ive tried to have discussions with you before and its the same every time.

Your posts in this thread: 5

Logical fallacies: 7

> Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam
> Ad Lapidem
> Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam
> Appeal to authority
> Authority of the Many
> Association fallacy
> False assumption

Valid points: 0

Subjective points with no supporting reason: Every single one.

Well thats my conversations here with you over now sadly.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Thanks dave. I'm too tired to reply now but will shortly.

 

[WildCat]

Wildcat, the reason why I said that I dont give a damn what you think is because everything ive seen you post is not worth even responding to. Ive tried to have discussions with you before and its the same every time.

Your posts in this thread: 5

Logical fallacies: 7

> Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam
> Ad Lapidem
> Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam
> Appeal to authority
> Authority of the Many
> Association fallacy
> False assumption

Valid points: 0

Subjective points with no supporting reason: Every single one.

Well thats my conversations here with you over now sadly.

I engaged in none of those fallacies.

Hint: "appeal to authority" is not a fallacy if that authority is an actual expert on the subject who has studied and reported on it. Every author of the NIST report is a top expert in that field. And who does the truth movement have? Their star players are a theology professor, a physics professor with no structural engineering training at all, a mentally unstable former pilot, Richard Gage and his panel of "architects and engineers" who have written not a single paper on the subject and who merely parrot the lies and BS of said theology and physics professors.

You asked for papers supporting the truther side, well there aren't any. None, nada, zilch, zippo. And there's a reason for that.

All your statements are the same regurgitated crapola the "truth" movement has been spouting for years, without a single published scientific work to back up their claims.

You may as well ask for the scientific papers supporting a flat earth and a earth-centered universe.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Wow a bit more beef in this post ...

I engaged in none of those fallacies.

Thats not even a fallacy, its just a lie.

Every author of the NIST report is a top expert in that field.

Is there a list I could see? Or any interviews of them debunking any conspiracy theories?

And who does the truth movement have? Their star players are a theology professor, a physics professor with no structural engineering training at all, a mentally unstable former pilot, Richard Gage and his panel of "architects and engineers" who have written not a single paper on the subject and who merely parrot the lies and BS of said theology and physics professors.

How do you define paper?

All your statements are the same regurgitated crapola the "truth" movement has been spouting for years, without a single published scientific work to back up their claims.

You may as well ask for the scientific papers supporting a flat earth and a earth-centered universe.

Maybe it all is the same "regurgitated crapola the "truth" movement has been spouting for years", and i'm truly sorry for posting it here to get some professional opinions on it. In the future maybe I will just take it as gospel and not ask for more educated opinions if this is the sort of reception I get for just asking some layman questions.


Im not sure whether your just fed up with normal curious people asking questions about the most important event in modern history based on what they have read, or whether your posts are based on a type of world view fundamentalism.

"Well I define fundamentalism as the attempt to impose a single 'truth' on a plural world. And what really lies behind it is fear, a profound insecurity that makes you feel when you meet someone who is not like you, or doesn't agree with you, that that challenge is a threat against your very being. Aggression is always a sign of insecurity. And insecurity is always, at bottom, a lack of faith, not a presence of faith"

—Jonathan Sacks


PS: Please reply with actual facts in future so I dont have to write another post like this please.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Is there a list I could see?

There's one included in the NIST report.

Or any interviews of them debunking any conspiracy theories?

That wasn't the aim of the NIST report on WTC1 and WTC2, and in my opinion shouldn't have been included, however tangentially, in the report on WTC7.

Maybe it all is the same "regurgitated crapola the "truth" movement has been spouting for years", and i'm truly sorry for posting it here to get some professional opinions on it.

Unfortunately, that's pretty much what it is. If there were any papers on the CT side worth reading, we'd tell you, because we'd have had to address them already. I'm sorry, but we can't point you to a body of good quality scholarly work that doesn't exist, however politely you ask.

Im not sure whether your just fed up with normal curious people asking questions about the most important event in modern history based on what they have read, or whether your posts are based on a type of world view fundamentalism.

What we're fed up with is people coming to the forum, asking innocent-sounding questions, then complaining because the answers don't support their preconceived opinions. You clearly have a preconceived opinion that the arguments of the truth movement have been presented in an intellectually respectable manner, and when we point out that this is not the case, you reply that this denial makes you believe that there is such a body of work out there somewhere. You're doing it more politely than most, but in effect you're asking a question, getting an answer, then saying that you don't believe the answer because it comes from the people you just asked.

Dave

 

[Zeuzzz]

You clearly have a preconceived opinion that the arguments of the truth movement have been presented in an intellectually respectable manner

Not really anymore. But I'll have to read the "journals" linked to and apply what I can from my degree in physics to make an opinion. Unfortunately I didn't do an engineering module, so its all basic thermodynamics and mechanics.

And when we point out that this is not the case, you reply that this denial makes you believe that there is such a body of work out there somewhere.

If I were to trust the random group of people ive started a discussion with here on a forum (that in my opinion seems biased from the get go at debunking any unofficial 9/11 conspiracy theory) then perhaps you are right. Or maybe its not bias, just showing the bare facts. I just don't know yet. I wont reply until I've actually read some of the studies.

 

[Dragon37]

If I were to trust the random group of people ive started a discussion with here on a forum (that in my opinion seems biased from the get go at debunking any unofficial 9/11 conspiracy theory) then perhaps you are right. Or maybe its not bias, just showing the bare facts. I just don't know yet. I wont reply until I've actually read some of the studies.

And the discussion from a truther side of things isn't biased? If you are going to obtain information from sites like AEtruth and such you are going to get a completely biased POV because they only post material which is in keeping with their opinions of conspiracy.

People hear defend the "official" reports because they are based upon a great deal of sources and work. None of those reports started from a presumption they start from a simple question of why.

The why for NIST was why did the buildings collapse? This means that the only thing that matters is what initiated the collapses. Analyzing the collapses beyond initiation is pointless because it will not further help one understand initiation. Collapse will also not further confirm any theory one might have no matter how much they think otherwise.

If you want to make an honest analysis and study of 9/11, even if you are leaning conspiracy, you have to be sure to read the official reports and talk with witnesses, etc. You have to be sure to include as many people in your sources as NIST and other groups did because you have to have a complete picture. So far no truth side has ever taken the whole picture of that day into consideration and that is a fundamental error on their part. It is easy to find conspiracy if you ignore a whole ton of evidence.

 

[TruthersLie]

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?

Not that I know of... unfortunately this isn't a scientific "paper" as it hasn't been published in any peer reviewed journal. It is a manuscript which doesn't take account for sampling error and he doesn't look at his own raw data which shows JOLTS. he looks at the smoothed data which smoothes out the jolts.

ETA: There are several "truthers" out there who have dones some pretty good work, but they aren't really full fledged "truthers" by comparision. Gregory Ulrich and Frank Greening have done pretty good work. (Greening even worked with Bazant on the last paper, what did and did not contribute to the collapse of the twin towers (IIRC))

I also think (realize I am not an engineer) that Major Tom's ROOSD theory sounds plausible, except that he takes a collapse progression and then tries to back in the use of explosives which isn't necessary. Gravity driven collapses fully explain the evidence we see with the towers.

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

Oh you left out the Bentham craptacular nanothermite paper too.

IN other words, we have people who cannot meet peer review anywhere in the world, in any lanaguage who have to set up their own journals to get their "work" "published."

Wowsers... like flat earthers, creationists and holocaust deniers. All have their own "peer reviewed" "journals." go figure.

 

[carlitos]

Not really anymore. But I'll have to read the "journals" linked to and apply what I can from my degree in physics to make an opinion. Unfortunately I didn't do an engineering module, so its all basic thermodynamics and mechanics.

I just don't know yet. I wont reply until I've actually read some of the studies.

Earlier, you claimed to have read the studies. I responded to your objections with what you had read here. Specifically, what have you read that gives you pause about the "official story?"

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

As I said in my "Truthers: Official Story is "wrong"? Prove it!" thread:

Truther: "We're here for the truth! I'm just asking questions (JAQing off)."

Rational Person: "The truth is within your answered questions about 9/11."

Truther: "You're a liar! You didn't answer my questions."

Rational Person: "You said you were looking for the truth. Are you saying you don't want the truth now?"

Truther: "Shill!"

And that's how Truthers respond to the Truth, when they're seeking for the truth.

 

[grandmastershek]

So basically all Zeus has done is want to hear research he wants to believe, and claimed fallacy yet not demonstrated how. Awesome.

 

[The Platypus]

Earlier, you claimed to have read the studies. I responded to your objections with what you had read here. Specifically, what have you read that gives you pause about the "official story?"

it's obvious... he's read conspiracy websites.