Most detailed scientific papers for and against controlled demolition

[ergo]

And by spamming a list of supposedly authoritative papers...

 

[grandmastershek]

And by spamming a list of supposedly authoritative papers...

Actually you are the one who just did that. Keep swinging for the fences. I think the point is that of all the papers published in real journals 0 support CD and all support or corroborate a fire induced collapse.

 

[ergo]

No, that's not the point. The point is that bee dunkers have fabricated this so-called scientific consensus regarding the collapses. I think your fake list shows that far more scientific papers now exist questioning the official collapse hypothesis than the few that support it.

I don't believe this list shows any beyond Bazant and Seffen that actually support NIST/Bazant.

 

[grandmastershek]

I think your fake list shows that far more scientific papers now exist questioning the official collapse hypothesis than the few that support it.

LOL! Scientific papers go through peer review in real journals. Intellectual masturbation sessions are not that.

I don't believe this list shows any beyond Bazant and Seffen that actually support NIST/Bazant.

Sadly Ergo, your beliefs are regularly shown to be not in line with what we refer to as reality.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

No, that's not the point. The point is that bee dunkers have fabricated this so-called scientific consensus regarding the collapses. I think your fake list shows that far more scientific papers now exist questioning the official collapse hypothesis than the few that support it.

I don't believe this list shows any beyond Bazant and Seffen that actually support NIST/Bazant.

The FDNY didn't "fabricate" the fires inside the Towers did they? Nope, that's just you sad attempt to pin it on someone, other than yourself.

 

[ergo]

LOL! Scientific papers go through peer review in real journals. Intellectual masturbation sessions are not that.

So then, where are your scientific papers supporting Bazant/NIST progressive collapse?

Since they're not on the list I just summarized for you, where are they? Are they invisi-papers?

 

[newton3376]

No, that's not the point.

Actually that IS the point....I'll repeat what was posted so you can read it again...

I think the point is that of all the papers published in real journals 0 support CD and all support or corroborate a fire induced collapse.

Yep. That is the point.

The point is that bee dunkers have fabricated this so-called scientific consensus regarding the collapses. I think your fake list shows that far more scientific papers now exist questioning the official collapse hypothesis than the few that support it.

Nope. Incorrect.

No one denies there is debate over the specifics of the collapse. The overall general consensus is that the buildings collapsed cause they were hit by really large airplanes and that started really large uncontrolled fires. And the fires + structural damage contributed to many local failures which eventually led to global failure.

THAT is the consensus. That's it. The details can be discussed and debated to death, but you simply DO NOT have any significant percentage of professionals in any relevant fields concluding CD.

It's been almost 10 years and the best evidence you have are internet posts and youtube videos? Really? Dude....just give it up already. There is no truth movement....it's over dude. Truther theories are simply irrelevant.

 

[ergo]

No, Newton, that's not the point.

An example from your own fake list:

That the World Trade Center Towers withstood the impact loads of commercial aircrafts on September 11, 2001, was not surprising for structural engineers. However, very few in the profession expected the collapse of the towers during the fires that followed.

Do not alter another's username for purposes of insult

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Ergo,

Why hasn't anyone come forward from the Controlled Demolition companies admitting that they're the ones that "rigged" all 3 WTC buildings?

If you claim that it's a conspiracy & they were paid "hush money", then that's not the way a conspiracy works.

So far, in over 9 yrs., not a single CD expert has come forward to claim that they "did it".

 

[ergo]

Chewy, where are your peer-reviewed papers?

 

[newton3376]

No, Fake Newton, that's not the point.

I'm sorry that you aren't grasping the point...I can't make it any simpler.

*SHRUG* It's not my fault if you don't get it dude.....and not my responsibility to teach you basic critical thinking skills or physics....if you want to believe crazy, debunked, and unproven controlled demolition theories about the towers then have at it.

No one in real life....in fact no one even in this very forum....really cares. You will spend the rest of your life believing this nonsense and 10 years from now.....20 years from now....30 years from now....100 years from now....people STILL won't care.

ROFL

 

[grandmastershek]

I think the first thing that should be noted is that the link to the list Ergo posted was addressing "the no investigation" claim. Yet Ergo chose to portray it as a list showing confirmation of NIST/Bazant's progressive collapse. Oh well Ergo is fighting shadows again.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Chewy, where are your peer-reviewed papers?

I don't need them, I'm a qualified firefighter & I know what caused the Towers to collapse.

WTC1 & 2:

It was a combination of the plane impacts, along with the jet fuel igniting as an accelerant, debris and office equipment inside the office buildings, the unprotected steel that was subjected to 1,800-2000*F fires which weakened the steel to the point of failure. And the mass ontop of the remaining stucture below couldn't handle the weight of 15-20 floors, resulting in total collapse of the structures.

WTC7 was hit by WTC1's outter columns, causing damage on the facade & rupturing fuel lines to 2 fuel tanks for the generators on #5 & #7 floors. The damaged eletrical wires & equipment caused sparks which set off a chain reaction of fires on multiple floors. The fires were left to burn due to lack of water in the hydrants after WTC1 & 2's collapse, busting the mains. WTC7 collapsed under it's own weight.

When you're a firefighter, you have to know structural limits inside a burning structure.

Of course you can continue to peddle your stupid CD theory to the world Ergo. Noone in their right mind would agree with you.

 

[ergo]

*SHRUG*

Yup. That's about what your posts amount to.

 

[ergo]

I think the first thing that should be noted is that the link to the list Ergo posted was addressing "the no investigation" claim. Yet Ergo chose to portray it as a list showing confirmation of NIST/Bazant's progressive collapse.

Oh, my apologies. Please do then provide us the real list of peer-reviewed papers showing scientific consensus for the Bazant/NIST WTC collapse hypothesis. You can do that, right?

 

[grandmastershek]

Oh, my apologies. Please do then provide us the real list of peer-reviewed papers showing scientific consensus for the Bazant/NIST WTC collapse hypothesis. You can do that, right?

Why would I do that? NIST & Bazant are peer reviewed. So far the only challenges are from the smoke and mirror show of some irrelevant fringe academics.

 

[ergo]

I don't need them, I'm a qualified firefighter & I know what caused the Towers to collapse.

Oh ho!! Chewy doesn't NEED peer-reviewed papers! He's a firefighter! And a qualified firefighter! (As opposed to the unqualified ones...)

Wow, Chewy. I'm impressed. Structural engineers did not expect the towers to collapse, but you knew they would!

So we have Chewy's personal knowledge and opinion so far supporting the Bazant/NIST collapse hypothesis. Any others?

 

[tsig]

And by spamming a list of supposedly authoritative papers...

I took one look at the buildings and thought they'd come down.

 

[carlitos]

As ever, ergo would be better served by posting his/her own thoughts as to what happened on 9/11/2001, giving specifics as to who, what, where, when, why and how four planes crashed, and a half-dozen buildings were totalled.

 

[grandmastershek]

Some structural engineers did not expect the towers to collapse

Corrected for factuality.

Some points of interest

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
- This was research used in the NIST report itself. It is not a corroboration.

Weird. This was published 2 years after the completion of the NIST report on the towers and no such reference is found anywhere.


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
- This was research used in the NIST report itself. It is not a corroboration.
Same as above

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716
- Written by one of the original NIST investigators. This is not an outside corroboration.

Goal post move noted. It is research published outside of the NIST report in a peer reviewed journal.

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I Irfanoglu, A., Hoffmann, C.M. 2008 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 22 (1)

- I believe these researchers were actually commissioned by NIST for the report itself. So not an outside corroboration.
Another goal post moved. maybe start providing more than your beliefs?