Most detailed scientific papers for and against controlled demolition

[ergo]

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.

Thank you for acknowledging that the spammed 9/11 bedunker list of authoritative papers does not support Bazant/NIST, and that therefore there now exist far more scientific critiques of Bazant/NIST than any papers of stated support.

Nice talking with you.

 

[ergo]

Corrected for factuality.

No, actually. The quote was:

very few in the profession expected the collapse of the towers during the fires that followed.

Get it right, little bee.

 

[newton3376]

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

Yep....I stood there and told a friend of mine "I think those buildings are going to come down...no way they can have that kind of damage and burn like that and stay up."

His reply..."Yeah I think so too."

Sadly we were right.

 

[ergo]

Yep....I stood there and told a friend of mine "I think those buildings are going to come down...no way they can have that kind of damage and burn like that and stay up."

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

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

 

[grandmastershek]

Thank you for acknowledging that the spammed 9/11 bedunker list of authoritative papers does not support Bazant/NIST, and that therefore there now exist far more scientific critiques of Bazant/NIST than any papers of stated support.

Nice talking with you.

Yup...keep fighting those shadows! Also cute how you dodged my responses to your critique regarding a number of articles. Oh well keep moving those goal posts.

What scientific critiques are those btw? Oh right the Jones pre-approved peer review system and the Bentham "You got the money we got the printer" Family of Journals.

No, actually. The quote was:


Get it right, little bee.

And that was based on? Oh right you just ask questions. When the conclusions don't suit you.

And yet bee dunkers and other fake engineers are continually unable to counter it.

Because such stupid remarks require no dignified response.

FYI Ergo the list you posted shows the academic consensus is that the fires caused the collapse. How many real academic sources show it was bombs or whatever your peddling these days? Oh right...0. Good job debunking yourself.

 

[ergo]

Because such stupid remarks require no dignified response.

No steel-framed highrises have ever collapsed completely, to the ground, from fire. Or gravity.

For that to be a "stupid" remark, you would have to show that it's false. You haven't, because it isn't. It's a statement of fact.

I know you folks try to rebunk this every few months, but it's still a fact, and you're still wrong.

 

[WildCat]

No steel-framed highrises have ever collapsed completely, to the ground, from fire. Or gravity.

For that to be a "stupid" remark, you would have to show that it's false. You haven't, because it isn't. It's a statement of fact.

I know you folks try to rebunk this every few months, but it's still a fact, and you're still wrong.

Cool story bro.

 

[grandmastershek]

For that to be a "stupid" remark, you would have to show that it's false. .

Stupid remarks can have correct premises with faulty conclusions. This or that fallacy. Great job.

Ahem...

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?

Keep dancing ergo.

 

[ergo]

Stupid remarks can have correct premises with faulty conclusions.

They can also be oblique references to nothing specific while at the same time trying to give the impression of some vague general truth without actually stating anything.

Important for bee dunker argumentation.

 

[WildCat]

So, the total number inside jobby job scientific papers still stands at exactly ZERO.

Hell of a movement you have there ergo, full of brilliant minds and real go-getters! Maybe someday the truth movement will discover their very first 9/11 fact! But probbaly not.

 

[ozeco41]

No steel-framed highrises have ever collapsed completely, to the ground, from fire. Or gravity.

For that to be a "stupid" remark, you would have to show that it's false. You haven't, because it isn't. It's a statement of fact.

I know you folks try to rebunk this every few months, but it's still a fact, and you're still wrong.

It certainly is a true statement.

Tho' I would be surprised if anyone let you get away with the trickery.

 

[TruthersLie]

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

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

Hey caracas tower in that list?

Have you figured that out yet or are you still working on the difference between INTO and ONTO?

Run away like before ergo... feel free.

 

[TruthersLie]

No steel-framed highrises have ever collapsed completely, to the ground, from fire. Or gravity.

For that to be a "stupid" remark, you would have to show that it's false. You haven't, because it isn't. It's a statement of fact.

I know you folks try to rebunk this every few months, but it's still a fact, and you're still wrong.

Awesome....

first time in history
appeal for perfection

keep it up. (nice dodge and moving of the goal posts)

First you twoofs say no steel framed building has collapsed... when shown steel framed buildings that collapse, then it becomes

no steel framed skyscraper

when shown steel framed skyscrapers that have had partial collapses (you know the steel parts)

you shift to
to the ground.

keep on shifting those goalposts.... but what should we expect from someone who doesn't know the difference between INTO and ONTO. <snort> <snicker> <rofl>

How did that whole bazant said onto work out for you?
caracas tower fire? Figure that out yet?

didn't think so.

 

[grandmastershek]

LA LA LA LA LA!!!!

Noted

 

[Zeuzzz]

Cool story bro.

Riveting retort chum.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It's nice to see ergo posting in this thread, which is, after all, concerned with the highest standards of academic rigour achieved by the truth movement.

Dave

 

[tfk]

No steel-framed highrises have ever collapsed completely, to the ground, from fire. Or gravity.

Dumbest comment in Twoofer history.

I'll go out on a limb & assume that our resident troll is not talking about WTC 1 & 2. [There is that teeensy matter of the planes "readjusting" the support structure…]

As for WTC7, it did not collapse from "fire. Or gravity." It collapsed from a combination of fire, gravity & design.

Addressing your alleged concerns, no other steel-framed high rise building, designed like WTC7, has ever caught fire & NOT collapsed before.

The response to fire of other building designed differently than WTC7 is asutterly irrelevant to the performance of WTC7 as the response to iceberg impact of a steel-hulled tugboat would be to the fate of the Titanic.

For that to be a "stupid" remark, you would have to show that it's false. You haven't, because it isn't. It's a statement of fact.

I know you folks try to rebunk this every few months, but it's still a fact, and you're still wrong.

No "rebunk", or even debunk, required.

From an engineering perspective, the comment, whether true or not, is completely irrelevant.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Dumbest comment in Twoofer history.

*Truther

 

[Zeuzzz]

No steel-framed highrises have ever collapsed completely, to the ground, from fire. Or gravity.

For that to be a "stupid" remark, you would have to show that it's false. You haven't, because it isn't. It's a statement of fact.

I know you folks try to rebunk this every few months, but it's still a fact, and you're still wrong.

An impartial critique of the veracity of this statement would be much appreciated.

And please spare the stereotypes and personal attacks that have been the responses so far.

 

[Zeuzzz]

*sitting on fence*