Most detailed scientific papers for and against controlled demolition

[Dave Rogers]

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

Veracity isn't really the question; relevance is. The statement is intended to support a non sequitur compounded by an appeal to perfection: that if no steel-framed high-rise building has collapsed due to fire before or after 9/11, then it is impossible for any steel-framed high-rise buildings to have collapsed due to fire on 9/11. We know that steel-framed structures have collapsed due to fire, we know that steel-framed sections of high-rise composite structures have collapsed completely due to fire, and we know that the mechanisms by which these collapses occurred are not invalidated by any considerations related to the height of the building. Therefore, the statement is narrowing down the scope of possible similar events so as to exclude all known supporting examples, and hence make a claim of uniqueness.

To take an example, suppose I claim that last Wednesday I scored a hole-in-one on hole 5 of the local golf course. A friend replies that this should be impossible because nobody has ever scored a hole-in-one on hole 5 before. I point out three previous occasions when someone has done so, and he replies that none of those occurred on a Wednesday, therefore my claim is still impossible because nobody has ever scored a hole-in-one on hole 5 on a Wednesday.

It's worth taking note that, even without the irrelevant modifier, the original argument is still invalid; there is no particular reason to believe that unprecedented events are impossible, or even unlikely. In the specific case of 9/11, no steel-framed high-rise building had ever before been struck by a fully-fuelled airliner, nor had any steel-framed high-rise building ever suffered completely unfought fires initiated simultaneously on multiple floors. Since the conditions experienced by WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were unprecedented, one would therefore expect the results to be unprecedented.

The point, therefore, is not that the statement is either true or false; the point is that, even if true, it's irrelevant, and obviously so. So it's not necessary to show that it's false in order to show that it's stupid.

The final "Or gravity" is, of course, pointless and stupid. Everything that has ever collapsed, by definition, did so at least partly as a result of gravity.

Dave

 

[Scott Sommers]

This paper keeps getting bandied around here,

Cherepanov, G.P. Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events Materials Science v. 44 2008

This journal Materials Science does not appear to be listed on any of the indexes compiled by Thompson ISI. This is particularly strange since they have an entire Materials Science Citation Index.
http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MS
I'm a little surprised by this since the journal was founded in 1966.

Am I wrong? Is it listed somewhere else?

 

[Dave Rogers]

This journal Materials Science does not appear to be listed on any of the indexes compiled by Thompson ISI. This is particularly strange since they have an entire Materials Science Citation Index.
http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MS
I'm a little surprised by this since the journal was founded in 1966.

Am I wrong? Is it listed somewhere else?

Journal of Materials Science is a Springer publication; Materials Science may just be a common abbreviation.

Cherepanov is clearly a well-known and well-respected figure in the field of fracture dynamics. Unfortunately, his work on the WTC is based entirely on false premises. His three starting assumptions are that all three buildings collapsed at freefall acceleration throughout, that the sounds of all three collapses closely resembled those of explosions, and that all the resulting debris took the form of dust particles. He draws heavily on David Ray Griffin's work to reach his conclusion that the entire structures of both Twin Towers shattered into dust one-twentieth of a second after the collapses initiated, and seems blithely unconcerned that this so obviously contradicts every visual record of the collapses. He appears to be an outstanding example of how even a well-respected researcher can be totally and obviously wrong. His website includes a comment about how his work on the 9/11 collapses has been rejected by peer reviewers at various publications because, he claims, it contradicts the official story. However, he's managed to get a couple of papers published, possibly because his reputation is high enough to blind his admirers to the glaring flaws in his work.

If there's a lesson to be learned from this, it's the one we've been trying to teach truthers all along. It's that publishing a peer reviewed paper is only the first step to intellectual respectability. There are papers by great authorities that are worthless garbage. However, nothing will ever be taken seriously before it passes this step, because, however flawed, it's at least a first cut to separate out the patently ridiculous; sometimes it passes material that's rather less obviously ridiculous.

Dave

 

[newton3376]

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

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

For some unknown reason my original reply to this was moved even though YOUR comment was not....

So to repeat...

I AM an engineer, although not a structural or mechanical one.

So tell me ergo...are YOU an engineer of any kind?

What training or background do you have?

 

[ergo]

Veracity isn't really the question; relevance is.

Although you'd never guess it, by the continual bee dunker desperation to find a precedent.

Zeuzzz, here is the research, commissioned by NIST itself, into collapses by fire of buildings. You'll see no total collapses of multi-storey steel-framed buildings historically outside of WTC. Nothing's changed since.

http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf

Bee dunkers will try to point out the Kader Toy Factory fire, which occurred in a poorly built sweatshop in Thailand that was noted for its lack of proper safety design, and the resulting loss of life that incurred. It also was not a total building collapse.

That's about it.

 

[ergo]

Journal of Materials Science is a Springer publication; Materials Science may just be a common abbreviation.

Cherepanov is clearly a well-known and well-respected figure in the field of fracture dynamics. Unfortunately, his work on the WTC is based entirely on false premises.

And yet bee dunkers include this paper in their list of peer-reviewed papers that supposedly support the official collapse hypothesis.

If there's a lesson to be learned from this, it's the one we've been trying to teach truthers all along.

Obviously, 9/11 bee dunkers are not in a position to be "teaching" anybody anything.

There are papers by great authorities that are worthless garbage.

As we've already seen with Bazant in JEM.

He appears to be an outstanding example of how even a well-respected researcher can be totally and obviously wrong. ...However, he's managed to get a couple of papers published, possibly because his reputation is high enough to blind his admirers to the glaring flaws in his work.

This is sounding very familiar. See immediately above.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

And yet bee dunkers include this paper in their list of peer-reviewed papers that supposedly support the official collapse hypothesis.



Obviously, 9/11 bee dunkers are not in a position to be "teaching" anybody anything.



As we've already seen with Bazant in JEM.



This is sounding very familiar. See immediately above.

Ergo,

You're not a qualified firefighter, fire investigator or structural engineer.

Your opinions about 9/11 don't mean ****!

 

[Zeuzzz]

Veracity isn't really the question; relevance is. The statement is intended to support a non sequitur compounded by an appeal to perfection: that if no steel-framed high-rise building has collapsed due to fire before or after 9/11, then it is impossible for any steel-framed high-rise buildings to have collapsed due to fire on 9/11. We know that steel-framed structures have collapsed due to fire, we know that steel-framed sections of high-rise composite structures have collapsed completely due to fire, and we know that the mechanisms by which these collapses occurred are not invalidated by any considerations related to the height of the building. Therefore, the statement is narrowing down the scope of possible similar events so as to exclude all known supporting examples, and hence make a claim of uniqueness.

Point taken.

However I think im still on the fence, and I think im going to remain on it. At the end of the day it's not as if some new piece of data or compelling evidence is going to come out, now nearly ten years after the event, to prove either side of the argument right. I seems that both sides of the argument cant even agree on what their arguments are anyway.

A new independent inquiry is needed until I re-engage in this rabit hole of 9/11 conspiracy theory mania.

And thanks for the non emotive replies that were actually factual people.

*exits rabbit hole*

 

[LightningTeg]

Point taken.

However I think im still on the fence, and I think im going to remain on it. At the end of the day it's not as if some new piece of data or compelling evidence is going to come out, now nearly ten years after the event, to prove either side of the argument right. I seems that both sides of the argument cant even agree on what their arguments are anyway.

A new independent inquiry is needed until I re-engage in this rabit hole of 9/11 conspiracy theory mania.

And thanks for the non emotive replies that were actually factual people.

*exits rabbit hole*

There is nothing to debate. Truthers have no evidence, just speculation, and very loosely tied coincidences.

Loose change has really brought out the full retard people.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Journal of Materials Science is a Springer publication; Materials Science may just be a common abbreviation.

Cherepanov is clearly a well-known and well-respected figure in the field of fracture dynamics. Unfortunately, his work on the WTC is based entirely on false premises. His three starting assumptions are that all three buildings collapsed at freefall acceleration throughout, that the sounds of all three collapses closely resembled those of explosions, and that all the resulting debris took the form of dust particles. He draws heavily on David Ray Griffin's work to reach his conclusion that the entire structures of both Twin Towers shattered into dust one-twentieth of a second after the collapses initiated, and seems blithely unconcerned that this so obviously contradicts every visual record of the collapses. He appears to be an outstanding example of how even a well-respected researcher can be totally and obviously wrong. His website includes a comment about how his work on the 9/11 collapses has been rejected by peer reviewers at various publications because, he claims, it contradicts the official story. However, he's managed to get a couple of papers published, possibly because his reputation is high enough to blind his admirers to the glaring flaws in his work.

If there's a lesson to be learned from this, it's the one we've been trying to teach truthers all along. It's that publishing a peer reviewed paper is only the first step to intellectual respectability. There are papers by great authorities that are worthless garbage. However, nothing will ever be taken seriously before it passes this step, because, however flawed, it's at least a first cut to separate out the patently ridiculous; sometimes it passes material that's rather less obviously ridiculous.

Dave

The journal the article appears in is not the Journal of Material Sciences. I understand that Cherepanov is well-respected in his field. What I am wondering is whether this journal is a down stream Springer journal and that's how the article got published.

On the other hand, no one here has read the 3-page published version. It may that despite the intention of the author, it does not support Cherepanov's other belief's about 911. And until anyone here can say with absolute certainty what the article says, I have to assume the actual published facts of it support the scientific consensus that planes and fires brought down the WTC buildings.

 

[TruthersLie]

Although you'd never guess it, by the continual bee dunker desperation to find a precedent.

Zeuzzz, here is the research, commissioned by NIST itself, into collapses by fire of buildings. You'll see no total collapses of multi-storey steel-framed buildings historically outside of WTC. Nothing's changed since.

http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf

Bee dunkers will try to point out the Kader Toy Factory fire, which occurred in a poorly built sweatshop in Thailand that was noted for its lack of proper safety design, and the resulting loss of life that incurred. It also was not a total building collapse.

That's about it.

Well we can take your word for how the Kader toy factory was built... but after your stepping on your dick over the Caracas Tower fire... I have absolutely NO confidence in any of your claims.

How did that building ever manage to stay standing again ergo?

I mean from someone who has difficulty understanding the difference between onto and into, who seems to mix up "essentially" and "actually" and can't understand simple concepts like center of mass, or who thinks that a debris field the "size of the moon" wouldn't cause the towers to collapse...

gee... color me a bit skeptical of any claims you make.

 

[TruthersLie]

And yet bee dunkers include this paper in their list of peer-reviewed papers that supposedly support the official collapse hypothesis.



Obviously, 9/11 bee dunkers are not in a position to be "teaching" anybody anything.

just the differences between onto and into
maybe the differences between actually and essentially.

As we've already seen with Bazant in JEM.

still waiting for that peer reviewed refutation of ANY of bazants claims... what journal, in which language, in any country?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

This paper keeps getting bandied around here,

Cherepanov, G.P. Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events Materials Science v. 44 2008

This journal Materials Science does not appear to be listed on any of the indexes compiled by Thompson ISI. This is particularly strange since they have an entire Materials Science Citation Index.
http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MS
I'm a little surprised by this since the journal was founded in 1966.

Am I wrong? Is it listed somewhere else?

The journal is still in business:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1068-820x/

The citation is correct but incomplete. Complete citation, including a link to the full paper:

G.P.Cherepanov. Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events. Materials Science volume 44, number 4, 1 July 2008, pages 489-499.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11003-009-9119-1
http://www.springerlink.com/content/pl71v07556p64w13/

 

[Scott Sommers]

The journal is still in business:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1068-820x/

The citation is correct but incomplete. Complete citation, including a link to the full paper:

G.P.Cherepanov. Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events. Materials Science volume 44, number 4, 1 July 2008, pages 489-499.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11003-009-9119-1
http://www.springerlink.com/content/pl71v07556p64w13/

Yes, I know this. My question is different. The journal does not seem to be listed on the Materials Science Citation Index compiled and published by Thompson ISI.

When WTC Dust was babbling on about her nonsense, I pointed out that she has authored papers in journals listed on the SCI - Science Citation Index. This is the Science version of this. These are lists of leading journals in various fields. They are generally considered to the highest level of publication in these fields. Journals not listed on them are not necessarily 'bad', but they may be unpredictable, highly specialized or even just very new. But these would be the venues for leading people in these fields.

It appears - although I am not certain of this - that the Cherepanov paper is a brief note (3-pages) that appears in a down stream Springer journal.

 

[ergo]

On the other hand, no one here has read the 3-page published version. It may that despite the intention of the author, it does not support Cherepanov's other belief's about 911. And until anyone here can say with absolute certainty what the article says, I have to assume the actual published facts of it support the scientific consensus that planes and fires brought down the WTC buildings.

In addition to thinking that a scientific paper is going to, somewhere halfway through, suddenly reverse the thesis it puts forth, Scott Sommers also doesn't seem to understand that the idea that there is scientific "consensus" that the towers were brought down by minor, one-hour upper floor fires is not supported by the literature, especially if we go by the silly list that JREF bedunkers circulate, and that contains articles largely irrelevant to any unified collapse theory.

As Irfanoglu and Hoffman state:

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.

As well, last time I checked, Bazant's "crush down, crush up" theory still stood as the official collapse progression model, and there appears to be no outside scientific corroboration of this model.

So scientific "consensus" most certainly does not exist on this issue, as is evidenced both by the dearth of published papers supporting a single collapse model, and the increasing body of literature and professional opinion pointing out the flaws in the officially endorsed theory.

Indeed, it is unclear what that article list represents to bedunkers, and why they keep propagating it as somehow supportive of their arguments. It does not represent scientific consensus about the collapses at all.

 

[ergo]

Truthorlies still hasn't produced his 100 peer-reviewed engineering articles. I think we know how seriously we can take his numerous air-filled ejaculations.

 

[newton3376]

So scientific "consensus" most certainly does not exist on this issue, as is evidenced both by the dearth of published papers supporting a single collapse model, and the increasing body of literature and professional opinion pointing out the flaws in the officially endorsed theory.

Indeed, it is unclear what that article list represents to bedunkers, and why they keep propagating it as somehow supportive of their arguments. It does not represent scientific consensus about the collapses at all.

You are missing the point of....

1. What we mean when we say there is a scientific consensus.

2. The point of the peer reviewed article list.

Both of these points have been explained to you over and over.....yet you keep missing or not understanding the point.

 

[tfk]

Newt,

[Ergo is] missing the point of....

Ergo's not missing anything.

Obvious Troll is being obviously trollish.

Again.

Obviously.


tom

 

[Scott Sommers]

Newt,



Ergo's not missing anything.

Obvious Troll is being obviously trollish.

Again.

Obviously.


tom

No he's not a troll at all. Many Truthers genuinely believe the consensus of scientists and engineers is that there was something really fishy about the collapse of the WTC buildings. This is especially true of young and recently converted Truthers. This may sound unbelievable to people here, but imagine the world of college drop-outs working at Wal-Mart trying with all their energy to be smart. There's not going to be a lot you can do to explain to them what science is and why things are done the way they are.

That's why I don't really talk to these guys anymore. I have enough trouble with my own students. I don't need to invite confused people into my life.

 

[ergo]

This may sound unbelievable to people here, but imagine the world of college drop-outs working at Wal-Mart trying with all their energy to be smart.

Yikes. Way to win friends, Scott.

This from an ESL teacher.