The 9/11 Forum

lozenge124 wrote:

OneWhiteEye wrote:I remember reading a magazine article in the late 90s (I think) in which it was claimed the mega-skyscraper in Malaysia(?) was being built with demolition charges in place. I'm neither lying nor mistaken about this claim, although it's certainly possible the author of the article was incorrect. This is not something you forget or misunderstand. I was struck with the imprudence of this on more than one level. Doing it, first of all, then publicizing it! What if a fire set these off? What if bad people commandeer them for nefarious purposes? I've since searched the internet for some corroboration of this claim, with no success.

That reminds me of the small scandal in Switzerland a few years ago, when local residents of a town found out that there were explosives under their bridges and streets to be detonated in case of an invasion.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Swissinfo.h ... id=4123773

There are in fact hundreds of strategic roads, tunnels and bridges in Switzerland which conceal permanent stores of explosives.

I'd read that, and it reminded me again of that article I'd seen. I wonder if this is, or was, a construction practice for even a brief period of time. It seems insane. newton's thread about Paul Laffoley(sp?) indicates there has long been an interest in the destruction, while still in the construction phase.

Hi DrG,

I would like to ask you for further comment on what you quoted in a previous post. A statement I think is quite profound on how you analyse the collapse too.

DrG wrote:Until a better analysis is offered by some insightful soul, all you doubting thomases out there will have to accept that Bazant's paper is, and will remain, the definitive scientific analysis of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

I would agree that Bazants paper is probably the most scientific analysis done on the collapse, but maybe I am reading into it more than I should, when you use the word "definitive" as an adjective for describing his scientific analysis.

The context it is used would appear to me that you are stating that it is "definitive" as in correct and therefore the truth, or the closest thing we have to the truth until any doubting thomas does a better scientific analysis to qualify it as "definitive!"

The problem is, do any of the doubting thomases that highlight the errors in Bazants theory have to provide a better more scientific analysis of the collapse in order to disprove Bazants conclusions or theory? I think not.

If Bazants concluding theory is proven to be wrong from these criticisms, then it is not the job of anyone to provide a better theory but the job of Bazant to make corrections to his theory.

The failure of Bazant to address such criticisms by ignoring or discrediting them rather than investigating them, is hardly any different to NIST with their analysis of WTC 7 and their fire weakening one single column theory. In the context I believe you used it above, would you agree with the statement that NIST WTC 7 Paper is the "definitive scientific analysis of the collapse of WTC 7"? And do any doubting Thomases (Including yourself!) have to provide a better scientific analysis?

The platform for current criticisms of both Bazant and NIST paper from what I have understand are a little bias to say the least and are simply there for the sake of being allowed to be called or determined scientific. Regardless of whether they are correct or not, whether what they are proposing is possible or not or whether they choose to handle or ignore such criticisms.

As a critical thinker, do you not see that by believing that Bazants paper is the "definitive scientific analysis of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2." that you are guilty of making of judgements based without full inquiry so to speak? In other words, there are plenty of valid criticisms of his work that need to be considered before it can be called the "definitive" scientific analysis.

I struggle to understand this concept of putting all your eggs into one basket by thinking that Bazant is the "definitive" because you believe it to be scientific based on your knowledge and expertise of science. Now it could be argued that I as a layman have no say in what you believe is incorrect as you are certainly more knowledgeable than me on the subject. While that might be true, that does not qualify it for the word "definitive" especially when there appears to be more critics of Bazants theory than champions. Of course, having more critics than supporters is no barometer of what is factually correct or not, but when valid criticism can't be answered, then it is obvious that the theory is not as sound as the theory provider claims.

This kind of thinking that Bazant paper is the "definitive" paper closes the door into other possibilities including the possibility that it is wrong, what you qualify as "definitive" is a crime against critical thinking, even more so for the simple reason that their are many valid reasons to reject his theory.

You reject NIST theory of the WTC 7, even though I could argue that "Until a better analysis is offered by some insightful soul, all you doubting thomases out there will have to accept that NIST paper is, and will remain, the definitive scientific analysis of the collapse of WTC7."

If I were to present that as an argument to reject any criticism you or anyone else had of NIST theory on WTC7, you nor anyone else would never be able to meet the criteria I have set in that it is doubtful that some insightful soul would ever have the money, facilities, evidence to do a more thorough analysis.

Do you not see this flaw in your thinking? In that you are guilty of applying double standards in the application of criticism.

Bazant Paper + Bazant Ignoring Criticism = Definitive Collapse Theory.
NIST WTC 7 Paper + NIST Ignoring Criticism = Wrong! Unless you are arguing that it is the Definitive Collapse Theory of WTC7 too?

I think this is where you seem to be stuck DrG. Please do not think I am attacking you, because I admire you and your posts and think you are a brave character for standing up to the bully boy tactics of the JREF Forum, but for some reason, you still won't entertain or even look at the idea of an alternative theory that would suggest that there could have been foul play on 9/11. I find it puzzling you would reject a demolition theory by making a self aggrandising statements about Bazants theory when you are suppose to be a critical thinker.

Even after your own analysis and that of others, who conclude that WTC7 fell at freefall speeds for x amount of seconds hasn't convince you that a fire induced single columns theory doesn't fit with the evidence, yet you still do not seem keen on the idea of looking into the possibility of a demolition theory, again looking at any other alternatives as an explanation, just not a demolition one.

The usual reasons most people reject demolition theories are not valid reasons, just excuses that are employed as a psychological defence mechanism for having to entertain the uncomfortable thought that it might have been done by people within government, even if it's the remotest possibility.

So is there a reason why you reject the possibility demolition theories?

As I think it is more psychological than factual reasons why you reject them.

Stundie:

Well, I guess I'm in big trouble now and for a myriad of reasons - not the least being my perceived "double standard" in my approach to criticism of 9/11 research. Perhaps you have a valid point and I deserve to be corrected, but let me begin some sort of defence of my position by saying that I think you are putting too much emphasis on my use of the word "definitive" and that I do not intend "definitive" to mean "final".

Obviously, any new scientific theory of the collapse of WTC 1, 2 or 7 could be refined and improved on by further work. Bazant has put one such theory together and has refined it considerably since its earliest version published back in 2001. And, yes, Bazant's model of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 has been criticized a great deal, but only by avowed "truthers". And by the way, I use the word "truther" not in a derogarory, but in a descriptive sense to identify a certain well-known group of 9/11 researchers.

I have looked at, (and sometimes commented on), many of the truther attacks on Bazant's work and I am sorry to say I am not convinced by such criticisms. Many of these attacks are nit-picking diatribes directed at details of Bazant's model - details of the collapse mechanism such as mass-shedding that are not fatal to the model's key prediction of no collapse arrest. This is why I would claim that Bazant's work on the collpase of WTC 1 & 2 is "definitive" because it remains essentially unchallenged by serious engineers and scientists. And I stand by my claim that the only real way to refute Bazant's work on 9/11 is to present a better alternative theory. Until this is done, all bets are off ....

As for NIST's Final Report on WTC 7, I have to admit that, to date, no alternative theory has been forthcoming from the engineering and scientific community. Thus NIST's Final Report is, I suppose, "definitive" too, (especially in the mind of NIST's scientists!), but let's give researchers some time because the Final Report is still "hot off the press" so to speak. Certainly some concerned citizens, including some scientists I know, are working on alternative theories for WTC 7 - including CD - but we are yet to reach a definitive conclusion - yup, there's that word again!

We all need more time and lots of patience ......

Dr. G wrote:Stundie:

Well, I guess I'm in big trouble now and for a myriad of reasons - not the least being my perceived "double standard" in my approach to criticism of 9/11 research. Perhaps you have a valid point and I deserve to be corrected, but let me begin some sort of defence of my position by saying that I think you are putting too much emphasis on my use of the word "definitive" and that I do not intend "definitive" to mean "final".

Dr. G:

You are not in big trouble at all....lol And more importantly there is no need to defend your position, as you are truly entitled to believe whatever you choose. I'm not the sort of person who dictates what others believe, the problem I have is with the closed mindedness to possibilities especially other possibilities which have a better explanation for the anomolies.


Let me ask you a question, out of all the time you have spent researching the WTC collapses, how much time at have you spent looking into the possibility of a demolition theory?

We have 2 competing theories the official Plane Damages, fire and heat weakening theory vs unofficial demolition theory. We could argue a 3rd space beams theory, but lets not touch that one with a barge pole...lol

Of the 2 competing theories, I would guess its might be 95% official and 5% unofficial.

This might expain why I think your view is biased from the start and could explain why you struggle to look into the possibility of a demolition theory. You are not to blame of course, the idea of a demolition is preposterous right?

Imagine for a moment we are in a parallel universe.....
NIST conclude that based on all the evidence, WTC 1, 2 & 7 collapses were definitely a demolition, they produce a 10,000 page report on 1 & 2 explaining how it was all done up until the initiation of the collapse and 7 year later they conclude the same with WTC 7.

Do you think there would be a truth movement asking for a new investigation or more importantly as many unanswered questions than there is now with their current report and theory?

I think if NIST had investigated a demolition theory, instead of their pre-requisite ANYTHING BUT NOT A DEMOLITION THEORY, a lot of the mysterious we are spending our precious time on would have been solved.

I also think that if you opened yourself up to the possibility of a demolition theory, you may find that some of the things which don't fit with current theories.....fit.

Maybe that is a step too far......Maybe just a little too woo?

Now you see, I do not know or claim to know what happened, I look at all the possibilities and think all of them are possible, but some theories are more possible than others. However, I think any skeptical person should not pidgeon hole or believe that any one theory trumps another which have not yet had the time, money or research spent on them to test or validate those claims.

Most of the reasons for not looking at a CD theory are simply brushed aside without any real consideration for there merits.

Dr.G wrote:Obviously, any new scientific theory of the collapse of WTC 1, 2 or 7 could be refined and improved on by further work. Bazant has put one such theory together and has refined it considerably since its earliest version published back in 2001. And, yes, Bazant's model of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 has been criticized a great deal, but only by avowed "truthers". And by the way, I use the word "truther" not in a derogarory, but in a descriptive sense to identify a certain well-known group of 9/11 researchers.

I can't argue the nitty gritty technical details of his paper but it was created just 2 days after the attacks without looking at a single piece of steel, this 2 day old theory as somehow developed into the definitive version.

Its the equivalent of a murder happening on CCTV by a man dressed as the pope. The police psychic says 2 days after the murder without looking at a single shrapnel of evidence other than the CCTV, that he knows who they were murdered by, and reveal its that it was the REAL POPE, so the police look for evidence in general and a little of the evidence says it was the real pope, but lots of the evidence suggests it wasn't the real pope but someone else dressed as him.....

If I was prosecuting and I built a case on the evidence which says it was the pope, would that be definitive murder theory, especially if over the years I ignored the evidence which suggest he is possibly innocent?

I'm not seeing the logic, but that could be due to my lack of science....lol

Although you use the term truthers not in a derogatory way, you categorise these as a well known group of 9/11 researchers.

I think first and foremost they are humans beings, secondly I think that some of these researchers wouldn't necessarily fall under the umbrella of a truther in that they were experts in their relevant fields before they were coined with the term or even joined a movement, thirdly by categorising those who have criticism as a group of truthers (descriptive!) it allows you dismiss their comments whether they are valid or not without challenging their criticisms.

Maybe those criticisms are more valid than you think or would care to admit. Some of those criticisms come from those who you can't label as truthers even in a descriptive term, unless by truthers you are describing those who disagree with the official/bazants theory.

Dr.G wrote:I have looked at, (and sometimes commented on), many of the truther attacks on Bazant's work and I am sorry to say I am not convinced by such criticisms.

While I agree, there may have been many attacks on his work, there are also plenty of valid criticisms.

Dr.G wrote:Many of these attacks are nit-picking diatribes directed at details of Bazant's model - details of the collapse mechanism such as mass-shedding that are not fatal to the model's key prediction of no collapse arrest.

Well this is undoubtedly not the case.

I wouldn't call Hewia criticism of Bazants paper as nit picking, I would call it a MAJOR FLAW in his theory.

Dr.G wrote:This is why I would claim that Bazant's work on the collpase of WTC 1 & 2 is "definitive" because it remains essentially unchallenged by serious engineers and scientists.

By serious engineers and scientists, you mean the ones who are not truthers....in the descriptive sense? lol

Mark Alan Sauer is not a member of the truth movement and just recently he demonstrated a problem with Bazants theory, by unchallenged does this mean ignoring anything which challenges it?

Dr.G wrote: And I stand by my claim that the only real way to refute Bazant's work on 9/11 is to present a better alternative theory. Until this is done, all bets are off ....

Well that is not very skeptical is it....more Pseudoskeptical

If this is truly the case, then there is no point in you or anyone else continuing to research WTC2, because the only way to refute NIST work on WTC is to present a better alternative theory.....

Until that is done, all bets are off....

Dr.G wrote:As for NIST's Final Report on WTC 7, I have to admit that, to date, no alternative theory has been forthcoming from the engineering and scientific community. Thus NIST's Final Report is, I suppose, "definitive" too, (especially in the mind of NIST's scientists!), but let's give researchers some time because the Final Report is still "hot off the press" so to speak. Certainly some concerned citizens, including some scientists I know, are working on alternative theories for WTC 7 - including CD - but we are yet to reach a definitive conclusion - yup, there's that word again!

We all need more time and lots of patience ......

You see I would not call it definitive seeing as it nothing of a sort. There is nothing definitive about the NIST report and a single column failing which causes free fall for x amount of seconds.

What we are witnessing is what NIST was paid to do, deception by ambiguity and all this leave us with is a load of dots and left to our own devices to create our own pictures and argue about what it is or isn't.

I'm glad to hear you and others are working on alternative theories whether they are CD or not and although WTC 7 report is hot off the press, the same cognitive arguments as to why a CD theory is not possible or viable will still be there to hinder our understanding in another 7 years time.

What I am trying to say Dr.G is that what I think are your reasons for not looking into the possibility of a CD theory is nothing to do with evidence as such, but cognitive for reasons which are not clear.

Let me explain, even if we get to the bottom of the WTC collapses and NIST are correct, it still doesn't disprove a conspiracy as it is much larger than the WTC collapses. I'm not sure on your opinions on other 9/11 theories but I'm guessing that you think they are as bunk as the criticisms from those truthers..(descriptive)

If so, then it will go a long way to explaining your dogmatic approach into the subject of the WTC collapse by working with 1 competing theory over the other.

If on the other hand you believe in the possibility of a conspiracy because there is evidence which suggests it, enough to warrant further investigation, then I do not believe you would be so alien and hostile to alternative theories like a CD when it comes to the collapses.

Of course, I understand that you do not have to present a better theory for you or anyone else disprove NIST theory, anyone is free criticise the NIST reports providing they have merit. Your criticisms certainly have the same merits as those critics of Bazants paper, so therefore until those criticisms are addressed, NIST theory is likely to be as wrong and it is no different to Bazant theory.

As always I look forward to your views....

Stundie,

I have to concur with Dr G. on the above issues. The simplifications, limitations and errors of the refined Bazant model are not significant in terms of the outcome of collapse progression. I believe the single largest error is the collapse time (which is grossly underestimated) and when corrected gives them even more room for error.

Nonetheless, the BLGB paper does not deal with initiation, which is the key unsolved issue in my mind. On this issue we have only NIST's model and analysis. The issues with this analysis are many, but in my mind, the effect of errors or simplifications cancel each other out. I don't remember if we have an "initiation" thread, but it would be a useful topic to revisit. Most important, I think, is that the load distribution between the core and perimeter, which when corrected may not have required tweaking the model. This, especially in combination with bending of the entire structure (associated with the initial impact as predicted by NIST's impact model) seems to outweigh any errors in the removal of fire proofing or tweaking of the model.

I believe I can address each of the anomalies, at least with regard to WTC1 + 2, in such a way that an alternative explanation to CD has an equal or higher probability. I suggest starting a thread in the WTC1 + 2 subforum to deal with the anomalies. I had started addressing these on the STJ911 forum, but the moderator there and many of the posters were very hostile to anyone wanting to address them in any depth, especially because they are all expainable without CD.

/Greg

I must say I strongly disagree with the sentiments expressed here about the Bazant papers. Even if we put aside the problem of initiation and how all the perimeter and core columns apparently give way simultaneously (especially interesting in light of S. Shyam Sunder's comments in the NOVA slide show that the perimeter "inwardly bowed columns snapped back and out" before the upper block fell down), the major problem is the assumption that "energy is dissipated only at the crushing front".

First of all, this flies in the face of common sense: I challenge you to take a sledgehammer to any vertically uniform object and restrict the damage to, say, the top 3%. Secondly, the WTC had a support structure - the perimeter columns and core - that was designed to resist a vertical force (gravity) so the bottom structure must be treated as a whole, it cannot be split into floors acting independent of each other, all the parts are interconnected.

OK, so maybe my sledgehammer analogy is bad because it "doesn't scale", maybe the bolts and welds holding the columns together fail as soon as a kink/angle is introduced. But if this assumption is to form the basis of a serious model, then a hell of a lot more legwork in the form of scale models, or FEA modeling should be done to back the assumption. All Bazant has done is say that this assumption is "reasonable" - not good enough!

I've mentioned this before in the jref and physorg forums, and I was hoping by now some university or research group would have produced some simple FEA models of a "floor by floor" total progressive collapse that we could discuss, instead of poking around in the dark with an unproven mathematical model. To say the model is "definitive" is quite a stretch in my view!

Also interesting to note is that NIST in their 2nd (12/2007) WTC faq posted an answer to the question "Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?" which does not refer to the Bazant papers, or method, at all. Instead they provide a simplistic calculation based on truss seat connection load capacities (which to me is utter nonsense, but nobody seems to have picked up on it. Oh well...).

Hambone wrote:Stundie,

I have to concur with Dr G. on the above issues.

The simplifications, limitations and errors of the refined Bazant model are not significant in terms of the outcome of collapse progression. I believe the single largest error is the collapse time (which is grossly underestimated) and when corrected gives them even more room for error.

Nonetheless, the BLGB paper does not deal with initiation, which is the key unsolved issue in my mind. On this issue we have only NIST's model and analysis. The issues with this analysis are many, but in my mind, the effect of errors or simplifications cancel each other out. I don't remember if we have an "initiation" thread, but it would be a useful topic to revisit. Most important, I think, is that the load distribution between the core and perimeter, which when corrected may not have required tweaking the model. This, especially in combination with bending of the entire structure (associated O with the initial impact as predicted by NIST's impact model) seems to outweigh any errors in the removal of fire proofing or tweaking of the model.

Hi Greg,

That is fair enough and as I've stated, I'm not here to argue the merits of Bazants paper as most of it will fly above my head, so I'll leave that to all of you in the know for now. I think I'm being misunderstood here so I'll try and elaborate a little....

I profoundly admire your forum Greg, its a place of tranquillity and peace without the cheerleading of other forums. I'm sure most members would agree with me that this is one of the best 9/11 forums around. You should be proud of making this forums safe haven for critical thinking and it's quite liberating, in that there should be no offence in discussing our thoughts and theories regarding 9/11 whether we agree or not. Being able to discuss topics knowing that if you are respectful as most of us are naturally, that the same respect will shown back to you makes this place what it is, even if it is a little quiet. While that is no bad thing, I hope that your forum continues to grow with like minded individuals who realise that thoughts don't really hurt any one, so there is no need for anger or attacks.

I'm not here to argue whether Bazants theory is right or wrong as such for the simple reason you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe, for our own different reasons.

What I am arguing for is MORE skepticism.

So let us be honest with ourselves because we can.......

I think we can safely agree that one of the key questions the NIST were tasked with doing, they never did. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here years later trying to understand and explain why and how the towers actually collapsed. NIST did some great work, but even some of the most vocal NISTIAN knows they do some poor work. I also think we pretty much agree that NIST don't always connect the dots.

There are many reasons we could speculate as to why NIST didn't do what they were suppose to, like the fact they didn't have enough metal to look at or their budget and time constraints. So from the start, we have to consider that NIST they didn't have the tools for the job so to speak, therefore we can't assert they got everything correct because they clearly didn't, we can't assert they got everything wrong either because they clearly didn't.

Sounds confusing huh? Well that is how true skepticism work! NIST could be possibly be right and NIST could be possibly wrong.

I personally believe that NIST could be more wrong than right in their conclusion, others will naturally believe otherwise, disagree and believe that NIST could more right than wrong to the same or varying degrees. Thankfully, we are all rational people here and not as extreme as some debunker or conspiracy theorists are and would never conclude than anything in NIST was 100% true or even 100% false.

Which brings me on to Bazants theory which initially was created 2 days after the attacks. There is a fundamental flaw before he has even started, it would be like trying to guess who the murder is by looking at CCTV footage, because that is all Bazant had to work at that time. Now when NIST was released, Bazant no doubt looked at NIST and used their findings, data figures and his expertise to refine his model and created his latest version. This is not a criticism of Bazant or even his model but again, being a skeptic he could be right or he could be wrong but:-

If NIST are right, then Bazant theory as an increased chance of being correct.
If NIST are wrong, then Bazant theory as an increased chance of being wrong.

More importantly even if we assume that NIST are right, it still doesn't make Bazants paper correct because his paper is based on it's own merits, just like NIST's work.

After listening to the arguments from both sides over the years, I do not see defenders of the official theories both NIST and Bazant address the points raised, not in any technical or laymans terms. I think people like Gordon Ross, Hewia, Alan Mark Sauer and others make some very valid and critical arguments against Bazants/NIST theory which I feel from a laymans point these views need addressing.

I don't know much about science, but from my understand, if there are reasons to doubt a theory, then the theory is highly unlikely to be possible. Doesn't mean it is wrong, just not likely.

Until these points are addressed, then I have to object to the perception that Bazants model is the "definitive" one as in correct/most likely true theory. Dr.G calls their criticisms nit picking and you might agree, but I have to challenge it for it goes against a fundamental rule of skepticism by denying opponents claims rather than doubting them and the double standard in the application of criticisms, if his own criticisms of WTC 7 report are valid enough to doubt NIST claims seeing as they have no answer to Dr.G criticisms, then others criticisms which have not been answered are just as valid to doubt Bazants claims.

No other alternatives theories have ever been truly explored with the exception Jones and Wood but lets not go down the Woods Road but by comparison, they have barely been touched. Demolitions theory are dismissed pretty much before they have been mentioned or even viewed. The reason for this is because no amount of time, or effort, money and research as ever been consider into looking into alternative theories.

Face it, most people switch off as soon as they hear word conspiracy theory especially when followed by the immortal words of controlled demolition. I know I did when 1st heard them because they sounded stupid, preposterous and even impossible, considering the high unplausibility of doing such a thing, it's horrifying to think about it. How could they do such a evil thing? How could we think such a evil thing?

We know that explosives were never tested for, so how does that make a demolition theory less viable or even deserving of less attention when it hasn't been ruled out? Dr.G as his AP theory which I have read and it sound like quite a plausible theory on face value yet I haven't seen much work going to improving that theory. Why not? Isn't this what skepticism is about and science about testing new ideass?

I'm not criticising Dr.G but I'm guessing it is because he personally believes they are not needed as Bazant/NIST do a great job and probably explains it the best, yet that could biasing his view on alternative theories?

And we have to look at the probability that Bazant could be wrong, hence the skepticism. Personal beliefs have to be put aside when looking at any theory, even if we accept that NIST and Bazant are the bee knees! So at what point do you take a further look because I think its time we started seriously looking at the alternative theories as the reasons for not looking for them are not logical reason, but psychological reasons or should I say excuses. Although to be honest, I think WTC 7 will certainly open more eyes...

If being a skeptic suggests that nothing is 100% right or wrong, then why not look at alternative theories? I honestly believe that if the same time and effort was into working on alternative theories as was with the official theory, we would have a better model. A crazy thought ain't it!

The reasons I believe this is because a demolition theory doesn't ignore evidence which official accounts do. Yet it's never been seriously looked, with nowhere near as much time or effort spent at looking into possibility that an alternative theory might be a better model.

That is not skepticism in any way shape or form.

What disappoints me the most is that because of the stigma associated with thinking about the possibility that it was controlled demolition or should I say thinking critically, is that people are almost to afraid to think about let alone talk about them without abuse no matter which position no matter which side your bread is buttered so to speak. I find it both hilarious and sad to think that by asking question about 9/11 can cause so much harm, where even thought experiments with people on a forum is considered taboo or too twoofy in what is suppose to be a free world! I understand that there are emotional ties to the events of 9/11, but if we are to understand what happened that day, then we need to put our emotions aside and more importantly our beliefs. We have to think critically and even if that means adventuring our minds and thoughts into the absurd demolition crap. If that is what the evidence tells us or implies then it's can't be that absurd.

Ignoring things which show us to be wrong as strangely crossed over into what passes for so called critical thinking. The burden of proof is on the government yet people are still blinded by this fact and think it is up to others to come up with better theories, but when other theories won't even be considered or even entertained because of our beliefs, it is self defeating. A prime example of this foolishness is that Osama planned 9/11, even though there is no evidence for it, yet people still believe it even though the government as not proven his guilt.

Hambone wrote:I believe I can address each of the anomalies, at least with regard to WTC1 + 2, in such a way that an alternative explanation to CD has an equal or higher probability. I suggest starting a thread in the WTC1 + 2 subforum to deal with the anomalies. I had started addressing these on the STJ911 forum, but the moderator there and many of the posters were very hostile to anyone wanting to address them in any depth, especially because they are all expainable without CD.

/Greg

Everything is explainable, as a skeptics, it is a golden rule.

To be honest Greg, I would rather us just look into the demolition hypothesis for the simple reason we have been looking at the official hypothesis for far too long. I'm open to the possibility that the official story does explain the anomalies, but what I struggle to understand how investigators who were there examining the WTC couldn't explain it and were scratching their heads to find a plausible and explainable theory for the anomalies.

It might be a good to open up official theory vs alternative theory thread to test it out our ideas, as this might give us a greater platform to build a model that doesn't ignore the evidence.

Sorry for the long post, but I wish others could be more open and understanding to other ideas and possibilities. We would all be much further along in understanding the events of 9/11.

This forum as many great, clever, smart and wise people and I think it would be a shame for those to not step into the woo so to speak for a while and use the platform you have created to testing out alternative ideas in the peace and harmony that is your forum.

A laughing dog free zone! I had better not tempt fate! lol

Cheers

Stundie

This is a bit off topic, but


Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1. Wang, M; Chang, P; Quintiere, J, et al. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities.

A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. Quintiere, JG; di Marzo, M; Becker, R. Fire Safety Journal.

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I. Irfanoglu, A; Hoffmann, CM. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities.

The role of metallurgy in the NIST investigation of the world trade center towers collapse. Banovic, SW; Foecke, T; Luecke, WE, et al. Journal of Mechanics.

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Banovic, S.W; Siewert, T.A. Welding Journal.

Mechanics of the WTC collapse. Cherepanov, G.P. International Journal of Fracture.

Progressive collapse of towers: The resistance effect. Cherepanov, G.P; Esparragoza, I.E International Journal of Fracture.

Impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft into the World Trade Center. Karim, M.R; Fatt, MSH. Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Structural responses of world trade center under aircraft attacks. Omika, Y; Fukuzawa, E; Koshika, N, et al. Journal of Structural Engineering.

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers. Gayle, FW; Banovic, SW; Foecke, T, et al. Advanced Materials and Processes.

How did the WTC towers collapse: a new theory. Usmani, AS; Chung, YC; Torero, JL. Fire Safety Journal.

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis. Seffen, K. A. Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Why did the World Trade Center collapse? - Simple analysis. Bazant, ZP; Zhou, Y. Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center. Wierzbicki, T; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering.

Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation. Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C., Journal of Mechanics.

Dissecting the Collapses. Civil Engineering ASCE.

Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers. Clifton, Charles G., HERA: Innovation in Metals.

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S. Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes.

WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. Engineering News Record.

World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations. Monahan, B., Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction.

Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers: What caused it and what didn't. Bazant, ZP; Benson, D; Greening, F; Le, J.

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions. Bazant, ZP; Verdure, M.

"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" Marechaux, T.G. JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Abboud, N., M. Levy, D. Tennant, J. Mould, H. Levine, S. King, C. Ekwueme, A. Jain, G. Hart. (2003) Anatomy of a Disaster: A Structural Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapses. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 360-370

Beyler, C., D. White, M. Peatross, J. Trellis, S. Li, A. Luers, D. Hopkins. (2003) Analysis of the Thermal Exposure in the Impact Areas of the World Trade Center Terrorist Attacks. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 371-382

Thater, G. G.; Panariello, G. F.; Cuoco, D. A. (2003) World Trade Center Disaster: Damage/Debris Assessment In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 383-392



Just ran across this. I wish I could credit the original source for this list but I don't have that information. I believe it came from someone on JREF.

stundie wrote:To be honest Greg, I would rather us just look into the demolition hypothesis for the simple reason we have been looking at the official hypothesis for far too long. I'm open to the possibility that the official story does explain the anomalies, but what I struggle to understand how investigators who were there examining the WTC couldn't explain it and were scratching their heads to find a plausible and explainable theory for the anomalies.

It might be a good to open up official theory vs alternative theory thread to test it out our ideas, as this might give us a greater platform to build a model that doesn't ignore the evidence.

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I am a member of STJ911 and was a member of AE911Truth until a few days ago when I resigned my membership. I have been open to considering CD from day 1. Influenced by the truth movement's propaganda machine I started out suspecting that the WTC1 and 2 towers were CD and proceded to try and prove it. What I discovered was that Ross and Kuttler were just plain wrong and that no matter how much you refine the Bazant model the result is collapse progression (even using the elasticity of the entire structure).

Here are some issues I have looked into in some depth regarding WTC1 and 2:

1. Mass and PE of WTC1
2. Load capacity and distribution (core/perimeter) in WTC1
3. Errors in Ross' analysis
4. Errors in Kuttlers analysis
5. Amount of dust
6. Amount of debris shedding
7. Video/sound analysis of WTC1 and 2 collapses (no explosions!)
8. Refining Bazant's analysis
9. Examination of AE911Truth's claims of CD
10. Column buckling energies and failure mode
11. Structural damage due to impact
12. Damage to fire proofing due to impact
13. Crush-down/crush-up video analysis
14. Analysis of collapse times and implications
15. Bones found of the roof of the Deutsche Bank building
16. Tilting of the top
17. Errors and pure fantasy in Heiwa's analysis
18. Structural weakening due to fire
19. Collapse initiation

and about 50 other more minor issues.

I'm not saying all this work makes me correct in my opinion that WTC1 and 2 collapsed due to airplane impact and fire. However, no one can say that I haven't given the CD hypothesis a fair chance. I would be glad to walk through the CD hypothesis step by step but I will require that the discussion is structured and that we focus on one issue at a time as well as establishing dependencies.

I will eventually move these off topic posts to another thread. Sorry about the digression.

OneWhiteEye wrote:This is a bit off topic, but...

LOL!!! Thanks for the references.

I will eventually move these off topic posts to another thread. Sorry about the digression.

Many good posts here. I'd hate to lose them.

This thread can be a listing of all the known papers in one place and general discussions of some of them.

OWE, thanks for the list.




The next paper to look at naturally follows from the first, the BLGB paper linked below

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf


Of all the academic papers this is probably my favorite.


A quick review:

The paper begins by boldly stating:

Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain
the overall collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. However, it remains to be checked
whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis
proves that they do not.

The rest of the paper deals with features of WTC 1 and 2, while treating what we all probably find as the single greatest structural mystery of 9-11, WTC 7, as if it didn't exist.


End of review.



Does BLGB prove that the allegations of CD on 9-11 have no merit by focusing on:

1) Comparing collapse duration with the seismic record
2) Discussing energy needed to pulverize concrete, displace air and buckle columns as compared to the energy available to destroy the towers.
3) Considering air ejected from WTC 1 and 2


????????????????

I suspect CD because of WTC 7.

I am very suspicious of collapse initiation in WTC 1 and 2 because WTC 7 fell in such an odd way just across the street.

My guess is that millions of other people are suspicious too because of the way WTC 7 fell.

This is the real "alarm bell" for many people.


I bet these authors are pretty smart fellows. How can they ignore the main reason millions of people suspect CD and just address secondary issues of their own choosing?

How can they claim they "prove" there was no CD?

A pretty silly way to discredit an otherwise decent paper.


A note to Dr G and DBB: I enjoy reading your posts and I mean no disrespect. We cannot study WTC 1 as if it fell in a test-tube. It happened within an environment of questionable events, the most extreme of which was the fall of WTC 7 just across the street.

I suspect you will never be able to understand why so many people are suspicious of WTC 1 and 2 while not recognizing the chief reason for this suspicion: WTC 7.

Note to OWE on the WTC 7 comments posted before: Deep stuff. Too deep to respond in this thread. It deserves it's own thread.

Hambone listed:

1. Mass and PE of WTC1
2. Load capacity and distribution (core/perimeter) in WTC1
3. Errors in Ross' analysis
4. Errors in Kuttlers analysis
5. Amount of dust
6. Amount of debris shedding
7. Video/sound analysis of WTC1 and 2 collapses (no explosions!)
8. Refining Bazant's analysis
9. Examination of AE911Truth's claims of CD
10. Column buckling energies and failure mode
11. Structural damage due to impact
12. Damage to fire proofing due to impact
13. Crush-down/crush-up video analysis
14. Analysis of collapse times and implications
15. Bones found of the roof of the Deutsche Bank building
16. Tilting of the top
17. Errors and pure fantasy in Heiwa's analysis
18. Structural weakening due to fire
19. Collapse initiation

Hambone, Is most of this info you've uncovered available only through forums?

I am trying to get as much of this info as possible collected in a readable form for others, expecially a point by point refutation of the AE demo arguments.

Forums scatter the info too much so that others cannot read it in the future.

Any info and links you can provide of these topics or others in a more readable form would be appreciated.

Major_Tom:

Any single paper on 9/11 will always have serious limitations. I would love to write the perfect and complete analysis of the collapse of 1, 2 & 7 but these events were obviously so complex that no single scientific analysis could ever possibly sort everything out, ..... especially when so much information is unknown and forever unavailable.

In my own 9/11 research I have always tried to address issues that control the overall physics of the collapse events. This neccessitates setting aside many local physical phenomena, but its the overall energy balance that counts. That's my approach, and that's all I offer ......

Major_Tom wrote:Hambone listed:

1. Mass and PE of WTC1
2. Load capacity and distribution (core/perimeter) in WTC1
3. Errors in Ross' analysis
4. Errors in Kuttlers analysis
5. Amount of dust
6. Amount of debris shedding
7. Video/sound analysis of WTC1 and 2 collapses (no explosions!)
8. Refining Bazant's analysis
9. Examination of AE911Truth's claims of CD
10. Column buckling energies and failure mode
11. Structural damage due to impact
12. Damage to fire proofing due to impact
13. Crush-down/crush-up video analysis
14. Analysis of collapse times and implications
15. Bones found of the roof of the Deutsche Bank building
16. Tilting of the top
17. Errors and pure fantasy in Heiwa's analysis
18. Structural weakening due to fire
19. Collapse initiation

Hambone, Is most of this info you've uncovered available only through forums?

I am trying to get as much of this info as possible collected in a readable form for others, expecially a point by point refutation of the AE demo arguments.

Forums scatter the info too much so that others cannot read it in the future.

Any info and links you can provide of these topics or others in a more readable form would be appreciated.

I just got booted from STJ911 so I can't collect that work. You know it would be easy to register as a sock puppet just to collect stuff. Just make sure you have a different IP. I personally don't have the energy at this point. Or maybe metamars can collect sone stuff...

In my own 9/11 research I have always tried to address issues that control the overall physics of the collapse events.

There were 3 collapse events on 9-11-01.

By far the most peculiar event was WTC 7.

Concerning the overall physics, for WTC 7 it is fairly strange no matter how you look at it.

For WTC 1 or 2, a demolition involving only 3 to 6 floors which intentionally "drops" a top portion onto the lower portion would produce the exact same collapse progression physics as would a natural fall.

Would it be possible for someone who looks at the overall physics of the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 to know whether they were CDed over the initiation area or fell naturally through the physics of collapse progression?

No. Both cases yield the same results.


If WTC 7 didn't fall the way it did, I would agree that there is not enough information available to determine whether WTC 1 and 2 were demoed at present.

I would love to write the perfect and complete analysis of the collapse of 1, 2 & 7 but these events were obviously so complex that no single scientific analysis could ever possibly sort everything out, ..... especially when so much information is unknown and forever unavailable.

As for the overall physics, WTC 7 makes no sense whatsoever.


The BGLB paper claims to debunk demolition on 9-11 -01 from the first sentences of the paper.

It mostly studies aspects of collapse progression of WTC 1 and 2 and doesn't mention WTC 7.




I don't want to show any disrespect towards you. I think you understand the point I was making. The claim of providing "proof " that no CD took place on 9-11 while ignoring WTC 7 is a bit silly.