• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Europhysics news on the collapse of the world trade towers

Will Wiley

Veteran Member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
1,692
Location
Mincogan
Basic Beliefs
naturalist
It seems that theories of controlled demolition WRT to collapse of the world trade towers and building 7 will never go away. Europhysics News THE MAGAZINE OF THE EUROPEAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, even has a feature article on it in a recent issue.
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf

Conclusion
It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total
collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11.
Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate
times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which
attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade
a growing number of architects, engineers, and
scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly
to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed
by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications,
it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be
the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation
by responsible authorities

Without getting into emotions are they scientifically wrong?
 
The article's criticism of NIST's findings:
Instead, NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the
thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoining
girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder
then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor
failures, which, combined with the failure of two other
girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left
a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to
buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated
the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the
exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns
then allegedly buckled over a two-second period
and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3].
NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omitting
or misrepresenting critical structural features in its
computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these
errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably
impossible. Yet even with errors that were favorable to
its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model
(see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead
showing large deformations to the exterior that are not
observed in the videos and showing no period of free
fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation,
less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse.
Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be
independently verified because NIST has refused to release
a large portion of its modelling data on the basis
that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.”

Reference 4:
R. Brookman, A Discussion of ‘Analysis of Structural Responseof WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse,Journal of 9/11 Studies (October 2012).

Brookman's evidence that NIST misrepresented WTC 7 structural features is cherry-picking:
McAllister et al. 2008 shows the girder spanning between columns 44 and 79 at floor 13 lacked shear studs, and this agrees with Cantor (1985) structural drawing S-8 revision H. But a previous publication describing the fabrication and construction aspects of the Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 33, October, 2012 steel structure clearly shows 30 shear studs equally spaced along this girder at typical office floors including floor 13 (Salvarinas 1986)
Brookman does not explain why he considers Salvarinas to be accurate instead of Cantor.

Brookman also makes a claim about an incorrect assumption in NIST's analytical model, but his criticism is nothing more than "these stiffeners...obviously affect the bending characteristics of the girder bottom flange". Brookman doesn't provide any support for this claim, and since I'm not an expert I can't judge whether he is right that this point is in fact "obvious".
The analytical model for the seated-beam connection at column 79 (McAllister et al. 2008) doesnot account for the presence of stiffener plates as shown in fabrication drawing 9114 (FrankelSteel 1985b). This drawing illustrates ¾-inch (19 mm) thick partial-height web stiffeners weldedto the girder web and bottom flange directly over the bearing surface. Fillet welds connecting the Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 33, October, 2012stiffeners were adequate to transfer the vertical shear from the girder web to the stiffeners, and alateral displacement of 6.25 inches (159 mm) would not necessarily cause a loss of verticalsupport. The authors' assumption that the flexural stiffness of the girder bottom flange was"insufficient to transfer the gravity loads" is untenable. Why were these stiffeners omitted fromthe ANSYS connection model when they obviously affect the bending characteristics of thegirder bottom flange?Figure 2: Section View at F


Will Wiley said:
Without getting into emotions are they scientifically wrong?

Their criticisms of NIST's findings are extremely weak, and do not provide a convincing case for their conspiracy theory.
 
This person does not think much of the article: Jones & Company Beclown the Europhysics News.

Regarding the authors:

Dr. Steven Jones
Jones is also known for his association with 9/11 controversies.
Wikilink

Dr. Robert Korol is on the "review committee" of Beyond Misinformation, apparently a 911 paranoid conspiracy theory site.

Tony Szamboti is a 911 Blogger who doubts that planes brought down the towers.

Ted Walter is the director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

None of that makes them wrong, but it is pretty clear that they should not be considered dispassionate unbiased scientists here.

Peez
 
This is fine.

This is science. Publish papers and begin discussion, maybe, if anybody takes the paper seriously.

But of course no single paper ever tells us much and is never the final word on anything.
 
This person does not think much of the article: Jones & Company Beclown the Europhysics News.

Regarding the authors:

Dr. Steven Jones
Jones is also known for his association with 9/11 controversies.
Wikilink

Dr. Robert Korol is on the "review committee" of Beyond Misinformation, apparently a 911 paranoid conspiracy theory site.

Tony Szamboti is a 911 Blogger who doubts that planes brought down the towers.

Ted Walter is the director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

None of that makes them wrong, but it is pretty clear that they should not be considered dispassionate unbiased scientists here.

Peez

Your reasoning appears to be circular.
If they are right (and you did not disagree with their arguments), then they are dispassionate and unbiased.

You can't ask us to assume they are wrong in order to show they are biased
 
This person does not think much of the article: Jones & Company Beclown the Europhysics News.

Regarding the authors:

Dr. Steven Jones Wikilink

Dr. Robert Korol is on the "review committee" of Beyond Misinformation, apparently a 911 paranoid conspiracy theory site.

Tony Szamboti is a 911 Blogger who doubts that planes brought down the towers.

Ted Walter is the director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

None of that makes them wrong, but it is pretty clear that they should not be considered dispassionate unbiased scientists here.

Peez

Your reasoning appears to be circular.
If they are right (and you did not disagree with their arguments), then they are dispassionate and unbiased.

You can't ask us to assume they are wrong in order to show they are biased
No, whether or not they are right does not influence whether they are dispassionate and unbiased. Their history suggests that they are not dispassionate or unbiased, but that does not mean that they are wrong here (as I already pointed out). I did not ask you to assume that they are wrong, in fact I specifically stated "none of that makes them wrong".

Peez
 
My opinion

Given the far-reaching implications,
it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be
the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation
by responsible authorities
Without getting into emotions are they scientifically wrong?
Since I do not have time or ability to go examine all the evidence and individuals involved in the CRIME, I can only express my opinion that this was indeed a very serious crime and someone needs to be held accountable for all those that they MURDERED or those who are still suffering serious health complications to this day.
Just because it was such a well planned and executed crime doesn't make those, in our own government who pulled it all off, any less responsible just because they are somehow above the law.
I'd go with Dr. Judy Wood's opinions and examinations. A directed energy weapon was used there.
 
Given the far-reaching implications,
it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be
the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation
by responsible authorities
Without getting into emotions are they scientifically wrong?
Since I do not have time or ability to go examine all the evidence and individuals involved in the CRIME, I can only express my opinion that this was indeed a very serious crime and someone needs to be held accountable for all those that they MURDERED or those who are still suffering serious health complications to this day.
Just because it was such a well planned and executed crime doesn't make those, in our own government who pulled it all off, any less responsible just because they are somehow above the law.
I'd go with Dr. Judy Wood's opinions and examinations. A directed energy weapon was used there.
Poe?
 
It seems that theories of controlled demolition WRT to collapse of the world trade towers and building 7 will never go away. Europhysics News THE MAGAZINE OF THE EUROPEAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, even has a feature article on it in a recent issue.
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf

Conclusion
It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total
collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11.
Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate
times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which
attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade
a growing number of architects, engineers, and
scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly
to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed
by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications,
it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be
the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation
by responsible authorities

Without getting into emotions are they scientifically wrong?
If nothing else, it is completely incorrect to suggest the buildings failed because of just fire.

Two of them had 737's collide with them and then explode inside of them. The third building suffered serious fire damage after it was seriously damaged by the two fallen towers.

More buildings that didn't collapse that day were no longer safe and had to be taken down due to damage sustained by the collapse of the two towers.

The idea that fire alone downed the buildings is complete and utter bullshit.
Aww said:
Also, the model terminates, without explanation,
less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse.
This is the best part of the argument. The model ends after two seconds. They seem to want to think the collapse with arrest itself, which is impossible after a block of 20+ floors starts falling. Such a comment betrays their intent and understanding of the structural engineering and physics behind the collapse.
 
Last edited:

Wow..was there a problem with the science?
This was moved to Pseudoscience but without any reason. I was hoping to see some science to refute it...

I have full confidence that the right move has been made, that there are people, special people, that understand true scientific articles from false ones with any need for evidence.
 

Wow..was there a problem with the science?
This was moved to Pseudoscience but without any reason. I was hoping to see some science to refute it...

I have full confidence that the right move has been made, that there are people, special people, that understand true scientific articles from false ones with any need for evidence.

Science is all about evidence.

You're talking about faith--a matter for religion, not science.
 
Two 747s fly into skyscrapers, and it's somehow impossible that they'd collapse. Conspiracy theorists are hysterical.
 
Wow..was there a problem with the science?
This was moved to Pseudoscience but without any reason. I was hoping to see some science to refute it...

I have full confidence that the right move has been made, that there are people, special people, that understand true scientific articles from false ones with any need for evidence.

Science is all about evidence.

You're talking about faith--a matter for religion, not science.

The article contains evidence, but I don't want to trouble you with pesky things like evidence Loren. Better you keep pretending and live in your evidence free fantasy worth, whether its with this or Israel and Palestine or...whatvever

- - - Updated - - -

Two 747s fly into skyscrapers, and it's somehow impossible that they'd collapse. Conspiracy theorists are hysterical.

Three buildings Came down not two.
 
Back
Top Bottom