Remembering 9/11

[eznutz]

The real Feds site is http://www.feds.ca/

The Feds are the body representing undergrad students at UW. Professors, grad students, and alumni have different associations. Had you attended there, you may know these things already.

I know that, the website I posted is the UW research group for 9/11, do think Feds hosts websites for every group at the school.
But if bothered to check the link you notice it posts papers from other scholars and promotes dialogue on the subject.
Unlike some people here (and other schools with AGW) UW doesn't shutdown debate on controversial subjects.
If you bothered to look at the evidence yourself and have a basic understanding of physics and mathematics, you would find the problems with Bazant's equation for yourself.
But since you and fugi are fixated on how this group couldn't possibly be associated with UW and comprised of UW students & professors, you demonstrate your ignorance to everybody here.

 

[benstt]

Unlike some people here (and other schools with AGW) UW doesn't shutdown debate on controversial subjects.
If you bothered to look at the evidence yourself and have a basic understanding of physics and mathematics, you would find the problems with Bazant's equation for yourself.
But since you and fugi are fixated on how this group couldn't possibly be associated with UW and comprised of UW students & professors, you demonstrate your ignorance to everybody here.

It is not affiliated to the school, nothing to shut down. Just adding reality to the discussion on the UW connection.

I'm not one to appeal to; I've looked at the evidence, I likely know more about math and physics than most here, and I think the conspiracy peddlers are either attention wannabees or fucking idiots.

 

[basketcase]

Chew on this



I rest my case

Why don't you chew on the study from your site that clearly supports the prevailing theory?

Or is it that the site isn't good any more?

 

[basketcase]

I never attributed the site to UW, I said it's made up of UW students, alumni & professors.
I went to the school and I understand the issues at hand, unlike you, basketcase, promo and others.

I believe the first part; you went to the school. No idea how long you went there but it is believable. Understand the issues at hand? Not a chance.

And yes, just like sop many other points, you tried to pretend that the site was a backed by the University and got caught. Instead of digging the hole deeper, just give up and move onto the next flight of fancy.

But if you like the site so much, how come you don't want to discuss the paper posted there? The only paper on structural analysis posted by the group in the last 5 years is Temporal considerations in collapse of WTC Towers and it clearly seems to support the prevailing though.
http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=47711

 

[basketcase]

...by your own admission there are elements that are still unanswered...

That is where scientific thought and faith diverge. Saying there are still unknowns is one thing. Science accepts that. Using unknowns as an excuse to invent an unsubstantiated series of events is simply faith. It's like the ancients not knowing why the sun moved across the sky and then inventing a bunch of gods to explain it. Believing in Apollo and being a truther are the same thing. If that's what you have faith then you are free to believe it so but don't think you can pretend it is backed by science.

 

[basketcase]

Keep on believing whatever you want to believe, UW stands behind all students, alumni & professors regardless of beliefs....

But they don't stand behind their beliefs. That's why your wordpress site explicitly states "We do not in any way represent or speak on behalf of the University of Waterloo."


p.s. It doesn't look like that student club is even active and hasn't been for several years. The most recent post was 2013.

 

[eznutz]

I believe the first part; you went to the school. No idea how long you went there but it is believable. Understand the issues at hand? Not a chance.

And yes, just like sop many other points, you tried to pretend that the site was a backed by the University and got caught. Instead of digging the hole deeper, just give up and move onto the next flight of fancy.

But if you like the site so much, how come you don't want to discuss the paper posted there? The only paper on structural analysis posted by the group in the last 5 years is Temporal considerations in collapse of WTC Towers and it clearly seems to support the prevailing though.
http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=47711

Szuladzinski wrote both papers, the latest one details how Bazant & Le assumed the inputs in their calculations, they didn't even bother using the building specs provided by NIST.

Just one example...

The authors’ second error is to use a value of Fy = 0.248 GN/m2 (36 ksi) for the yield stress of the columns
on the 97th story. This is incorrect, as thin-walled perimeter columns on the upper stories are reported by
NIST to be 55ksi – 100ksi (NCSTAR 1-6, p. 61, and NCSTAR 1-3B, Table 4-2, p. 52).

Bazant & Le have been caught red-handed using fictitious inputs for inertia resistance, column resistance & velocity curve. If you bother using their formula using actual NIST data, the paper conclusively proves the building could not have fallen the way they say it did. It's basic math & physics.

And yes, the UW 9/11 research group page hasn't been updated since 2013 when the last presentation was in town, scholars are now posting at http://stj911.org/blog/

 

[Promo]

You haven't answered a single one of my questions yet. Why is that?

Then explain how the sample FEMA tested was heated to 1800F, decreased in thickness and curled up around the edges.
office fires don't get that hot, not without help.

Q1) explain how the sample FEMA tested was heated to 1800F
You don't seem to understand, it's not so much about the temperature, but it's about the resultant phenomenon. The FEMA paper itself provided several reasonable possibilities: "It is possible that this a result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires."

I'll offer another: The sample you keep pointing to was was from WTC7 (no similar observations were found in the other 2 buildings - which I think is very telling in-of-itself). We already know that WTC7 was a sulphur poisoned environment (from diesel fuel, gypsum, aluminum), as the building was collapsing and the heat and pressures spiked, the steel section in question was liquified and the sulfur reaction accelerated. I've already provided proof that oxidation and sulfidation can occur at temperatures well below the fire temperature of the buildings.

Q2) decreased in thickness and curled up around the edges.
Again, the FEMA paper itself provided several reasonable possibilities: "The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel containing copper (the tested sample was high-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steel containing copper and the copper made the steel more susceptible to the phenomenon)" and "1) The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. 2) The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of steel."

I already provided proof that oxidation and sulfidation would have i) occurred naturally over time, ii) can be accelerated at temperatures at less than 1/2 of fire temperature in the towers and 3) would have been accelerated by the temperatures and pressures during the collapse and in the rubble pile.

You paranoid conspiracy types see words like "sulfidation attack", "hot corrosion attack". "unusual thinning" and you immediately conjure images of "gov't operatives" wearing dark sunglasses planting bombs on the WTC's structure. You choose to ignore the much more reasonable explanations, because they don't feed your need for believing everyone is out to lie to you and/or kill you.

I think at this point your theory has been thoroughly debunked. Time to move on.

 

[eznutz]

I know you're MO is to attack the messenger and never the message, but i posted the UW link because so people could see that scholars and academics are posting papers about the subject.
But since they put the disclaimer on the website, explaining the group is made up of students and professors who were allowed by the University to get together and host events at UW, this is enough to attack the group because the group wasn't part of official school associations and anything posted can't be trusted.

Here's the link for the journal that published Szuladzinski's 2013 paper, the same one fugi said only had 2 fake issues, tell me if all the papers published by the journal should be dismissed as well.
http://prs.sagepub.com/ (search his name, he's had 9 papers published)

 

[eznutz]

You haven't answered a single one of my questions yet. Why is that?



Q1) explain how the sample FEMA tested was heated to 1800F
You don't seem to understand, it's not so much about the temperature, but it's about the resultant phenomenon. The FEMA paper itself provided several reasonable possibilities: "It is possible that this a result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires."

I'll offer another: The sample you keep pointing to was was from WTC7 (no similar observations were found in the other 2 buildings - which I think is very telling in-of-itself). We already know that WTC7 was a sulphur poisoned environment (from diesel fuel, gypsum, aluminum), as the building was collapsing and the heat and pressures spiked, the steel section in question was liquified and the sulfur reaction accelerated. I've already provided proof that oxidation and sulfidation can occur at temperatures well below the fire temperature of the buildings.

Q2) decreased in thickness and curled up around the edges.
Again, the FEMA paper itself provided several reasonable possibilities: "The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel containing copper (the tested sample was high-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steel containing copper and the copper made the steel more susceptible to the phenomenon)" and "1) The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. 2) The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of steel."

I already provided proof that oxidation and sulfidation would have i) occurred naturally over time, ii) can be accelerated at temperatures at less than 1/2 of fire temperature in the towers and 3) would have been accelerated by the temperatures and pressures during the collapse and in the rubble pile.

You paranoid conspiracy types see words like "sulfidation attack", "hot corrosion attack". "unusual thinning" and you immediately conjure images of "gov't operatives" wearing dark sunglasses planting bombs on the WTC's structure. You choose to ignore the much more reasonable explanations, because they don't feed your need for believing everyone is out to lie to you and/or kill you.

I think at this point your theory has been thoroughly debunked. Time to move on.

Do you even know what eutectic mixture means?

By the way, I am talking about the WTC7 sample. Why are you using the results for the WTC1 sample as an argument?
Are you doing that deliberately, or are you that dense and can't think for yourself.

 

[Promo]

Not trying to be a dick either, by your own admission there are elements that are still unanswered like the flight recorder you just mentioned. So lets recap - We have money vanish (well documented) - okay it's just "bad accounting". 3 Skycrappers crumble to the ground leaving its mushroom cloud in its wake - "bad architecture" totally innocent shit happens. Bad plane tracking - totally innocent shit happens. I'm rational, shit happens, everyday -- sometimes big shit happens, but at some point, if the pile of shit has the shape of a huge middle finger, it must be allowed to wonder aloud if not maybe, systemic intent does not explain the phenomenon a little better than 'shit happens'.

You still haven't answered any of my questions. Why is that?

1) "We have money vanish (well documented)" <-- you haven't provided any proof of that yet. Italianguy's asbestos theory has already been debunked. The building owners had just spent a fortune on improvements and upgrades, the building was fully rented and making money. Are you now saying it was the building owners created 9/11, not the gov't/military/muslims?

2) "Skycrappers crumble to the ground leaving its mushroom cloud in its wake - "bad architecture" <-- no, no, no. WTC when designed and built was bleeding edge in many ways. The considered aircraft collisions, bombs, floods, fire and hurricanes. What eventually brought the towers down wasn't envisioned in the mid 1960 when the towers were designed.

3) "systemic intent does not explain the phenomenon a little better than 'shit happens'" <-- I don't know what that sentence is trying to say, but everything regarding 9/11 has been given a reasonable explanation. Conspiracy theorists haven't yet been able to provide hard proof - no documents, no physical examples of the explosives, none of the bad-guys have come forward. Nothing!

 

[Promo]

Do you even know what eutectic mixture means?

Absolutely I do - how about you show us you do by explaining it's relevance. Did you even read the report ....... sorry, did you even understand the report?

You point to the FEMA report as proof of your theory. Yet that very report provides reasonable and logical explanations debunking your theory.

All you've done in this thread is post URLs and demand the rest of us debunk them. You've not explained your position in your own words, you've not proven your claimed knowledge, experience or understanding of the subject matter at all, you've not tried proving any of our debunks wrong, you just keep yahooing.

 

[eznutz]

You still haven't answered any of my questions. Why is that?

1) "We have money vanish (well documented)" <-- you haven't provided any proof of that yet. Italianguy's asbestos theory has already been debunked. The building owners had just spent a fortune on improvements and upgrades, the building was fully rented and making money. Are you now saying it was the building owners created 9/11, not the gov't/military/muslims?

When did I say anything about money vanishing? Silverstein took out a $2 billion policy on the buildings (scoring $4 bilion because both towers fell) and others made millions shorting airline stocks.

2) "Skycrappers crumble to the ground leaving its mushroom cloud in its wake - "bad architecture" <-- no, no, no. WTC when designed and built was bleeding edge in many ways. The considered aircraft collisions, bombs, floods, fire and hurricanes. What eventually brought the towers down wasn't envisioned in the mid 1960 when the towers were designed.

Robertson & Skilling built the tower to withstand a 707 (Skilling said multiple). A 757 and 707 carry the same amount of fuel and the 707 has higher cruising speed.
And since Bazant has been shown to have used his on inputs in his collapse analysis, instead of NIST's own data, we know it was impossible for the buildings to fall on there own.

3) "systemic intent does not explain the phenomenon a little better than 'shit happens'" <-- I don't know what that sentence is trying to say, but everything regarding 9/11 has been given a reasonable explanation. Conspiracy theorists haven't yet been able to provide hard proof - no documents, no physical examples of the explosives, none of the bad-guys have come forward. Nothing!

I never said that, what drugs are you on?

 

[Promo]

but i posted the UW link because so people could see that scholars and academics are posting papers about the subject.
But since they put the disclaimer on the website, explaining the group is made up of students and professors who were allowed by the University to get together and host events at UW, this is enough to attack the group because the group wasn't part of official school associations and anything posted can't be trusted.

Why are you ignoring the fact that a great many of the articles on your trusted site fully support the official explanation for the WTC?

"scholars and academics" LOL! That site is no different than any other chat-type site. Any x-UW person can post anything they want. It's not fact-checked, peer-reviewed, moderated or in any other way more credible than any other site. People with a degree in basket weaving who did drugs for 3 years are free to post conspiracy theories.

 

[Promo]

When did I say anything about money vanishing? Silverstein took out a $2 billion policy on the buildings (scoring $4 bilion because both towers fell) and others made millions shorting airline stocks.



Robertson & Skilling built the tower to withstand a 707 (Skilling said multiple). A 757 and 707 carry the same amount of fuel and the 707 has higher cruising speed.
And since Bazant has been shown to have used his on inputs in his collapse analysis, instead of NIST's own data, we know it was impossible for the buildings to fall on there own.



I never said that, what drugs are you on?

How embarrassing for you. Did you look at who I was quoting?? i was responding to SuperCharge.

Going to apologize?

 

[eznutz]

Absolutely I do - how about you show us you do by explaining it's relevance. Did you even read the report ....... sorry, did you even understand the report?

You point to the FEMA report as proof of your theory. Yet that very report provides reasonable and logical explanations debunking your theory.

All you've done in this thread is post URLs and demand the rest of us debunk them. You've not explained your position in your own words, you've not proven your claimed knowledge, experience or understanding of the subject matter at all, you've not tried proving any of our debunks wrong, you just keep yahooing.

Your debunks are founded a false logic. You automatically believe the the theory put forward by NIST is correct and there is no way Bazant committed fraud.
But if you bother to review his math and compare with NIST's own data, you can see for yourself it was mathematically impossible for the buildings to fall.

As far as the WTC7 sample, it was collected by FEMA within days of attack and was easily accessible. It was't in a hot pile for months.
So if you know what a eutectic mixture is and that iron oxide and iron sulfide were in a eutectic mixture together, you still claim normal office fire caused that to happen.
Why do you think NIST ignored this metallurgical findings from their own reports.

 

[eznutz]

Why are you ignoring the fact that a great many of the articles on your trusted site fully support the official explanation for the WTC?

"scholars and academics" LOL! That site is no different than any other chat-type site. Any x-UW person can post anything they want. It's not fact-checked, peer-reviewed, moderated or in any other way more credible than any other site. People with a degree in basket weaving who did drugs for 3 years are free to post conspiracy theories.

So, the Journal of Protective Structures "is not fact-checked, peer-reviewed, moderated", because these are the papers
http://prs.sagepub.com/

 

[eznutz]

How embarrassing for you. Did you look at who I was quoting?? i was responding to SuperCharge.

Going to apologize?

Embarrassing indeed, I thought we were on a roll.

 

[Promo]

When did I say anything about money vanishing? Silverstein took out a $2 billion policy on the buildings (scoring $4 bilion because both towers fell) and others made millions shorting airline stocks.

According to wikipedia, your information is wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

Robertson & Skilling built the tower to withstand a 707 (Skilling said multiple). A 757 and 707 carry the same amount of fuel and the 707 has higher cruising speed.
....... we know it was impossible for the buildings to fall on there own.

I think you meant 767, the 757 hit the Pentagon. 707 is faster, the 767 is heavier. I said "They considered aircraft collisions, bombs, floods, fire and hurricanes. What eventually brought the towers down wasn't envisioned in the mid 1960 when the towers were designed."

We know it's possible, because it indeed happened.

 

[basketcase]

Szuladzinski wrote both papers, the latest one details how Bazant & Le assumed the inputs in their calculations, they didn't even bother using the building specs provided by NIST.

Just one example...



Bazant & Le have been caught red-handed using fictitious inputs for inertia resistance, column resistance & velocity curve. If you bother using their formula using actual NIST data, the paper conclusively proves the building could not have fallen the way they say it did. It's basic math & physics.

And yes, the UW 9/11 research group page hasn't been updated since 2013 when the last presentation was in town, scholars are now posting at http://stj911.org/blog/

Great. Another random blog.