Remembering 9/11

[Promo]

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

As I've said before. your problem is with UNDERSTANDING what you read. I stated your sight is not "fact-checked, peer-reviewed, moderated or in any other way more credible than any other site". People can post whatever they want. again - Many of the articles support the official story. And the wack-job conspiracy theorists like yourself post the crap articles.

 

[basketcase]

I know you're MO is to attack the messenger ...

As opposed to your MO of insults and ignoring everything people post?

 

[fuji]

Eznutz, at this point you have proven to everyone that you are dishonest, and you have failed to defend even a single point. Your just keep trying to spam us with more of your garbage as if anytime is going to believe something you post.

All you are doing is harming your own credibility now

 

[basketcase]

...
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.

But doing that would be almost scientific. He and super just have faith that somehow, someway the government did it. At least super admitted he bases his belief simply on faith that the government is evil.

 

[basketcase]

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.

...

So there was an even greater number of people who not only have hidden the 'truth' but in fact knew about it in advance?

 

[eznutz]

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

A federal judge on Thursday rejected developer Larry Silverstein's bid to recover billions of dollars from two airlines whose planes were used in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a significant setback in his nearly decadelong fight for more money to rebuild the World Trade Center.

After a four-day bench trial in Lower Manhattan this week, U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that an investment group led by Mr. Silverstein had already received all the compensation for which it is eligible: the $4.1 billion paid by property insurers in 2004.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323993804578614292502152144

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.

Yes, I meant 767. but the 707 and 767 were close to the same dimensions.
The 767 is only 10' wide x 6' long x 12' high larger, carried the same fuel and was travelling slower than the building was designed for.

 

[basketcase]

Szuladzinski wrote both papers,...

And the latest one is based around the official story, not fantastical thermite/explosives/cruise missiles/nukes/alien theories.

 

[eznutz]

Eznutz, at this point you have proven to everyone that you are dishonest, and you have failed to defend even a single point. Your just keep trying to spam us with more of your garbage as if anytime is going to believe something you post.

All you are doing is harming your own credibility now

You haven't contributed anything and you don't even care Bazant & NIST used fraudulent math which makes you just as complicit for being so gullible.

 

[basketcase]

You haven't contributed anything and you don't even care Bazant & NIST used fraudulent math which makes you just as complicit for being so gullible.

Definition from the enutz dictionary:

Fraudulent - Any evidence that does not fit his faith in a government conspiracy.

 

[eznutz]

And the latest one is based around the official story, not fantastical thermite/explosives/cruise missiles/nukes/alien theories.

This his is latest paper, it's not based on the official story. it actually proves the building couldn't have fallen and does so by calling out the mistakes in Bazants math.

Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis
http://prs.sagepub.com/content/4/2/117.abstract

 

[Promo]

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.

Are you an idiot? I have not yet even commented on the accuracy or validity of the NIST or Bazant reports, nor do any of my explanations and quoted sources have anything to do with NIST or Bazant data -- please stop the lies.

You seem very focused on Bazant's first report. It's commonly accepted he rushed the first report (it came out 2 days after the attack) in an effort to be the 1st person to publish - in hindsight, that wasn't a smart thing to do. He released 2 revisions with updated assumptions and figures that both more accurately reflects the rate of fall (among other key original criticisms) and supports the empirical evidence. I haven't studied the Szuladzinski report, but the abstract and conclusion are clear that the report is focused on pointing-out the first Bazant report's incorrect assumptions/figures, which is fine and just. More important, Szuladzinski doesn't try to explain why the towers fell and he certainly doesn't offer support to any of your conspiracy theories.

Can you show me a Szuladzinski report where he rebuts Bazant's updated 2nd and 3rd report? I believe Bazant has 4-5 papers in total published on the WTC event.

Last point Szuladzinski's other paper largely supports the official explanation.

As far as the WTC7 sample, it was collected by FEMA within days of attack and was easily accessible.

You are wrong on this point. But it doesn't matter, there are multiple perfectly reasonable explanations as to what could have happened to the metal.

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.

I'm stating you don't UNDERSTAND what you read and I'm stating you are foolishly ignoring all the reasonable explanations in favour of your whacko theories.

 

[eznutz]

As I've said before. your problem is with UNDERSTANDING what you read. I stated your sight is not "fact-checked, peer-reviewed, moderated or in any other way more credible than any other site". People can post whatever they want. again - Many of the articles support the official story. And the wack-job conspiracy theorists like yourself post the crap articles.

I understanding exactly what I read and can even do my own calculations to confirm what I'm reading using NIST's own published data.

Here's brief extract from Szuladzinski's 2013 paper, tell me if you understand what he is implying (I even posted the references so you know who's papers he's referencing.

The main paper proposing the PCF mode [2] had several discussers involved. The closure
of the discussion [15] pointed out a few flaws that crept into the competing analysis [3],
although these flaws had no adverse effects on the results. The defense of the analysis
presented in [2], on the other hand, was essentially relying on ignoring the arguments to the
contrary. The gross underestimate of the energy absorption capacity of the squashed column
that resulted is named here as the fatal mistake No.1.

From the above assumption Bazant concluded that after the initiation of failure of the
critical story, the columns in that squashed story offered only negligible resistance. That led
to the assumption that the upper part of the building, above that story, would be in a free fall
until a complete flattening of that story. At the end of the critical story squash the free-drop
velocity is over 8.5 m/s, resulting in a destructive impact. This in turn culminated in [2] as a
conclusion of a quick collapse of the entire edifice. We call this a “vanishing story
assumption” and refer to it as the fatal mistake No.2. (This free-fall assumption was not
openly stated, but there are numerous hints in [1, 2, 6] and [12] implying that it was used in
computational procedure.)

Conclusion:
A number of simple, transparent calculations of the North Tower collapse were presented in
[5] and the conclusion was that assuming even a modest resistance of columns during their
destruction would cause an unacceptably long collapse time. It is only when perfectly
frangible columns were adopted that the fall time was as low as 15.3 s. This removes the PCF
mode, as defined here, as a viable hypothesis of collapse.
Yet, the PCF achieved significant popularity, as based on [1] and [2], while the next work
[12] did not contribute anything new to the core of the subject. These papers, purporting to
explain the collapse, suffered from three fatal errors, as detailed above. Also, the whole
methodology was not justified. Some incredibly short fall times were quoted by the authors,
while all solutions were of a black-box type. The presentations in these papers are not a valid
description of what happened. The reasons for a smooth motion history and promptness of
collapse of the North Tower remain yet to be determined.


REFERENCES
[1] Bazant, Z.P. and Zhou, Y, “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis”. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, Vol.128, No.1, pp.2–6, January 2002.
[2] Bazant, Z.P. and Verdure, M., “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and
Building Demolitions”. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol.133, No.3, pp.308–319, March 2007.
[3] Szuladzinski, G. Discussion of “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and
Building Demolitions” by Z.P. Bazant and M. Verdure. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol.134,
No.10, Oct.2008, pp.913–915.
[5] Szuladzinski, G. “Temporal Considerations in Collapse of WTC Towers”.Int. J. Structural Engineering, Vol.
3, No. 3, Feb 2012, pp.189–207.
[6] Ja-Liang Le and Bazant, Z.P., “Why the Observed Motion History of World Trade Center Towers is Smooth”.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 137, No. 1, January 1, 2011, pg. 82–84.
[12] Bazant, Z.P., Le, J.-L., Greening, F.R., and Benson, D.B. (2008). “What did and did not cause collapse of
World Trade Center twin towers in New York?”. J. of Engrg. Mechanics ASCE 134 (10) 892–906.
[15] Bazant, Z.P. and Jia-Liang Le. Closure to “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade
Center and Building Demolitions” by Bazˇant, Z.P. and Verdure, M., Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
Vol.133, No.3, pp.308–319, October 2008.

I wonder why Bazant hasn't come out and defended his work, he's had 3 years.
The correct answer is he can't. He's been proven a fraud.

 

[Promo]

I understanding exactly what I read and can even do my own calculations to confirm what I'm reading using NIST's own published data.

I don't believe you. You haven't exhibited that you understand the material. I thought you said the NIST data was invalid?

I wonder why Bazant hasn't come out and defended his work, he's had 3 years.
The correct answer is he can't. He's been proven a fraud.

Or he doesn't believe he needs to. Same reason most people ignore FAST's criticisms and insults, it's not worth their effort.

Again: Szuladzinski doesn't try to explain why the towers fell and he certainly doesn't provide any support for any of your conspiracy theories. Szuladzinski is focused on a theoretical/mathematical model of the column collapse, there were allot of factors (many touched on in this tread) that resulted in the WTC collapse. This is a perfect example of theory vs practice. Theory isn't always right and needs to be refined.

Anyway, you haven't offered anything new or interesting in your last few dozen posts and I'm getting bored. Time to move-on i think. Just watching Trump's latest antics on the tube, now that's entertainment!

 

[fuji]

I understanding exactly what I read and can even do my own calculations to confirm what I'm reading using NIST's own published data.

Here's brief extract from Szuladzinski's 2013 paper, tell me if you understand what he is implying (I even posted the references so you know who's papers he's referencing.



I wonder why Bazant hasn't come out and defended his work, he's had 3 years.
The correct answer is he can't. He's been proven a fraud.

Why would he bother responding to bullshit in a fake journal?

 

[eznutz]

Why would he bother responding to bullshit in a fake journal?

Keep showing off your ignorance fugi, explain how this is a "fake" journal.
http://prs.sagepub.com/content/4/2/117.abstract

Since you're just not smart enough to understand the subject matter, maybe this video will help explain things to you.

Forensic Structural Engineer Dr. Leroy Hulsey presents the findings and conclusion of his WTC 7 Evaluation study to a panel of attorneys at the Justice in Focus 9/11 Symposium in New York on Sep 11, 2016. Using finite element modelling, Dr. Hulsey and his team found that the official explanation by NIST for the collapse of WTC 7, which is that ordinary office fires brought the building down, is wrong.
After his presentation, when asked by Public Interest Attorney Daniel Sheehan, "On a scale of 1 to 100, what is the possibility that WTC 7 could have collapsed simply because of fires?" Dr. Hulsey replied "Zero". He also said that if any of his Ph.D. students had submitted the explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 that NIST gave us, he would have failed them.

Are you to call Hulsey a crank as well, considering he's Chair of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at University Alaska Fairbanks and you obviously disagree with his conclusions.

 

[eznutz]

I don't believe you. You haven't exhibited that you understand the material. I thought you said the NIST data was invalid?

Bazant used his own inputs for his equations, he didn't use NIST's data for calculating the buildings mass.
e.g. he claims each floor only weighed 0.627 Mkg, but the mass (including live load) for a fully constructed floor is at least 2 Mkg.

Or he doesn't believe he needs to. Same reason most people ignore FAST's criticisms and insults, it's not worth their effort.

Again: Szuladzinski doesn't try to explain why the towers fell and he certainly doesn't provide any support for any of your conspiracy theories. Szuladzinski is focused on a theoretical/mathematical model of the column collapse, there were allot of factors (many touched on in this tread) that resulted in the WTC collapse. This is a perfect example of theory vs practice. Theory isn't always right and needs to be refined.

All the paper proves is that the official theory is dead in the water, I can tell you haven't bothered reading it past the abstract.

Buildings are designed against gravity and lateral loads. Column-and-slab structures are
not very efficient in resisting the second loading type, as the lateral forces cause differential
bending of columns. For this reason, much more material is used in designing columns than
would be needed for resisting gravity alone. When progressive collapse is considered, only
gravity is involved, which means that there is a large safety factor against purely
gravitational loads. This is the reason why a complete failure according to the PCF mode is
generally not a practical proposition. This is not to say that the mode could not occur during
a small part of the collapse, followed by an arrest.

 

[Bobzilla]

I'll never understand why 911 truthers always insist on using a mystery to explain away another mystery. In this case, the mystery explanation is a government conspiracy to explain away 911. Our entire history and progress is based on having mysteries explained by the application of the scientific method. This is the difference between diagnosing disease via bacteriology as opposed to blaming it on evil spirits.

I'm no scientist, but "Debunking 9/11 Myths" edited by David Dunbar & Brad Reagan states, "In addition, NIST estimated that it would take .13 pounds of thermite to heat a pound of a steel section to the necessary weakening point--which would require literally tons of thermite to cause the extensive column damage that Flight 175 wrought in WTC 2. That again brings up the challenges of wiring the tower clandestinely. As NIST described it, 'Many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unliely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.'"

This is a task that would have required huge amounts of manpower. No one has ever explained how the government (headed by Dubya, no less ) has been able to keep the hundreds of people (thousands including those who worked in the towers & might see something) quiet while they planted these explosives.

Particularly since 5 years earlier, the government couldn't even keep the fact that Clinton got a hummer from his aide from getting out. Lmao.

 

[SuperCharge]

Keep showing off your ignorance fugi, explain how this is a "fake" journal.
http://prs.sagepub.com/content/4/2/117.abstract

Since you're just not smart enough to understand the subject matter, maybe this video will help explain things to you.

Are you to call Hulsey a crank as well, considering he's Chair of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at University Alaska Fairbanks and you obviously disagree with his conclusions.

Yes EZ, I posted that video a few pages back and they said he was a crank as well, he want qualified enough apparently That's the problem you can debate anything because they continue to shoot the messenger and not comment on what is actually discussed. I guess it's easier for them to believe a bunch of unqualified guys with box cutters pulled this off lol

 

[italianguy74]

I'm no scientist, but "Debunking 9/11 Myths" edited by David Dunbar & Brad Reagan states, "In addition, NIST estimated that it would take .13 pounds of thermite to heat a pound of a steel section to the necessary weakening point--which would require literally tons of thermite to cause the extensive column damage that Flight 175 wrought in WTC 2. That again brings up the challenges of wiring the tower clandestinely. As NIST described it, 'Many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unliely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.'"

This is a task that would have required huge amounts of manpower. No one has ever explained how the government (headed by Dubya, no less ) has been able to keep the hundreds of people (thousands including those who worked in the towers & might see something) quiet while they planted these explosives.

I have already explaind and provided proven demonstrations how the thermite could be used to cut columns and or joints.
I also mentioned how a small crew of elevator service men could very easily rig both towers in a nine month time span. They were cleared to move in and out by security on a daily basis to work inside the shafts where the main support is accessible and out of plain view. Only several pounds of thermite to rig up only 1 or 2 floors a day can be easily accomplished in a nine month time span. Taking out the center support columns would be enough even without a full collapse to condemn the towers for demolition.

I also mentioned the One wtc tower was already planned for construction on that piece of real estate even though the twin towers still occupied the area.
The only way the towers could have been demolished was to remove all the asbestos or be dismantled which both would be astronomical in costs.

Rather than focus on how the towers came down, people should be looking at why the event took place. Who would have best interest for the buildings to be destroyed, a group of men living in the mountains of Afghanistan? Or the owner of the 3 specific structures with an insurance policy and plans to rebuild.

 

[italianguy74]