Well known "debunkers" submitted a paper for peer review and publication to Journal of Engineering Mechanics
medfreak Sun, 06/03/2007 - 11:26am
I just wanted to make visitors of this site aware that a bunch of well known "debunkers" submitted to the Department of Civil and Envriomental Engineering at Northwestern University a paper on the mechanism of collapse of the WTC Towers for peer review and publication by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Here is a link to the paper concerned.
I want to raise concern so that scientists and engineers from the movement move to respond to this paper.
- medfreak's blog
- Login to post comments
Public Myth
Seems the public myth needs some reinforcing.
And what's up with Greening? Hasn't he commented on the possibility of ammonium perchlorate contributing somehow to the destruction of the WTC?
This is a huge positive for us... IF
And that's a huge IF... Are we ready to start behaving in an organized and goal oriented manner? Are we serious about "winning" this thing?
This needs to be responded to IMMEDIATELY by Steven E. Jones, Kevin Ryan, ae911truth.com... Those in the Movement with the proper credentials to formally peer review this, MUST DO SO ASAP!
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
Look this isn't a huge
Look this isn't a huge issue. First and foremost the government is supposed to be giving it's account of what occurred. Secondly, when authors submit a paper for publication it takes a LOT of time before it's published IF it's published at all. When a paper is submitted peers review it. They bring up issues and ask questions about the analyses used. The authors get this feedback after a period of time (month or so I believe) and then they must address any glaring deficiencies otherwise they are going to be shot down. They resubmit their work and the process occurs again. If there are still major problems (how could there not be considering they probably won't address the free fall speed) then the reviewers will probably shoot them down and reject the paper for publication. IF this gets published it DOES NOT mean that it is the end all for the debate. In fact, if it gets published then it will be attacked by those of us who understand the simple high school physics (derivatives any one?) which point to explosives. This will in fact allow those of us seeking truth and justice to label the journal responsible for publishing the piece an arm of the government propaganda machine.
Personally I say let them go through the process. If the individuals working at that journal decide that they want to be a part of treason against the American people let them publish it. It will simply stand as their declaration of war on the good, honest people of America and the world.
"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)
OIL IS OBSOLETE - WAKE UP - YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO, AGAIN!
http://www.waterfuelcell.org/
Main part already published
Bazant and Zhou published their progressive collapse argument in Journal of Engineering Mechanics, March 2007.
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JEN...
Full paper here:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf
Discussion is open until August 1, 2007.
Fallacies
I haven't read the entire document yet but I noticed some fallacies:
"Velocity of Air Expelled From Tower"
"The high velocity of air jetting out also explains why a significant amount of pulverized concrete and shredded glass was ejected to a distance of several hundred meters from the tower"
Up and out velocity and high speeds are not caused by pancaking. Also, how would you explain:
WTC2 Flashes
http://www.vsocial.com/video/?d=90134
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWi1fmxCGAw
squibs on WTC7 at the top
squibs on Twin Towers many floors below collapse wave
Another fallacy:
"Another criticizm claimed sightings of 'pools of molten metal' within the rubble pile, purportedly produced by planted thermite-based incendiary devices. But all of the supposed evidence is entirely anecdotal, and is refuted by the facts in NIST (2005) report....But these elements were to be expected since they were contained in gypsum wallboard, electrical wiring, galvanized sheet steal, etc"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://TruthSeeker.us
the urgency of addressing the report
Yes, the paper must be peer reviewed asap. It needs to be recast in layman's terms as well.
The paper avoids all the troubling eye witness reporting such as the explosions in the ground floors and it does not address the problem of wtc 7.
also. Large scale modeling has to be investigated to test this and other hypotheses. The problem of wtc 7 is once again the elephant in the room.
It might be a good idea to have a televised/streamed debate between these folks and our folks.
Ha haa haa! Are they serious?
"The high velocity of air jetting out also explains why a significant amount of pulverized concrete and shredded glass was ejected to a distance of several hundred meters from the tower"
I don't mean to nit-pick here but, I don't suppose they explain where the extreme force that's needed to pulverize concrete comes from?
squibs = smoking gun; flashes = mistake
Take a closer look at the flashes (or rather a less close look at the flashes than in these clip edits). What I have observed is that 95% seem to be easily explained by reflections of windows as the walls buckle or as they are blown out into the outer region of the dust debris. On the shade side of the building, there is only one flash and that may be glass (mirrored?) which *may* be more in the foreground so actually in the sun and not in the shadow of the building.
Also, what disturbs me about the claim that the flashes are the explosions is that the flashes also occur in or in front of the dust cloud above the points of collapse as the building is falling, i.e. in many places where there would be no need for explosives or where explosives whould have already ignited. In other clips I've seen they also occur in the dust to the left and the right of the profile of the buildings - that does not align with the theory that all the flashes are explosions.
So that leaves me with about 5% of the flashes that look VERY interesting. But not as interesting as the sqibs!
My fear is that shouting about all these flashes will serve as the ideal strawman if someone says they are just reflections off of glass being shattered or ejected.
I think you're right about
I think you're right about the flashes. Although there are some strange flashes, most of them can be explained by falling glass or cladding panels that reflect the sunlight. There are, however, some flashes that can not be explained as reflections. I will look into this a little bit deeper.
Please watch my movie: WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11
Read the comments in YT "WTC2 Flashes"
I have laid out my case in the comments section on the YT video "WTC2 Flashes" and I believe the glass would be too small compared to the size of the flashes and the sunlight wouldn't hit the camera with all the different angles I have archived especially the in random sequence the explosions went off.
WTC2 Flashes (read comments and do homework)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWi1fmxCGAw
Do your (speaking in general terms) homework THEN discuss. We need the videos and images all checked for manipulation and fraud if there is any doubt of authenticity. I still advocate squibs of course, they are far too obvious to ignore.
my 2¢
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://TruthSeeker.us
Is that the best you can do?
Is that the best you can do? "do your homework"? You wouldn't believe how many hours i have spent studying the 9/11 archive material.
You can clearly see flashes in midair, far from the tower. How can those be 'demolition flashes'?
I'm not saying all flashes are reflections. I AM saying that a lot of them COULD be caused by cladding panels or glass reflecting the sunlight.
Please watch my movie: WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11
Slow down there....
No need to get defensive. I'm not questioning truthers effort and dedication but rather those who have spent less time on this subject. No one is talking to you specifically and sharing info, even if you disagree, is a good thing. And yes, sometimes I encourage people to look harder. The phrase "Do your homework" could have been replaced with something more progressive like "Please look harder". Haste makes waste. A stich in time saves nine. Sometimes errors are made and they aren't mistakes unless you refuse to correct them. BTW, I would believe how much time you have spent in the archives because most truthers I know spend every waking moment of every single day of their lives dedicated to uncovering the truth; kinda hard not to once you are englightened and addicted to knowledge.
Here is more info I'd like to share regarding the flashes:
Since there are multiple angles/shots of these flashes; to assert these flashes, which are larger than tiny pieces of glass, are merely glass reflecting sunlight in such an interesting sequence, you would also need to assert that from all of these angles, the sun was reflecting sunlight into the camera even though the camera/shots/angles differed (which is impossible). The flashes in the air, IMO, are entirely possible. The building is being blown to bits and who says charges aren't explosive in air?
Peace.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://TruthSeeker.us
you are a heros
数据备份 数据恢复 硬盘数据恢复 上海数据恢复 raid 数据恢复 数据库修复 硬盘数据恢复 备份软件
Very deceptive paper in it's conclusions
EXAMPLE: "...the loud booms heard during collapse, could be explained only by planted explosives are proven to be false. So are the claims that a collapse without planted explosives disagrees with video record and seismic record."
Ummm there are numerous reports of the explosions occurring in rapid succession several seconds BEFORE the buildings started to fall. There are also numerous reports of the ground near the WTC "rumbling" seconds BEFORE the towers fell". This is documented in both eyewitness statements and audio/video recordings. But of course this paper doesn't mention any of that. What a pathetic piece of propaganda once again put forward by the so-called "debunkers".
And for those who aren't aware of Dr. Frank Greening's recent criticisms of the NIST report and his conclusions that there definitely was molten steel present at the World Trade Center....
Dr. Greening writes:
"There is some crucial scientific evidence for the presence of molten iron or steel in the pulverized remains of WTC 1 & 2"
"I am referring to the observation of micron-sized iron spherules that have been seen in many WTC dust samples. These spherical particles are direct physical evidence that the iron within the particle was molten at the time the particle formed."
"The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes... Iron spheres in the 30 micron to 1 micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses."
"...some steel appears to have melted in the WTC prior to the collapse of the buildings."
"Iron spherules and elevated levels of airborne ZINC prove there was molten iron/steel in the WTC."
"This implies that some iron or steel in the twin towers was exposed to temperatures ABOVE 1539 deg C. Such temperatures are much too high for hydrocarbon fires in the twin towers according to NIST's own studies."
"I would say that the presence of molten iron in the WTC is inconsistent with the NIST Report’s conclusion that temperatures in the towers during 9/11 were well below the melting point of iron or steel."
"NIST, in its fire simulations, tried very hard to get steel (>95 % iron) to temperatures above 1000 deg C but failed!"
"How did the fires in the rubble pile melt steel?"
"Why does the presence, I mean the FACT, of molten steel in the Twin Towers bother you so much?" (Greening's questions directed at other forum members who were denying the existence of molten steel at Ground Zero)
-Dr. Frank Greening, originally posted at Physorg.com March/April 2007 as forum member "NEU-FONZE", and as "Apollo20" at Forums.Randi.org, April 2007
A few more recent quotes from Dr. Greening...
"I have a personal e-mail FROM A VERY RESPECTED PROFFESOR OF ENGINEERING at an AMERICAN UNIVERSITY in which he notes that his attempts to publish his research into the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 in US and British journals has been blocked.
This means work disputing NIST's findings is nowhere to be found because it is simply being censored by over-cautious editors!"
-Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 91
"NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST's collapse theory falls apart.
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory"
-Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 92
"The truth about 9/11 is too important to declare the matter closed just because NIST have written a book or two on it.
NIST themselves call their version of the truth an HYPOTHESIS. Does that preclude the consideration of other hypotheses?
Is it the NIST apologists' plan to keep up the nay-saying until they silence any dissenting voices and declare: "CASE CLOSED!"
Well, sorry to tell you, it won't work!"
-Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg.102
_______________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!" -Dr. Frank Greening
Dr. Greening a skeptic turned patriot?
Excellent post, thanks. I have some more Dr. Greening aka Apollo20 material to share. Wasn't Dr. Greening a JREF darling turned patriot?
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=6811
(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.
When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”
I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.
In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse. Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless. Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation. It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?" - Dr. Greening
http://www.911myths.com/html/dr_frank_greening_bio.html
"I have a Ph. D. in chemistry , but my official title for over 20 years was Senior Research Scientist at what used to be called Ontario Hydro and is now Ontario Power Generation. I was in charge of radioanalytical chemistry research and discovered all sorts of problems with OPG's CANDU reactors... [Google Frank Greenings name and you’ll find him described as a “nuclear whistle-blower”]. I have published scientific articles in the Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, Canadian Journal of Physics, Chemical Physics Letters, Journal of Nuclear Materials, etc. I even worked with the great Nobel prize winning spectroscopist, Gerhard Herzberg, for 2 years back in the 1970s."
Dr. Frank R. Greening to argue in support of government account of the events of September 11, 2001 at the National 9/11 Debate
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id289.html
Press Release – August 15, 2006
Contact: Ed Haas
Office: (843) 278-5021
Mobile: (843) 327-7598
efhaas@comcast.net
http://www.teamliberty.net
Email: greening@sympatico.ca
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!"
— -Dr. Frank Greening
http://911blogger.com/node/8330
Paper Dr. Greening wrote:
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://TruthSeeker.us
Crush-Up?!
Only a true-blue debunker could pull that one out of their ass. Boy, they are really bringing the big guns out now. What these crazies fail to understand though, is that requiring a doctorate in mathmatics to read their papers is not going to persuade the fence-sitters, the condescension is only going to insult them and make them angrier.
As far as what we (Truthers) should think about the validity of this paper, I will paraphrase a quote:
"I may not know what dragonshit looks like, but that dosen't mean I can't identify it when it hits me".
"They took it from the top to the bottom, we're gonna take them from the bottom to the top." - Dan Wallace
It's dragonshit
How can they say that crush-up of the upper part of the building does not begin until it hits a layer of debris at the bottom?
My layman's reading of this dragonshit is that they are saying that the moving upper part of the building C is stronger than the progressively thicker lower parts of the building A, and crushes the lower part of the building "with little damage to itself," and is not crushed "except before a thick enough layer B forms." Only then is the upper part crushed by the compacted debris on the ground. Why is the debris layer so much stronger than the lower part of the building that was supposedly crush to form it? Wouldn't the compacting they describe cushion the blow?
First, the upper part was observed to be gone early in the process. Second, the upper part is weaker and would be affected by the relative impact velocity he says is so high.
How can they say something so obviously absurd? Am I missing something?
freefall trumps all
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB
Right on brother. Like I
Right on brother.
Like I said before, if it gets published it's no sweat off of our backs. In fact it helps make the individuals committing treason against us more visible. I welcome any declaration on this academic journal's stance. Are they with the people or against US?
"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)
OIL IS OBSOLETE - WAKE UP - YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO, AGAIN!
http://www.waterfuelcell.org/
A dangerous work of fiction dressed as science.
Make no mistake about it, this paper is a full on assault, and is an blatant example of Science of behalf of the empire.
There are many spurious claims, such as only 10% of the energy from any explosive is useful for concrete comminution fracture. And that 2 tons of TNT per floor would be required to perform the comminution of 147,000 metric tons of concrete. I'm not sure where this 10% energy conversion figure comes from, or the belief that TNT was the actually explosive used, replacing TNT with RDX, (and using the calculations given in the paper - which are spurious) reduces the amount to explosive required to each floor to (1.23 tons).
However I think the originally calculation about required quantity of explosive is incorrect. If gravity could pulverize concrete, then the huge engineering and environmental problems of re-cycling concrete/crushing concrete could be solved, by simply piling waste concrete into a huge heap and flying a projectile into it loaded with jet grade kerosene.
Then there is the tired quote about having to 'wire together' all the explosives to 'wired detonators' totally ignoring that explosive can be triggered by radio signal from a safe distance at a orchestration point, controlled by computer software.
To extrapolate the 'explosive' power of gravity as described this paper, it would be correct to say that dropping a computer monitor in the twin towers would generate enough energy to generate a fracture comminution of the concrete at that point where the monitor was dropped in the building. This would then generate enough gravitational energy, via the conservation of energy, to cause a cascade that would drop the computer monitor from the said floor, through each floor to the ground.
I think this paper needs to be torn apart, indeed comminuted.
From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagra without having seen or heard of one or the other. So it is that my name is Sherlock Holmes, it is my business to know what other people don't know
A few observations
The notion that the upper blocks (esp. WTC1) fell as intact hammers, crushing the undamaged lower structures to the ground, only then to be "crushed up" is rubbish easily disproven by the video evidence. Notice that in both WTC1 and 2 the lower core remnants, comprising the sturdiest portions of the interconnected core columns, persist for several seconds after the "hammer" has somehow passed through them to the ground, then fall apart like wet tissue paper. The illustration demonstrating "crush-down/crush-up" is a childish fabrication.
The single paragraph pretending to dismiss evidence of molten iron and physical evidence of thermate residues in dust samples is a pitiful gesture that doesn't even try. Previously-molten microspheres of iron, aluminum and elemental sulphur cannot be waved away by mentioning the obvious fact that there was plenty of gypsum wallboard in the towers or an avalanche of computers.
The highly imaginative passage speculating about spontaneous, "intermittent" supersonic "nozzles" of debris making explosive sounds speaks for itself.
“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson
Crush-up; Greening
Good comments on this paper... I like this forum..
My 2 cents:
1. Fig. 1 shows the force downward from the upper block during the "crush-down phase" -- but from the Third Law, we have two forces, up and down, equal and opposite. I have noticed that engineering students often have difficulty with this concept in Physics classes I have taught for many years -- but Newton is correct, not Bazant/Greening et al.
2. If you look at the videos for Tower 1, you will see that the upper block does NOT continue as a tamper, driving down the Tower below. (Their Fig. 1.) Instead, the equal-but-opposite forces upward cause this upper block to break up early on during the collapse. How these guys can ignore both the 3rd Law and the data is remarkable! (M. Fury and others note the same problems in this paper....)
3. Tower 2 shows the upper block rotating -- much farther than shown in Fig 2d of the Bazant-Gr paper. And this upper block, when it reaches around 35 degrees, is seen to break up with pieces flying in several directions. Including upward. (Looks like the effects of explosives to me.) In any case, Fig 2d is wrong.
4. Greening seems to be showing some true colors here... I wonder about this fellow. He writes to me sounding like an anti-NIST guy some times, but this paper is right in line with the OGCT.
Finding it interesting that Fetzer would have Greening as one of the principal speakers... at his August meeting, http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=104&...
Is it fair to ask -- which side are Fetzer and Greening on? Would like to know... here I am just asking the question.
The block indeed totally
The block indeed totally disintegrates before the roof even reaches the crash zone.
Please watch my movie: WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11
Thermite and molten metal mentioned
"Another criticism claimed sightings of “pools of molten metal” within the rubble pile, purportedly produced by planted thermite-based incendiary devices. But all of the supposed evidence is entirely anecdotal, and is refuted by the facts in NIST (2005) report. [Question: How can they refute the presence of Thermite if they did not test for it--despite requirements to do so? NIST admits this fact in their FAQ!] It was asserted that the presence of thermite residues was evidenced by sulfur, copper and zinc detected in the WTC dust samples. But these elements were to be expected since they were contained in gypsum wallboard, electrical wiring, galvanized sheet steel, etc."
It appears they have not considered the dust samples from the apartment that Jones has acquired as well as the wide-spread presence of iron rich spheres strongly indicating that there was molten metal at ground zero (and corroborated by USGS studies).
"Partial financial support for the energetic theory of progressive collapse was obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation"
Perhaps they should have used some of that funding to figure out what those "orders" were that the former transportation minister Norman Mineta was referring to. It would seem like money much better spent.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
Newton's Third Law
I haven't read this paper yet but I have read two of Bazant's previous papers on 9/11. So far as I can see, he has forgotten Newton's Third Law of Motion which states that to every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction. In the highly implausible event that the section of the tower above the impact zone fell upon the section below it, there would no doubt be very high forces at impact because of the rapid deceleration of the falling section. But the force acting upwards upon the upper section would be equal to the force acting downward on the lower section, and so the stresses in the columns would be equal, and so they would both fail at the same rate. Since the columns in the upper section are weaker than in the lower section, the upper section would in fact disintegrate more quickly, and only a few stories of the lower section could possibly fail.
Great responses
Great comments. Some were very pertinent.
What sticks to me is the following:
1. Video evidence does not support "Crush down , Crush Up Theory"
2. Third law of Newton and forces placed on the so called "pile driver" or "hammer of god" ( which is the upper section) is ignored. Somewhat the upper section acts as if it is an invincible piece that crushes everything, then suddenly disintegrates while it hits the ground.
3. Ignoring all the evidence for Molten metal and thermate.
I am but a simple minded M.D. and in no way qualified to respond to this paper. I hope the ones that are qulified respond to it very strongly, clearly and decisively.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Help me shout 9/11 articles on:
www.shoutwire.com