If there is any hint at questioning the official story, all good Americans must ridicule the questioner and insert the words "conspiracy theory" as early as possible into the conversation. That is the duty of all Americans.

You may question religion, science, and your own parents; but never question the official 911 story.

No parts of an airplane found at the Pentagon crash? Do not believe your eyes, the plane completely disintegrated. It never happened before and it never happened since but you must trust the official report. To think otherwise is shear nonsense.

Thank you for not questioning the official report. Cheney is quite proud of you and appreciates your service to your country.

Well, that one's easy. Even Rense.com has an answer.

What other questions do you have?

Yeah, I'm gonna believe that!
When pigs fly!

There is no need to explain things that didn't happen:

...between the amount of debris found and the amount of debris one should expect to be visible after an airplane crashes.

This discrepancy so far has not been explained.

Your claim has absolutely no basis in fact -- is it really too much trouble for you guys to actually LOOK at those photos? They show that there was a massive amount of debris in the building, including many pieces that can be positively identified as 757 parts. And that's not to mention that the DNA of every person known to be on Flight 77 was also found in the building.

Let's look at them:

Floor level:



No plane.

Aerial:



No plane.

Video:

Something.

Quite weird.

... and you can't figure out why a couple of photos outside the building don't show the plane? Seriously, do you really need an explanation for that?

And based on this overwhelming evidence, you conclude that the photos inside the building which do show plane debris must be fake?

Amazing.

Last edited Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:45 PM - Edit history (1)

What's the explanation?

The entire plane is inside the building? Is that what you are saying?

If the plane crashed against the building façade, yes, there should be debris outside the building too. And large debris. Where are the wings? Where's the plane tail? Where's the plane body?

I didn't say the pictures are fake. It's just your usual straw man fallacy argumentation line in action.

Photos outside the building (but closer than the ones you chose) show that the entire area is covered by debris too small to be seen in your photos and a few larger pieces that can be easily identified as parts of an American Airlines plane:



Basing your argument on what you don't see in a couple of carefully selected photos while ignoring what's clearly shown in others makes it hard to take you seriously.

All the debris visible outside of the building are ridiculously small. They are not compatible with an airplane crash.

Where are wings? Where's the tail? Where's the plane body? Large parts of these should be visible.

Your incapacity of answering where's the plane is what makes your position hard to take seriously, i.m.h.o.

And just what IS all that small debris, anyway?

Oh, wait...

But you're not seriously interested in trying to solve that "mystery," are you?

...I guess you're the one not interested in trying to solve that mistery...

Where are the wings? Where's the tail? Where's the body? You see, "nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, everything is transformed".

You can't expect to convince anyone with two functional neurons that a Boing 757 became this:



As I've already said, there's a quite obvious incongruence between the amount of debris found and the amount of debris that a Boeing 757 is expected to produce in a crash.

You have no explanation for that, I have no explanation for that, the government has no explanation for that, media has no explanation for that. Why don't you just admit it?

Are you an accident investigator? If not, then how do you expect us to believe you have any basis for the amount of debris that should be expected from a crash? Maybe you should leave this to the professionals, and understand that a layperson's perspective is not necessarily correct.

I believe I'm qualified enough.

There's a reason we have standards for professional qualifications. Laypeople just don't cut it in many situations.

Notwithstanding how damaged the airplane will get, there will be large debries, cause airplanes are large vehicles.











The Pentagon attack scenario doesn't look like the scenario of an airplane crash:



So, I'm just asking for a logical explanation, and none was given so far.

If you think the photos you posted are remotely similar to what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11, then you do need an expert to explain things like mass times velocity squared and the construction details of that blast-resistant wall that Flight 77 hit at over 500 MPH.

.

But planes can disintegrate with a 500 mph crash into a wall:

Ok, I'll pretend to believe it. Bu it doesn't change the fact that the amount of debris, notwithstanding their size, is not compatible with an airplane crash. There should me much, much, much more debris, even if small debris, both outside as well as inside the building.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11353912#post41

you're a very poor judge on what the debris field should look like.

Most of the mass of the plane entered the building where the more solid, fire resistant parts were recovered. The wings are hollow and relatively light weight. They would have almost complete disintegrated against the solid wall of the building. A large number of mostly small aircraft parts were scattered around the outside of the building.

Many witnesses also watched the aircraft impact the Pentagon.

So surely it is physically possible for aircraft to achieve such speeds at low altitudes - are you saying that a 757-200 is not aerodynamic enough and/or does not have adequate engine power to reach 500 mph at low altitude? If that is the case, do you have anything substantial to base that opinion on?
[font style="font-size:0.8462em; color:#ffffff; background-color:#ffffff;"]http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/afd-080123-063.pdf#page=3[/font]

At 100 feet, Mach 0.8 is ~610 MPH.

Sid

I'm just wondering at what speed past Vne will a 757 break up. Keep in mind air density.

on edit: Sorry I failed to do my home work before opening my mouth. just found this: http://www.seattle911visibilityproject.org/flight_175_impossible_speed.htm

Can a 767-200 fly at 500mph+ at 700ft altitude?

If you ask any member of "Pilots for 911 truth" they will verify that the "767-200 can fly at 500mph+ at 700ft altitude". They will also verify that the alleged flight 77 could have flown it's alleged trajectory. It is an entirely different matter at to weither they actually did.

In a letter to Joel Harel, a Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven (SPINE) member who published a paper The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training, a senior 757 captain noted: “Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”

... from the last reading on the the Flight Data Recorder: 465 knots = 535 MPH. That's in good agreement with multiple radar readings and estimates based on impact damage.

Whether or not a 757 has enough power accelerate to that velocity in level flight at 100 feet is moot, since as tomk52 pointed out, the plane was in a dive, and as all pilots and cyclists know, altitude is energy. There is simply no good reason to think that velocity is impossible or that a 757 would break up at that speed.

But the really silly thing about that claim is the apparent conclusion being advanced: If the 535 MPH number is wrong, then no plane hit the Pentagon? What do you get when you start with a dubious premise, toss out an important fact, and then apply absurd logic?

Speaking of which, what do you get when you base your conclusions on what you haven't seen in the photos you've looked at? Here's a composite photo which should help you identify where the engines hit:



You deleted the post I was replying to, but I believe you also stated that you thought the engine parts looked to small. We were just discussing that in another thread, and the answer is no, they are parts from a 757 engine:

When I hit this forum I had just watched ZERO on Youtube. I was compelled to share it here, as well as some questions it left me with. I still have a lot of trouble believing the official story, but I don't think I'll find the answers by spouting the questions here. Some of the easier questions, I can google, and hopefully come back here with more intelligent questions.

Thanks for your time.

Prog,

Sorry, i didn't read this comment earlier. This is old, old discredited stuff, Prog.

But, I'm curious, what would be your response to the sources of your information (such as Joel Harel & SPINE) if you found out that you'd been lied to?

To make a long post short, Nila Sagadevan's nonsense "The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training" (earliest ref: 9/24/01) was completely debunked by the publication of the NTSB report on AA77 autopilot settings."Study of Autopilot, Navigation Equipment, and Fuel Consumption Activity Based on United Airlines Flight 93 and American Airlines Flight 77 Digital Flight Data Recorder Information" (Feb 2002).

Sagadevan's paper is complete crap. One piece of wrong information after another. He even got the flight paths completely wrong.

Yet it is STILL cited (by racist bigot Gordon Duff, among others, in his despicable rag Veterans Today), in 2010 (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/13/nila-sagadevan-911-the-impossibility-of-flying-heavy-aircraft-without-training/).

You can search yourself for the full original, brain-dead stupid Sagadevan paper.

Here's NTSB's description of the simple switchology that Hanjour had to execute: http://www.scribd.com/doc/31594959/9-11-NTSB-Autopilot-Study-Flight-AA77-UA93

About 5 switches thrown, then Dulles & Herndon VOR frequencies entered into VOR receiver. Other than that, heading, altitude & airspeed set & controlled by autopilot. Simple. No flying by pilots until last 8 minutes or so.

Last 8 minutes: at leisurely pace (25% power, until last few seconds), within visual range of Pentagon. The whole maneuver was completely typical of a VFR pilot's approach to an airport.

BTW, the bold part of the comment in your citation, "We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building" PROVES BEYOND DOUBT that they were performing maneuvers that were WRONG. Utterly unlike Hanjour's simple, leisurely, low power 330° descending turn.

A complete dismantling of Sagadevan's nonsense can be found in "Oh no! not another expert!" by Giulio Bernachia, a real airline captain.

So Duff published this debunked nonsense in 2010. And you did in 2013.
Are you not embarrassed?


Tom

Not sustained, level flight at that altitude. But nobody said anything about sustained, level flight.

AA11 was in approx level flight, but traveling much slower. UA175 & AA77 were both in dives. Both 767 & 757 are very slick airframes, & in even shallow dives, are known by their pilots to readily creep up to Vne if you don't closely monitor (I.e., cut back on) the throttles.

This ain't no different than a bicyclist who can only get up to 35 on the flat being able to hit 50 down a steep hill. And planes regularly come down steeper hills than any road in the world.

to support your conclusion (one that is not shared by any of the professionals who investigated the actual site) is evidence you aren't qualified.

It's like a person trying to deny that the Earth is spherical.

You're the one with the extraordinary claims, yet you're calling me ridiculous. Please understand that you're not the first person to have raised this poorly-supported claim regarding debris at the Pentagon. All of you have the same failing - you refuse to see what is before your eyes. The evidence of an aircraft is there, you're just blinded to it.

Oh, yes, I'm pretty sure I'm not the first and I'm pretty sure I won't be the last.

The reason, on contrary to what you've said, is that the the "evidences" you point only support more and more skeptcism about the official account.

... and we've established that you have a mental block against looking for debris inside the building, where most of the plane ended up.

But I really do want to believe that most people can solve the "mystery" of what happened to the wings and tail after seeing photos like these:

...and anyone can see that.

... except things best left unsaid.

Showing pictures with no visible airplane debris or inconsistent amount of debris certainly won't help your case.

aircraft? And that's a wall designed to cushion and contain the impact, not a limestone slab wall. And a vehicle that weighs less than 3,500lbs, versus an aircraft that weighs close to 100 tons loaded? Or that physical impact with a wall is a design consideration of a NASCAR vehicle, whereas physical impact with a limestone wall is not a design consideration of an aircraft?

Still look like a car to you? I see a tire. That's it. We saw landing gear wheels in the wreck at the pentagon too.

... is that the upper 2/3rds of a plane (above the passenger deck) is essentially a thin-walled, aluminum balloon, containing mostly air, with an additional low density of chairs & passengers.

The wings, stabilizer & tails are also thin-walled balloons. The inboard portion of the wings contains fuel & air (depending on amount of fuel remaining), while the outboard portion contains mostly air, a few spars & some small actuators.

Below the passenger deck is a different story: densely packed heavy machinery, landing gear, cargo & fuel.

The engines are small (~18&quot diameter, dense cores, with a lightweight large diameter fan in front, and a large diameter, thin-walled aluminum housing enclosing mostly air (along with the core, of course).

This explains what a plane looks like in a collision. The substantial parts are the bottom 1/3rd of the fuselage, the fuel, the engine cores &, to a lesser degree, the passengers & seats. The rest is mostly thin walled aluminum balloons.

This is why the outboard wings & tail didn't penetrate, but were converted into a surprisingly small amount (to airplane construction amateurs) of aluminum confetti.

Have you ever seen the rotor in the front of a 747? It's not a meter high, it's more like twice that. That debris was obviously planted.

American Airlines Flight #77 was a 757, not a 747.

A 757 is significantly smaller than a 747.

Last edited Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:41 AM - Edit history (1)

The specs for the engine rotor used on the 757/300, (i stand corrected on the plane type) are about 2.4 meters. I don't believe that that rotor is 2.4 meters, unless it shrunk due to heat (yeah, right). If you don't believe me, look it up for yourself.

The compressor rotors are considerably smaller than the 1.9 m fan:



> If you don't believe me, look it up for yourself.

Good advice:

"According to Brassey's World Aircraft & Systems Directory and Jane's, the fan diameter of the RB211-535E4B engine is 74.5 inches (189.2 cm). It then follows that the compressor disk hubs are approximately 27 inches (69 cm) across while the turbine disk hubs are about 25 inches (63.5 cm) in diameter. Both of these dimensions fit within the range of values estimated for the engine component pictured in the wreckage at the Pentagon."

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

You really think so? Perhaps you should measure again. The internal disk hubs may be about 25 inches, but what of the outer hubs? The photo you posted is NOT of an inner hub, it is the front, main hub.

... that the blades have been knocked off of that hub?



You are the one who need to measure again, taking that into account. Oh, and that's strike three.

You sure showed him!


Is that your way of saying you can't refute?
I like your style!

And if they were not vaporized, how come no details were released about them?

Workers at the Pentagon have recovered the "black box" flight data recorders from the collapsed portion of the building, where a jet slammed into it during Tuesday's horrific terrorist attacks.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92510&page=1


Here's a good link to read...or not.

In our experience, discussion on the "black boxes" of the 9/11 flights tends to fall into one of two areas. The first, most commonly found on forums and message boards, tends to be a comment along the lines of this article:

The Black Box and the Indestructible Passport: All four Black Boxes were supposedly destroyed and rendered unusable in spite of the fact that they are designed specifically for plane crashes which result in insurmountable conditions...yet one of the hijackers' passports supposedly survived fire and heat of over 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit and is found in perfect shape in the rubble around the WTC towers.

In reality "all four black boxes" are not "supposedly destroyed". The Flight 93 flight data recorders were recovered. The Flight 77 black boxes were also removed from the Pentagon, but one of them (the cockpit voice recorder) was too badly damaged to be used. The only boxes not to be recovered were from the World Trade Centre impacts (although one story says otherwise: more on that below).
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/The_Black_Boxes

on those that were found.

At least I haven't heard anything.

But isn't it strange, how a plane gets vaporized, yet the "hijacker's" passport survives unscathed?

I might not wonder about it.

... and the data WAS released. The boxes from AA11 and UA175 weren't found here:



Yeah, musta "vaporized."

Glad I could help.

....it'll get no legs. When an agency can present a report insulting building engineers everywhere, a report that implies no structural engineer or architect planned any static redundancy in that the failure of only ONE column in Building 7 led to total collapse, and this report is accepted, there's no hope.

... that have the same potential for collapsing the way WTC 7 did. That's why NIST investigated it -- not to try to satisfy conspiracists (which would be a perfectly futile objective.) They did not "present a report insulting building engineers everywhere." It presented a report recommending changes to building codes.

The design of WTC 7 conformed to the existing building codes, and this may come as a shock to you, but most commercial building owners aren't willing to pay for going beyond that. Specifically, the WTC 7 engineers didn't actually design the beam-to-column connections that failed. They simply specified the gravity load each connection needed to carry, and the steel supplier simply looked up a suitable design in an ASTM manual of standard connections intended only for gravity loads. The connections were not designed to resist thermal expansion, and the other interior connections were not designed to resist the moment forces that developed when that first column failed. That's because there wasn't any code requirement to do so, and building a structure that could withstand that sort of damage would have been much more expensive.

Yes, the report is widely accepted by the engineering community because it makes sense. Rigging a controlled demolition of a 24x7-occupied building using magical silent explosives for no apparent reason, on the other hand... not so much.

...of a highrise collapsing due to fire in the history of mankind.

And...

"The connections were not designed to resist thermal expansion, and the other interior connections were not designed to resist the moment forces that developed when that first column failed."

... even if it was true, the building would not collapse in such a regular manner. If it was true, of course, because office fires can not reach temperatures high enough to melt steel. And that's the point that makes NIST report sounds as a fairy-tale to thousands of architects and engineers around the globe.

... of a bridge collapsing in a 40 mph wind was the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Of course, the uniqueness of that event is not a logical reason to claim it was sabotaged, especially since the actual cause is well understood now. Nonetheless, there were (and I suppose still are) people who claimed it must have been sabotaged simply because they don't understand how it could have happened otherwise. Can you comprehend that people who do understand it are not impressed with that "argument?"

> ... even if it was true ...

It is true, and your suggestion that it might not be true belies your ignorance of the subject at hand.

>the building would not collapse in such a regular manner.

But you're referring to videos of the rigid shell of the building falling, deliberately ignoring that the interior collapse started at least six seconds prior to that. The interior structure collapsed sequentially, not all at once.

> If it was true, of course, because office fires can not reach temperatures high enough to melt steel.

Well, that's hard to refute, but only it doesn't make any sense. We're talking about thermal expansion, not melting.

>And that's the point that makes NIST report sounds as a fairy-tale to thousands of architects and engineers around the globe.

In the preliminary NIST report, there was an example calculation showing how much force would be exerted on the end of a beam that was heated to only a few hundred degrees, and then compared that force to the shear strength of the bolts that held it in place. You and Richard Gage can yammer on and on about "thousands of architects and engineers around the globe" if it makes you feel better, but clearly these are people who either don't know enough of the facts to form a valid opinion, or they just don't understand simple physics. Either way, the number of Gage's "experts" who have mounted a valid, evidence-based technical rebuttal to the NIST theory remains at exactly zero, and that is the exact reason they are generally ignored in the technical community.

There are films of Tacoma Bridge collapsing that do show the action of the wind. It collapses exactly the way you would expect a bridge collapsing due to the wind. There's nothing to dispute, really. And never heard anybody arguing it was sabotaged. Besides, there are other examples of bridges collapsing due to wind, and they are more than a few (Amarube bridge, Angers Bridge, etc.).

But there's no example of a highrise collapsing due to fire at all, anywhere in the world and at any time in history. There are dozens and dozens of examples of older highrises that burned much longer than WTC7 and are still standing nowadays. So, you have no options: you have to concede that WTC7 is a unique, extraordinary event. So, don't bother playing the "I'm smarter than you, so I understand what happened" card. It's easy to claim you "do understand" what happened, but, the fact is: you don't have historical examples to present and you had to rely in a computer model to start been taken seriously.

So don't try to invert rules here: those disputing the official explanation are the ones who rely on empirical data and historical examples of highrise fires. You guys rely in a extravagant and exotic report defying logic and physics made by a governamental agency and a bunch of "experts" (?) that you claim to represent "the technical community".

Well, since "the technical community" does not exist as a factual organization... you can't appeal to it as some kind of "authority". I also guess you can not prove that the "experts" and people from NIST who take this fairy tale seriously are indeed more qualified than those who are disputing it.

Angers Bridge collapsed during a "powerful thunderstorm," "while a battalion of French soldiers was marching across it," which appears to be the more proximate cause. I can't find anything about Amarube bridge collapsing -- just a story about a train being blown off of it.

So, you do understand why the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsed, so you don't have any sympathy for people who claimed it must have been sabotaged? That's good.

I understand why WTC7 collapsed.

> But there's no example of a highrise collapsing due to fire at all...

Um, you're supposed to say, there's no example of a highrise collapsing completely due to fire, since there's at least one example of a highrise collapsing partially due to fire -- the steel part, actually. But even with that qualification, the Windsor Tower fire shoots a gaping hole in your argument.

> So don't try to invert rules here: those disputing the official explanation are the ones who rely on empirical data and historical examples of highrise fires.

Total bullshit. There is exactly zero prior "empirical data" about towers like WTC1 and 2 getting hit by 767s flying flat-out, or buildings constructed like WTC7 sustaining a 7-hour unfought fire. If you don't understand why that matters, I can't help you.

> You guys rely in a extravagant and exotic report defying logic and physics made by a governamental agency and a bunch of "experts" (?) that you claim to represent "the technical community".

And more bullshit. There's nothing "exotic" about the NIST theory, and if you think it defies logic and physics, then I have to infer that you don't know much about either. The building was not designed to withstand thermal expansion or progressive collapse -- that's a fact, Jack, not a matter of subjective opinion.

And yes, FYI, the long list of non-governmental contributors to the NIST report is an excellent representation of the technical and academic communities.

> Well, since "the technical community" does not exist as a factual organization...

Actually, it consists of several "factual organizations" (such as ASCE) who do things like publish peer-reviewed journals (such as the Journal of Engineering Mechanics) and hold technical conferences and otherwise discuss technical issues amongst themselves. If the NIST theory was really an "exotic report defying logic and physics" an engineer could make quite a name for himself by publishing a journal or conference paper proving it. Where is it?

> ...you can't appeal to it as some kind of "authority".

Yes I can.

> I also guess you can not prove that the "experts" and people from NIST who take this fairy tale seriously are indeed more qualified than those who are disputing it.

I can do better than that: I can prove that the NIST theory is evidence-based, logical, and technically sound, whereas its detractors seem to be completely incapable of transforming their speculations into valid technical arguments with either evidence or logic. From that, we might infer which side is the more qualified, but that would be a conclusion rather than a premise.

So, you do understand why the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsed, so you don't have any sympathy for people who claimed it must have been sabotaged? That's good.

I see you're not able to keep a discussion without putting other words in people's mouths. Present me evidence that there are still people who believe the bridge was sabotaged and then, perhaps, you may have a point.

Um, you're supposed to say, there's no example of a highrise collapsing completely due to fire, since there's at least one example of a highrise collapsing partially due to fire -- the steel part, actually. But even with that qualification, the Windsor Tower fire shoots a gaping hole in your argument.

And again, anyone can see that the parcial collapse of Windsor Tower does not resemble WTC at all. In any aspect. It only reinforces the notion that the official explanation is wrong. Windsor Tower's collapse was not symmetrical, "controlled demolition"-style of collapse.

Total bullshit. There is exactly zero prior "empirical data" about towers like WTC1 and 2 getting hit by 767s flying flat-out, or buildings constructed like WTC7 sustaining a 7-hour unfought fire. If you don't understand why that matters, I can't help you.

It doesn't matter if the building was hit by a plane or a giant rabbit, it can not escape from laws of physics. And what you said about the no-existence of empirical data about a 7-hour fire is a barefaced lie.

The building was not designed to withstand thermal expansion or progressive collapse -- that's a fact, Jack, not a matter of subjective opinion.

There's no such a thing as a "building not being designed to withstand thermal expansion or progressive collapse", that's just NIST lousy justification for this fairy-tale.

Actually, it consists of several "factual organizations" (such as ASCE) who do things like publish peer-reviewed journals (such as the Journal of Engineering Mechanics) and hold technical conferences and otherwise discuss technical issues amongst themselves. If the NIST theory was really an "exotic report defying logic and physics" an engineer could make quite a name for himself by publishing a journal or conference paper proving it. Where is it?

Who are these "factual organizations"? What are their names? And what makes these organizations the official representative of the "engineering community"? They are all American organizations? There are no international organizations that make part of this "engineering community"? Really, it's not clear to me.

"Yes I can."

No, you can't. So far you have... ASCE. You'll need A LOT MORE than that to convince me that you're really talking about a REAL "engineering community".

I can do better than that: I can prove that the NIST theory is evidence-based, logical, and technically sound

I've seen you trying to do that several times, but so far you failed. Don't know why you wouldn't fail again.

> And again, anyone can see that the parcial collapse of Windsor Tower does not resemble WTC at all. In any aspect. It only reinforces the notion that the official explanation is wrong.

Uh, no, because the part that collapsed was the steel framed part, while the concrete core did not, and it reinforces the notions that (A) steel is vulnerable to fire, and (B) highrises are not protected by magic. Those two observations mean that "truthers" who base their case on personal incredulity have no case.

> It doesn't matter if the building was hit by a plane or a giant rabbit, it can not escape from laws of physics.

LMAO, dude; sorry, but after claiming down-thread that James Gourley and Anders Bjorkman refuted Zdenek Bazant, you've disqualified yourself from any discussion of the "laws of physics." Either you didn't actually read their "discussions" and Bazant's "closures," or you didn't comprehend that their objections were based not just on a sad lack of knowledge of the field they were asserting themselves into, but also on imaginary "laws of physics." But I seriously have to doubt that many JEM readers missed that "subtlety" given the hilarious way Bazant handed them their asses on a platter.

> And what you said about the no-existence of empirical data about a 7-hour fire is a barefaced lie.

Yours is the barefaced lie, since what I actually said was "buildings constructed like WTC7 sustaining a 7-hour unfought fire." You also seem to have missed this: Your inability to comprehend why the construction details matter is simply not relevant. You are oblivious to something that obvious and yet you claim you don't need any help from any experts? Which brings us to this gem:

> There's no such a thing as a "building not being designed to withstand thermal expansion or progressive collapse", that's just NIST lousy justification for this fairy-tale.

You simply do not know what you are talking about. Almost all of the interior beam-to-column connections were simple "shear connections" designed to resist gravity loading only, not "moment connections" that could resist bending and thermal stress. Please do not insult the board by claiming that's not an objective fact: The gravity loads are right there on the blueprints and that's all the steel supplier used to design the connections. Again, your inability to comprehend why the specific details of those specific connections meant that they couldn't resist thermal expansion or progressive collapse is not relevant.

> You'll need A LOT MORE than that to convince me that you're really talking about a REAL "engineering community".

Well, how fortunate that I didn't set for myself the apparently impossible objective of convincing you of anything, but if you really wanted a list of professional engineering organizations, you could have Googled it for yourself before denying there's a "REAL 'engineering community'." There is indeed such a thing, and for some strange reason, the number that seem to be interested in "truther physics" isn't even as large as the commonly accepted "lunatic fringe."

There's really no mystery about why the "truth movement" died five or six years ago: From the ground up, it was built on bullshit, and the "no-planer" nonsense is some of the most absurd.

Uh, no, because the part that collapsed was the steel framed part, while the concrete core did not, and it reinforces the notions that (A) steel is vulnerable to fire, and (B) highrises are not protected by magic. Those two observations mean that "truthers" who base their case on personal incredulity have no case.

Steel can not melt, let alone evaporate, in office fires. Even if the steel columns of WTC weakened due to the fire, the collapse of the buildings wouldn't be symmetrical, i.e. controlled-demolition alike. And even if the collapse, only by coincidence, resembled a controlled demolition, it's absolutely unlikely that the same coincidence would apply to THREE BUILDINGS in a question of hours... I mean, there had never been a case of a highrising collapsing due to fire. Suddenly, extraordinary conditions allowed that to happen with THREE different and neighbouring buildings in less than half a day?

LMAO, dude; sorry, but after claiming down-thread that James Gourley and Anders Bjorkman refuted Zdenek Bazant, you've disqualified yourself from any discussion of the "laws of physics." Either you didn't actually read their "discussions" and Bazant's "closures," or you didn't comprehend that their objections were based not just on a sad lack of knowledge of the field they were asserting themselves into, but also on imaginary "laws of physics." But I seriously have to doubt that many JEM readers missed that "subtlety" given the hilarious way Bazant handed them their asses on a platter.

They did. And their work was published by the same newspaper that published Bazant's work. Now, perhaps you, like the guy down-thread, believe in the existence of "engineering Gods" above any kind of criticism... well, I don't. Bazant is just an academic. He may make mistakes and he may produce articles under obscure objectives and contexts. In fact, Bazant's works have been contested several times including by... NIST. Afterall, Bazant is the author of the "pancake theory", which he firstly used to explain the collapse of the towers. But... NIST itself admitted that the "pancake theory" is just a bunch of crap... which had already been stated by... Gourly and Bjorkman! So... what was your argument again?

You simply do not know what you are talking about. Almost all of the interior beam-to-column connections were simple "shear connections" designed to resist gravity loading only, not "moment connections" that could resist bending and thermal stress. Please do not insult the board by claiming that's not an objective fact: The gravity loads are right there on the blueprints and that's all the steel supplier used to design the connections. Again, your inability to comprehend why the specific details of those specific connections meant that they couldn't resist thermal expansion or progressive collapse is not relevant.

You have no power to determine what's relevant and what's not. Important questions have been raised and no satisfactory answer was provided by you, the fairy-tale apologists. That's reality and using pathetic authoritarian claims such as "your questions are not relevant" don't change a thing. Really. And, no there's no such a thing as one of the Earth's tallest buildings not being prepared to "resist bending and thermal stress". That's ridiculous. Bending and thermal expansion is taken in consideration in any kind of construction anywhere in the world - unless American civil engineering is still beyond Middle Ages, which I really doubt. And even if that's the case... well, "resist bending and thermal stress" is a characteristic of steel itself. Pretty sure that not taking this point in consideration when building a highrise will not change the characteristics of steel.

Well, how fortunate that I didn't set for myself the apparently impossible objective of convincing you of anything, but if you really wanted a list of professional engineering organizations, you could have Googled it for yourself before denying there's a "REAL 'engineering community'." There is indeed such a thing, and for some strange reason, the number that seem to be interested in "truther physics" isn't even as large as the commonly accepted "lunatic fringe."

I didn't ask you for a "list of professional engineering organizations", I asked you to make a more precise definition of what is this so-called "engineering community" that supports this nonsensical and magical explanation for WTC collapses. You didn't, you just provided me a list of engineering organizations. Are you trying to imply that those organizations in the list have formally showed supported for NIST's and the 9/11 Comission Report explanations? You'll need sources to prove that. A few American organizations and experts are not representative of the "engineering community". If much, they are representative of part of the American engineering community. If much.

There's really no mystery about why the "truth movement" died five or six years ago: From the ground up, it was built on bullshit, and the "no-planer" nonsense is some of the most absurd.

I believe you have no notion of how the "truth movement" (or simply people skeptical of the government account) is really perceived outside of the mainstream American media. I mean, even a reasonable part of Latin American mainstream media treats the official account as "controversial". If you can read Portuguese, you'll probably be surprised by this article, published by one of the largest media groups of Brazil:

http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/11desetembro/perguntas+sem+respostas+ainda+rondam+o+11+de+setembro/n1597197211446.html

The title translates as: "Unanswerd questions still round September 11". It was published in 2011.

We seemed to have reached a point where every "debate" with "no-planers" seems to lead: You've got nothing left except denial, but willful ignorance is your impenetrable defense. You are as willfully blind to the scientific facts as you are to the plane debris. But as John Adams observed, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

I think we've beat to death your inability to find "enough" plane debris or solve the Mystery of the Missing Wings and Tail, but I'm really amused that you can defend Gourley and even Bjorkman (who is a complete idiot, if not mentally ill).

I challenge you to prove my first paragraph wrong by telling me in your own words any one of the objections to Bazant's analysis that either Gourley or Bjorkman raised, tell me Bazant's reply, then tell me what's wrong with it.

If you're not willing to even attempt to do that, I think I'd be justified to stop wasting time replying to you.

The Windsor Tower fire in Madrid saw the steel framed sections of the building collapse to the street 3 hours into the fire. The only components that remained standing were the concrete-column construction areas of the building. That's why the upper suite floors are gone after the fire, above the second Technical Floor.

Also, WTC7 was one of the rare instances of not only no water availability, (the main towers cut the water mains to lower Manhattan on collapse) but also no manpower invested in fighting the fire, after a couple hours. It burned unchecked. How many examples of that have you to share 'from the history of mankind'?

AC,

There were external steel columns of the Windsor Towers that did survive the fires. The rework was in the process of upgrading the fireproofing of the steel columns. As a result, there were several floors of the building (1 thru 8th, 10 thru 14th & 16th) that had insulation on the outer columns, and several floors (17th thru 28th, 9th & 15th) that did not.

Proving how critical insulation is to steel's survival in a fire, the steel on ALL the floors with insulated steel survived. The steel on ALL the floors with non-insulated steel collapsed.

Concrete being a superb insulator (& the steel in the cores carrying no weight), the cores did fine, as you said.

See the summary at UManchster's fire science web page: http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

...is that mainstream media and their parrots will keep repeating the reports of NIST and Popular Mechanichs and claim that there is virtual consensus in what they label as "the engineering community", when there are thousands and thousands of experts who disagree.

In the first place, there's no evidence of "thousands and thousands of experts who disagree" -- Richard Gage is a fraud who pretty much counts anyone with any kind of technical degree as an "expert," and he himself seems to know jackshit about structural mechanics -- but more importantly, the number simply doesn't matter. These are technical issues, and the reason these "experts" are ignored is that they have not been able to refute the NIST theory with any sort of valid technical arguments. "I don't understand this" is not a technical argument.

...why I should give you more credit than to Richard Gage or the other thousands of architects and engineers who dispute this explanation.

The reason why "these "experts are ignored" has nothing to do with their arguments being valid or not or they not being able to "refute the NIST theory", but the solely fact that their position is not convenient for the government.

How many?
Do you know who?

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.[2][78][page needed]
The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations,[79] and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting that the report expressed similar views to those held by its group of professionals.[80]
Following the publication of Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?"[6] Brigham Young University responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university.[21] The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones".[3][22] On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories

How many?
Do you know who?

So how about answering my questions?

Who's this "authority" which you name as the "structural engineering community"?

So let's take a look at your Wikipedia link. It states:

"The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives."

Two sources linked to this statement:

1 - Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions, by Zdenfk P. Bažant (well known professional) ,and Mathieu Verdure (who?). They claim that their description of the "failure scenario" is the one "generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering", "though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives". But they show no evidences to back this perception of "acceptance" by his peers is real. He also doesn't seem to have evidence that those contesting his explanation are in fact "a few outsiders". The fact that Bažant's work itself has already been refuted twice in articles published by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics by James Gourley and Anders Bjorkman shows he's perception does not reflect reality. In fact, his Bažant's work was already called by one of his peers ""the most shameful Closure in structural damage analysis history"".

2 - 9/11 Commission Report. Do I need to comment on this fraud? I guess no, right?

What they are doing here is a well-know Goebbelian technique that has been used for decades, in several contexts. Treat someone or some organization as a huge authority on an specific issue (when in fact, he's/they're just one opinion among so many others) and use his statements, reports, opinions to express the existence of a pseudo-consensus. Mainstream media repeats this version ad nauseum to create the false impression of a consensus. Government pressures academics and professionals who try to express their disagreement to said "consensus" and punishes some of them to serve as an example (there are known cases of Academics that lost their jobs or government scholarships for opposing the official account on 9-11).

See, it's very easy to claim that one specific position has the support of the "community" of professionals of that field. Proving it is quite different. It's like when the Department of State claims that the "international community" is worried about Iran doing this or that. It's easy to make such a claim, since the "international community" doesn't exist as a factual organization, and can not contradict the Department of State. The whole account on 9/11 is based in: 1 - a bunch of arrogant professionals and organizations that decided to portray themselves as "the voice of engineering community", 2 - Goebbelian repetition of the "consensus" arranged by these same professionals and organizations on the American media, which is historically subservient to the Department of State / the Pentagon and always willing to deceive its public for "security" reasons.

Are you thinking of Steven Jones? Or are there other examples?

"when there are thousands and thousands of experts who disagree."


How many?
Do you know who?

How many?
Do you know who?

You aren't answering and are instead parroting my questions.
Answer mine and I will answer yours.
That's how discussions work.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

Have you ever read through those profiles? They are a fascinating bunch. What's more interesting is how many of these professionals seem to have not suffered any hiccups in their careers due to their beliefs. How can you claim there is a pattern of punishment when so many go without any consequences at all?

...in your opinion about them.

You've found someone who confirms your beliefs and won't consider anything that endangers that relationship.

OC,
I read your post. I am simply stunned...
You sound intelligent. You string together words into complete, sensible sentences.

And yet...
"wow".

My first post. I'll strain to be polite. But it's hard for me.
I am a 60 year-old mechanical engineer. Been at it my whole career, some significant success. But, in this profession, they beat the "concern for others' self-esteem" out of you. There are only 2 answers to engineering questions: right, & every other answer. (Which come in a couple of flavors that range from "wrong", to "stupid", to "f**ken stupid". To engineers, the "f-word" adjective just means "very". "Stupid" is automatically applied every single time someone repeats an "already-shown-to-be wrong" reply. As of 2008 or so, every truther argument is FIRMLY in the "f'ken stupid" set.)

It is pretty darn clear that you have no idea who either Zdenek Bazant or Anders Bjorkman are.

Bazant vs. Bjorkman is Godzilla vs. Bambi. It's Dwight Howard vs. Paris Hilton, 1-on-1 in the paint. It's a grudge match between The Rock & PeeWee Hermann. But ONLY if Bambi, Paris & PeeWee have gone off of their meds.

Look up Dr. Bazant here: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/ and a list of his approximately 800 peer-reviewed articles, textbooks (full & chapters), etc., in structural engineering & the stability of large structures here: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/publicat.pdf. I would strongly suggest that you scan the titles.

It was no accident that Dr. Bazant produced the first competent engineering assessment of the cause of the collapse of the towers in the week after the event: He is one of the WORLD's leading authority on the collapse of large structures. Unlike others, he didn't have to learn the principles. He has taught the principles, hell, he has discovered the principles, over a 50 year career.

AND IN THE OTHER CORNER...!!!

Anders Bjorkman, marine insurance assessor, aka "marine architect".
Structural engineering experience: Zero.
Experience with tall buildings: Zero.
Peer reviewed engineering publications: Zero.

Sadly, Mr. Bjorkman is clueless. His asserted claim is that "if the top structure of the towers fell from 2 miles, it would still not collapse the towers."

I will not go further into his abject failings in the field of Mechanical Engineering.

With great fanfare, the article "Anders Björkman named New Petitioner of the Month" was posted at Richard Gage's AE911Truth.org website when he joined in early 2009. In fact, if you post that phrase, with quotes, into any google search, you'll find this article cited numerous times by Truther websites. One thing that you will notice only with careful observation is that it has been pulled from AE911Truth website.

And it appears that Mr. Bjorkman has been drummed out of that group. I say "appears" because I have zero personal knowledge of the details of this event. But it is very clear that he is no longer listed as a member, and that his name has been removed as a signatory to petition(s).

How does one fall from "Petitioner of the Month" to "don't let the door smack you in the butt..."?

Perhaps this is part of the reason: Mr. Bjorkman's own words.

"Any person stating that she or he has actually seen or filmed a plane crashing into WTC1/2 or seen or filmed a big fire ball around WTC 1/2 or seen or filmed WTC1/2 collapse from top causing a fountain of debris is simply lying (and should be detained [Bjorkman means "arrested"]). Reason being that the latter is physically impossible." (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm)

He asserts, strenuously, in no uncertain terms, that every photo & every video that shows a plane hitting, entering, blowing a fireball out of the towers is "a fraud". Because he has calculated, somehow, that this event was impossible.

On his website, you will find his similar "reasoning" that proves to him, with equivalent certainty, that Atomic bombs are impossible (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm), that there are no NASA landers on Mars, that Space Shuttle trips to low earth orbit are hoaxes and that Apollo missions could not possibly have reached the moon (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm).

Mr. Bjorkmans issues go far deeper than 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

Please trust me, OC, when I say that I point out the above NOT in an attempt to disparage Mr. Bjorkman. Mr. Bjorkman is of no consequence in the discussion of 9/11 events.

I am sorry to say, OC, that I point out the above in disparaging YOU. More specifically, your woeful epistemology.

Please try to explain to me why Truthers are so woefully inept in their (in)ability to distinguish between the absolute pinnacle of expertise (operating within his field) from abject incompetence, (operating in a universe all his own).

OC, this isn't a subtle difference between close rivals.
This was not ''I chose Ravens & you chose Niners."
This was "I chose Shaq & you chose Honey Boo Boo."

And you went with "The Boo"...?

Can you explain?


Tom

PS. Mr. Gourley's competence is no better than Mr. Bjorkman's. He's a patent attorney. You don't seem to understand the meaning of the verb "refute".

PPS. Your comment that "Bažant's work was already called by one of his peers 'the most shameful Closure in structural damage analysis history'," is 100% incorrect. The comment was made by - you guessed it - Mr. Bjorkman himself. Here: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgbclose.htm.

Another word whose meaning you may wish to review: "peer".

... such an arrogant post.

Besides, your writing style is unclear, fragmented, non-objective... I've came to half of it and there was not a single sentence that had any useful information, so I just gave up.

When you're able to write something in an objective, civil, and respectful manner, not trying to attack your interlocutor instead of simply exposing whatever that is you have to expose... please come back.

You asserted that "Bažant's work itself has already been refuted twice … by James Gourley and Anders Bjorkman shows (Bazant's) perception does not reflect reality." Do you acknowledge that, for folks who do not understand the technical merits of those discussions, the issue of technical credibility is paramount?

You say my post was "unclear".

Do you have the slightest doubt that I consider Bazant to be one of the foremost structural engineers on the planet? If no doubt, then I was not "unclear".

Did I not make an airtight case (assuming you bothered to scan his bio & publications page) that Bazant is one of the most honored, most published engineers in history?

Did you look at your chosen "expert", Bjorkman's home page, thru the links to which I kindly supplied you?

Did you notice his background? Did you see anything related to structural engineering, failure analysis or high rise buildings? Did you notice ANY publications in the field of structural engineering?

Did you read the quotes there that I cited? Do you acknowledge that all of my citations are accurate & truly reflective of Bjorkman's stated opinions?

Is it evident to you that I consider Bjorkman to be both incompetent in mechanical engineering and a troubled soul?

Do you understand that I reject your assertion that Bjorkman has "refuted" Bazant's crush-down hypothesis?

Do you understand that I denigrate your assertion that Bjorkman qualifies as a "peer" of Bazant?

Was I clear that Bjorkman was greeted by AE911Truth with explicit celebration as "Petitioner of the Month"? Is it clear to you that Bjorkman has been stricken from their petition?

I concede that perhaps I was unclear about this last point. You need to search for "Bjorkman" on this page: http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php. You will not find his name. Since AE911Truth controls membership on this petition, it should be clear he was once a high visibility signatory (see "Petitioner of the Month", above) but has been removed from the list.

Do you understand that I consider your inference that Bjorkman deserves respect & stature comparable to Bazant's to be your massive epistemological failure?

Is "Bambi vs. Godzilla" unclear to you?

If you, or anyone else, are uncertain of my opinion on any of the above issues, then perhaps I was "unclear".

The tone of your response suggests, however, that you understood my meaning quite well.

One might even say "quite clearly."

(BTW, if you did not bother to look at the material that I provided, your, um, indolence does NOT constitute my lack of clarity.)

You say my post was "fragmented". You'll have to explain.

Finally, you called my post "non-objective".

Perhaps we have a differing definitions of the word "objective".

As an example, i would never have considered using Bjorkman's own assessment of the Bazant-Bjorkman letters (i.e., &quot Bazant's response was) the most shameful Closure in structural damage analysis history&quot to be "objective".

Perhaps you'll enlighten me as to your definition of the word.

Regards,

Tom

PS. I have my own question about "clarity".

You say "I won't even bother responding to such an arrogant post" …

… and then you proceed to respond.

One of us does appear to be a bit "unclear".

That's 2 fun posts so far.

… to what I wrote.

I am curious to see if OC will look at, & respond to, the evidence (i.e., the background of Bazant & Bjorkman) that I've presented.

His options are:

1. refuse to look, and cite some failing of my personality (e.g., "arrogance&quot as the reason.
2. look at their backgrounds and dismiss the differences, or
3. look at their backgrounds, acknowledge the colossal difference, and simply say "Oops, I was wrong. In the future, I should be more careful about who I cite as 'an expert'."

Well, it appears that OC has chosen the cowardly exit.

The one so frequently chosen by Truthers when facts start to discomfort their fantasies ...
... run away.

Rather than facing mistakes like adults,
rather than admitting mistakes,
rather than learning from mistakes,
rather than holding yourselves up to the highest standards of rigor & honesty & critical self-examination...

run away.
don't respond.

And then after some time has passed, the smack-down forgotten, go back to repeating the same tired old oft-debunked nonsense.

Amongst honest, honorable, serious people who are really searching for the truth, this would be considered shameful behavior.

It is painfully typical behavior amongst dishonest, frivolous Truthers. Whose only motivation, for years now, has been to win a debating point. At any price. At any cost.

"When you're able to write something in an objective, civil, and respectful manner, not trying to attack your interlocutor instead of simply exposing whatever that is you have to expose... please come back."

I won't play your game. When you want to have a real discussion on the topic, I will be here. If you want my cooperation to your disqualifying speech technique, forget about it.

A "real discussion"??
ARE YOU JOKING??

In post #17, you asserted that:

The fact that Bažant's work itself has already been refuted twice in articles published by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics by James Gourley and Anders Bjorkman shows he's perception does not reflect reality. In fact, his Bažant's work was already called by one of his peers "the most shameful Closure in structural damage analysis history".

In post #56, I provided you with to my engineering background, which allows me to make PROFESSIONAL judgments on the qualities of arguments put forth in the field of Mechanical Engineering.

(An oversight of mine: please provide your educational/professional background that informs your opinions about matters relating to structural engineering.)

I provided you with my simple, clear assessment that Bazant is considered one of the greatest engineers of this, or any, era; and that he is one of the world's foremost authorities on the collapse of large structures. Then I BACKED UP my assessment by providing you with links to his CV & Publications list.

I provided you with my simple, clear assessment that Bjorkman is a lunatic, likely with serious mental issues. Then I BACKED UP my assessment by providing you with links to Bjorkman's own writing on "the reasons that atom bombs, moon landings, Shuttle launches, the ISS, Mars landers, Galileo, Cassini, Pioneer, Voyager, etc. are ALL impossible fakes."

Did you respond to ANY of the info I provided you? Nope
Did you even look at ANY of the info I provided you? I doubt it.

In post 58, you pitched a hissy fit, said that my writing was "unclear, fragmented & non-objective".
You answered nothing & then ran away.

So in post #61, I responded to your "unclear" complaint.
I broke everything down into simple bite-size chunks: 18 simple questions that any 4th grader could understand.

Your reply: Silence. Not one question answered. Not one issue addressed.

In post #65, I asked again if you would address the SUBSTANTIVE issues.

Your reply: Silence.

This last silence proved to my satisfaction that you are NOT interested in either the truth or in a meaningful discussion.

In post #74, I posted my conclusions about your behavior.

I asserted that "someone who was rigorous, honest & really seeking the truth would address the issue."
And that "someone who was dishonest, frivolous, unconcerned with the truth & only looking to win debating points would simply skulk away. Only to return later to post the same crap."

So what did you do??
You ran away for 3 weeks.

And then, in post 88, returned, answered nothing & posted the same crap as before.

Gee, if only there was extra credit offered for psychic predictions…

And you have the huevos to suggest that "when I want to have a real discussion, then you'll be here"??? LMAO, OC.

If I were in your shoes, OC, I'd be just too damn humiliated to show my face any more in this thread.

It appears that Truthers have become inured to their own humiliations.

Cheers. I have zero doubt that you'll get your panties in another bunch, run away, whine about my writing style, and address no issues.

"Plus ça change …", I guess.

Tom

PS.
By the way, I did not call Bazant "an engineering God", as you falsely asserted in post #71. That interpretation is purely the result of your abject ignorance of engineering issues.

In a similar fashion, I wouldn't call Michael Jordan "a basketball God". I would assert that he is "one of the world's finest basketball talents, ever." Exactly as I referred to Bazant in his field. Anyone familiar with basketball would agree with me regarding MJ. Anyone familiar with Structural Engineering would agree with me regarding Bazant.

Your twisted misinterpretation of my words & meaning springs solely from your deep well of ignorance on matters related to my field, heavily seasoned with your own insecurity & snarkiness.

Your problem, Junior. Not mine.

...still rely on a full story of free fall throughout all three of his papers?

His analysis compares the energy released by the upper mass falling to the energy that could be absorbed. That energy is just a function of the mass and the height of the drop, so the acceleration of the falling mass is irrelevant. But yes, it's based on the energy released when the top section fell one story. However, that's a conservative estimate: Since the collapse actually began when the columns buckled at one floor -- not between floors -- a more accurate estimate would to use a two-story drop.

I need to go thru them carefully. It's been awhile.

Most complete info in BLGB, JoM (2008)

Provisionally, IIRC...
Bazant uses free fall for his first story collapse. Measured acceleration, averaged over ~15 stories, was about 0.7g.

But the impact velocity, for a fixed distance drop, goes as (a)^0.5, which would be .85*(velocity if free fall). When you square the velocity to get kinetic energy (1/2 m v^2), you get right back to 0.7.

So, given an accel of 0.7G, the kinetic energy after 1 story free fall would be 0.7 times the kinetic energy attained in free fall.

But there are SO MANY factors that Bazant has introduced favoring collapse arrest**, and the overload factor is so great (multiple of 31, IIRC), that this small percent change is noise level.

If you look at BLGB, there are some curves that show timing of collapse compared to free fall collapse. You can see that slight deviations to acceleration at the start of the collapse will become irrelevant once the collapse gets moving.

I'll go thru these sometime in the next week & get back if I need to include any corrections.

tk

** biggest factors:
a. column on column impact. wholly impossible, but still "limiting case".
b. one story fall: The columns were built in 3 story lengths, they failed in 3 story lengths.
c. column stagger: huge impact. As the descending mass reached each floor, that floor had already lost >2/3rd of its supports because of the stagger, and the 1/3rd remaining was massively compromised.
d. Real failure mode was snapped welds & bolts, whose energy to break was ~1/1000th energy to buckle columns.

This is from the first 2002 paper:

So, the "almost in a free fall" part is really an inference based on the primary assumption: "The energy dissipation, particularly that due to the inelastic deformation of columns during the initial drop of the upper part, may be neglected." If anyone wants to argue that the fall was significantly less than free fall, then they have to give some reason for believing there was a significant amount of energy dissipated in that initial deformation, because the crux of Bazant's argument is that the lower structure must absorb the remaining energy in order to halt the collapse. The analysis does not attempt to actually quantify the acceleration of the fall and then, for example, to use that to calculate an impact velocity and then use that to calculate the kinetic energy. Rather, he is going for a more direct estimate of the gravitational potential energy released and comparing that to the energy that could be absorbed. "Almost free fall" is really the result of there being a large disparity between the two, according to Bazant, not the other way around. Anyone who thinks that's the flaw in Bazant's argument is free to attempt to refute it, but that would need to be done quantitatively, using actual structural mechanics and actually addressing Bazant's technical argument, not just by asserting it's wrong.

The salient point is that if conspiracists like Gourley and Bjorkman want to find fault with Bazant's analysis, then they must begin by either finding significant energy sinks that he does not include or by finding major faults in his energy estimates. They did neither, and arguing about the difference between "free fall" and "almost free fall" is a red herring. And since Bazant is already assuming conditions that would tend to maximize the energy absorbed, that's going to be a tough row to hoe. Gourley and Bjorkman are spectacularly bad examples of any serious attempt, as Bazant was gracious enough to phrase politely in his Closures.

BTW, all the above can be condensed to "How the hell can you be so clueless about the gulf between Bazant's credentials & accomplishments versus Bjorkman's?"
We haven't even gotten to the numerous factual errors in your post #17.
That will start after I read your response to my last post.
If you don't respond, it'll start just as soon as I feel inclined to hold up your ignorance on these matters for all to see.
It ain't a pretty picture, OC.

"If you don't respond, it'll start just as soon as I feel inclined to hold up your ignorance on these matters for all to see.
It ain't a pretty picture, OC."

Seriously, you talk like a cartoon villain. And, if it's not clear yet... I give your opinion absolutely no value.

It's fair to say that we got off on the wrong foot here. Let's see if we can do a little damage control.

This started when I responded to your assertion that "Bjorkman had refuted Bazant". And then used Bjorkman's own self-serving assessment of the match to describe Bazant's dissection of Bjorkman's idiocy as "the most shameful Closure in … history". While attributing that brainless quote to one of "Bazant's peers".

All the above is wonderful farce. And I think I've thought of a way for you to appreciate it.

Imagine that Bazant (with all his credentials) was your guy (contradicting NIST) & Bjorkman (with his zero credentials) was mine (supporting NIST). Yeah, I know. My skin crawls at first thought at least as much as yours does. But go with me here…

Next, imagine that I, with zero mechanical engineering knowledge, was citing Bjorkman's defense of NIST, & you, with ~40 years mech engineering experience, was championing Bazant's dissection of NIST.

Now, with all the above fantasy in place, re-read your post #17 (as though I wrote it) & my reply #56 (as though you wrote it). With a good imagination, you might be able to appreciate some dry humor in "your post #56". With a great imagination, & if you got high, the dry humor might even rise to the level of "wit".

A classic case of: "If he plays for the other team, he's 'dirty'. If he plays for our team, he's 'scrappy'.!"

Now, with the road back to amity & bonhomie repaved, perhaps I could get you to actually answer a few points.

Because, thus far, I've tried "dry humor". (#56)
I've tried sarcasm & pedantry. (#61) (You must admit, I give good pedantry!)
I've tried sincerity. (#65)
I've tried rebuke (#74)
I've tried blunt dissection (#89)
I've even tried twirling my mustache and talking in a funny, Canadian voice (also #89)

And, while you will go to the effort of posting cartoon characters, you will not produce a single serious answer to any of my serious arguments.

Why, it's almost as if you didn't want to learn where your assertions fall apart…?!! Say it ain't so.

(Pssst, OC. Just between you & me. Wanna know a really juicy bit of irony? Your post, that started this whole thing, to zappaman was indignantly - one might say "accusatorially" - entitled "As I expected, you have no answers."

"… no answers…" It's rare to get that level of sweet, sweet irony from amateur prose.)

So, OC, what are you going to do?
What are you going to do?
What do I have to do to get you to provide a simple straight answer to a simple straight question?

Are you going to FORCE ME to tie Little Nell to the train tracks again..???!
I will, you know..!!

You say "you give my opinion absolutely no value". LoL, I expect nothing else. I have zero expectation that you'll ever give my opinions any weight. After all, I'm an experienced mech engineer & the subject is "mechanical engineering". Being a Truther, OF COURSE you're never going to give my opinion any weight.

You seem confused on the concept.

You said something brain-dead stoopid ("Bjorkman refuted Bazant&quot . I showed everyone how stoopid that statement was.

Ever since, I've been giving you the opportunity to address the issue & acknowledge your stoopid. Perhaps, to even act like an adult & admit that you were wrong.

You have resolutely demonstrated absolute CLASSIC Twoofiness: you've refused to address issues, you've gotten your panties in a bunch, you've stormed out of the room because "tfk's a big meanie!", and you've run off elsewhere, claiming victory "because tfk thinks Bazant's a God."

Oh, yeah. Almost forgot...
You posted a cartoon as though it was meaningful. (I always liked that one.!)

Have I got our interaction fairly well summarized?

Everything is exactly as it should be, OC.
You say stupid Truther things.
I'll show to the rest of the readers that they're stupid.
The universe is in order.

Ooops, looks like a little pothole has opened up on the Amityville Turnpike...
___

"Bwaahh, haaa, haaa…!
You MUST pay the rent...!!"

This started when I responded to your assertion that "Bjorkman had refuted Bazant". And then used Bjorkman's own self-serving assessment of the match to describe Bazant's dissection of Bjorkman's idiocy as "the most shameful Closure in … history". While attributing that brainless quote to one of "Bazant's peers".

I've said that Bjorkman refuted Bazant's explanation. Now, you can disagree with Bjorkman's refutal as much as you want. That doesn't change the fact that Bjorkman, in fact, presented a refutal. See? Fact. Period. His paper with his refutal was published by "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics". The same applies for James Gourley and others. At least six peer reviewd articles questioning Bazant and the official explanation were published by the same newspaper in which Bazant published his nonsense. You have a problem with that? Take it to "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics". I'm stating a fact here.

Next, imagine that I, with zero mechanical engineering knowledge, was citing Bjorkman's defense of NIST, & you, with ~40 years mech engineering experience, was championing Bazant's dissection of NIST.

Why am I supposed to believe you have ~40 years mech engineering experience? I don't know you. For all that I know, you could be Bozo. Even if you have "~40 years mech engineering experience", how the hell am I supposed to know you're in fact a qualified professional?

Appeal to authority won't work with me. Specially coming from an anonymous guy I've met a couple of times in a thread...

And, while you will go to the effort of posting cartoon characters, you will not produce a single serious answer to any of my serious arguments.

Which "serious arguments", for Christ sake? Just read your posts. You don't have "serious arguments", your argumentation basically consists in "I have a ~40 years career as a professional engineer and you are an idiot." Why should I take you seriously? In fact, you didn't present arguments - and I would expect them from a engineer with a "~40 years career". You just attacked me like a spoiled child.

(Pssst, OC. Just between you & me. Wanna know a really juicy bit of irony? Your post, that started this whole thing, to zappaman was indignantly - one might say "accusatorially" - entitled "As I expected, you have no answers."

Very nice to see you noticed that. Care to answer my question? Because I'm still waiting for one. What is the "engineering community" that supports Bazant's fairy tale?

You say "you give my opinion absolutely no value". LoL, I expect nothing else. I have zero expectation that you'll ever give my opinions any weight. After all, I'm an experienced mech engineer & the subject is "mechanical engineering". Being a Truther, OF COURSE you're never going to give my opinion any weight.

I don't buy this oversimplified binary division of "regular people vs "truthers". It certainly lacks legitimacy. That's not the reason I don't give your opinion any weight. That happens because you lost any expectation of good faith from me since your first post. I don't know if it's commons for ~40 years career engineers to start discussions by harassing, insulting, attacking and ridiculing people instead of simply presenting arguments. But, it's not common in my circle. That's why. I disagree a lot with several people in this thread that do not agree with my views regarding the official explanation for 9-11. But I do respect them and their opinions, because, well... they behave like normal human beings in conversations, not like dogs with rabies.

I was even starting to believe you were being honest about "damage control" and "starting with the wrong foot". Until I found this gem:

Everything is exactly as it should be, OC. / You say stupid Truther things. / I'll show to the rest of the readers that they're stupid. /
The universe is in order.

You're pathetically arrogant, I must tell you that. That doesn't bother me, for it feels childish and shallow. But, really, don't expect me to interact with you. I do the best I can to avoid people like you in my life. Don't see any reason why I should make any effort to have a dialogue with you.

Bye.

OK, lyrical prose is over.

Let's suppose I were to lay out the fundamentals of Number Theory & then show that, by applying those rules, 2*3=6.
Someone else retort, using only unsubstantiated assertion, that I'm wrong. 2*3 = 23.

I would say the person had "written baseless nonsense".
Would you assert that person had "refuted me"?
If so, we'll just agree to disagree on the meaning of the word "refute".
But, for the record, your definition sucks. And my definition doesn't suck.

Next, not Bjorkman nor Gourley nor Szuladzinski nor Szamboti has ever published a paper, or an article, in JOM.

A letter is not an article nor a paper. Letters are not peer reviewed in any way comparable to a paper. Papers are reviewed to delete obvious, blatant errors. The letters from all 4 of those clowns were replete with errors. If they had been "reviewed", the reviewers would have insisted the errors be removed before publication.

Catch the difference?

Now, you're welcome to post a link to the other "peer reviewed articles, published in JOM, questioning Bazant".

Why should you believe that I have ~40 years mech engineering experience?
Have I ever lied to you before?

Regardless of that, it will become apparent when I answer your tech questions. If you'd responded earlier, you'd know by now. If it remains an issue, others know exactly who I am. It can be resolved. (For the moment, a short bio, posted years ago: tinyurl.com/canv4kn )

I "haven't made a serious argument"??
Bjorkman's credentials vs. Bazant's.
That's a serious issue.
If you'd responded to that 3 weeks ago, we'd be on Topic #15 by now.

Now, do you think that I haven't noticed that you STILL haven't addressed that issue.
Please do so now.

Address that issue, and then I'll immediately address all of yours, including:
supporters of Bazant
"regular people vs. truthers"
my arrogance.
all the rest...