Steven Jones debates Leslie Robertson

[Laith]

Steven Jones was on radio with Leslie Robertson, one of the structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers.


When Dr. Jones raised the molten metal issue, Mr. Robertson seemed to doubt that there was really molten metal under the Twin Towers after the collapse.



Also, Mr. Robertson said that once the buildings began to collapse, they would have necessarily collapsed all the way down. However, Mr. Robertson admitted that he had not performed any calculations to prove that claim.


When Dr. Jones raised the issue of the fast collapse times, Robertson admitted that he had not looked into this, had performed no calculations, and really had no answer for the rapid collapse.

It wont let me post the link to it:eek:

[twinstead]

I suspect the debate would have gone differently for Jones if he had debated the many, many experts who HAVE done the calculations and DO have the answers for his questions.

I wonder why he didn't?

[Laith]

I suspect the debate would have gone differently for Jones if he had debated the many, many experts who HAVE done the calculations and DO have the answers for his questions.

I wonder why he didn't?

Jones didn't know what calculations he had done. At least listen to the audio before judging. Leslie robertson even backed out of talking about building 7 because he didn't design it!

Robertson helped design them and he doesn't have answers.

[Arus808]

he's a designer. please tell me what beyond his field of expertise does he need to comment on? He didn't do the calculations, because, he wasn't apart of the investigating team, nor was it his job to do so.

[Laith]

he's a designer. please tell me what beyond his field of expertise does he need to comment on? He didn't do the calculations, because, he wasn't apart of the investigating team, nor was it his job to do so.


Well if he can't be bothered to do calculations why is he offering to debate?

He also refutes the molten steel despite all the sourced, reliable quotes that are available, that I can't link to:mad:

[W6102LA]

It wont let me post the link to it:eek:

Once you reach 15 posts you can post links, for now just remove the http:// and someone else can link it for you :)

[Piggy]

Leslie robertson even backed out of talking about building 7 because he didn't design it!

You mean he declined to talk about a topic just because he didn't know anything about it?

No wonder he's not a conspiracy theorist!

[T.A.M.]

Why is it some people expect everyone remotely involved with any aspect of the WTCs to be as godamn obsessed with their destruction as the vast majority of CTers.

The man designed them. Do you have any idea how much guilt this man went through when he watched them fall, killing 3000 people. He blamed himself for a long time, and may still. For anyone, Jones, you, or anyone, to give him grief because he didnt calculate why the buildings collapsed in NEAR free fall time, his just crass, obnoxious, cold, and just plain wrong.

I am sorry if I am coming down heavy on you, but it just annoys me when this type of thing gets started.

I would love, LOVE to see Steven Jones take on any one, ANY ONE, of the NIST engineers that worked on the WTC Report. He would find himself completely out of his depth.

TAM

[Laith]

Thanks i'm nearly at 15 lol.

Jones makes another good point. if NIST doesn't study what happens after collapse initiation we cannot assume the collapse would be total. I'm listening now and Jones has Robertson reeling.

[Arus808]

Well if he can't be bothered to do calculations why is he offering to debate?

I thought that Robertson was on Steven Jones' radio show. So wasn;t it Steven Jones who offered to debate.

Did Steven Jones tell mr. Robertson before hand what he was going to aks him? If not, then how would Mr. Robertson know what details he would need to know prior to being on the radio show?

He also refutes the molten steel despite all the sourced, reliable quotes that are available, that I can't link tofirst you say molten metal not molten steel.
Molten metal is plausible, but Mr. Robertson, again wasn't involved in any investigations into 9/11. He can only offer what he knows about the buildings to which he helped design and get constructed.

If Steven Jones wanted something more, he should have debated with those involved in the investigations.


Edit: name corrected.

[Laith]

Why is it some people expect everyone remotely involved with any aspect of the WTCs to be as godamn obsessed with their destruction as the vast majority of CTers.

The man designed them. Do you have any idea how much guilt this man went through when he watched them fall, killing 3000 people. He blamed himself for a long time, and may still. For anyone, Jones, you, or anyone, to give him grief because he didnt calculate why the buildings collapsed in NEAR free fall time, his just crass, obnoxious, cold, and just plain wrong.

I am sorry if I am coming down heavy on you, but it just annoys me when this type of thing gets started.

I would love, LOVE to see Steven Jones take on any one, ANY ONE, of the NIST engineers that worked on the WTC Report. He would find himself completely out of his depth.

TAM

It's interesting. I just thought people might want to hear it.

Jones does mention some engineers I haven't heard of who, he claims, have done calculations that collapse should be at least 36 seconds.

If my posts aren't welcome I won't bother again.

[Arus808]

Jones makes another good point. if NIST doesn't study what happens after collapse initiation we cannot assume the collapse would be total. I'm listening now and Jones has Robertson reeling.


This is where Steven Jones doesn't know what he is talking about. once collapse initated, there is NO force in this world or the next that would have stopped it. That's why the NIST didn't study what happened during and after the collapse. it was definitely going to be a global collapse, given the damage as reported in their report.


Edit : name corrected

[Laith]

I thought that Robertson was on Alex Jones' radio show. So wasn;t it Alex Jones who offered to debate.

Did Alex Jones tell mr. Robertson before hand what he was going to aks him? If not, then how would Mr. Robertson know what details he would need to know prior to being on the radio show?



first you say molten metal not molten steel.
Molten metal is plausible, but Mr. Robertson, again wasn't involved in any investigations into 9/11. He can only offer what he knows about the buildings to which he helped design and get constructed.

If Alex Jones wanted something more, he should have debated with those involved in the investigations.

It's Steven not Alex. I will post a link later with all the molten steel quotes.

[60hzxtl]

Why is it some people expect everyone remotely involved with any aspect of the WTCs to be as godamn obsessed with their destruction as the vast majority of CTers.


TAM
Why not?

Look at the credence given to Willy Rodriguez.

[Laith]

This is where Alex Jones doesn't know what he is talking about. once collapse initated, there is NO force in this world or the next that would have stopped it. That's why the NIST didn't study what happened during and after the collapse. it was definitely going to be a global collapse, given the damage as reported in their report.

How can you say collapse would be total down to ground level? On what basis. Jones is a Professor of Physics you know.

[Gravy]

Leslie robertson even backed out of talking about building 7 because he didn't design it!And you have a problem with that? Please explain.

[dirtywick]

Just to play catch up, Steven Jones invites Leslie Roberstson on his show and the invitation is accepted, and he has a good opportunity to talk to one of the designers of the building to learn some actual facts about the building and he's wasting it by asking him about molten steel and freefall collapse?

[Arus808]

It's interesting. I just thought people might want to hear it.

Yes, its interesting to see Steven Jones ask someone , who is goign through his own guilt and grief, to comment on items / facts that he would not know off hand.

Steven Jones, is a person who "picks" his debates according to what he wants to be said.

So instead of asking one the numerous engineers who worked on investigating the collapse and aftermath of 9/11, he targets someone who had no hand in the investigations, and was only responsible for the design and construction of the towers.

Why would Steven JOnes want Robertson to comment on WTC 7? Robertson wasn't involved.

Jones does mention some engineers I haven't heard of who, he claims, have done calculations that collapse should be at least 36 seconds.

If my posts aren't welcome I won't bother again.They are welcomed, we just want to know why you'd find it interesting and how it weighs on your opinions.

[Piggy]

If my posts aren't welcome I won't bother again.
Post away. Just don't expect that you won't get BS called on you if you start slinging it. So far, every 9/11 CTer has been nothing but evasion, speculation, and downright error. Why should we expect this to be any different, especially when there is legitimate data to be had?

[beachnut]

Steven Jones was on radio with Leslie Robertson, one of the structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers.


When Dr. Jones raised the molten metal issue, Mr. Robertson seemed to doubt that there was really molten metal under the Twin Towers after the collapse.



Also, Mr. Robertson said that once the buildings began to collapse, they would have necessarily collapsed all the way down. However, Mr. Robertson admitted that he had not performed any calculations to prove that claim.


When Dr. Jones raised the issue of the fast collapse times, Robertson admitted that he had not looked into this, had performed no calculations, and really had no answer for the rapid collapse.

It wont let me post the link to it:eek:

it seems to me, after studing Robertson, he is the expert, and he knows that fire destroyed his building

Dr Thermite Jones just retired because BYU found his paper to be of no scientific merit. He asks questions and has no answers.

Dr Jones never has had proof of molten metal, yet the Al clad WTC would have had tons of Al, and it melts at jet fuel temperature.

A lot of CT sites say molten steel, at least Dr Jones makes it molten metal.

I have see photographic evidence of chunks of metal concrete etc all togehter like a rock, but when 110 floors weigh 5000 tons each, what would the guy on the bottom look like?

Robertson said!!!

The original structural engineering Leslie E. Robertson design for an aircraft
impact, but it was a slow speed landing configuration, 7 to 10 times less
energy at impact than the 9/11 impacts!


The original structural engineering Leslie E. Robertson said it was the 10,000
gallons of fuel they failed to consider (besides the order of magnitude larger
crash). Based on the design of the WTC, it is amazing the towers remained
standing as long as they did, surviving a impact blast 10 times greater than
design.


Leslie E. Robertson is a structural engineer who has designed hundreds of
buildings around the world including the World Trade Center.


Leslie E. Robertson, , said:
"The twin towers of the World Trade Center were designed to resist safely the
impacting by the largest aircraft of that time...the intercontinental version
of the Boeing 707. In no small measure because of the high level of
competence of the men and women of LERA, each of the towers resisted the
impact of an aircraft larger than the 707. Yes, fire brought down the towers,
but the structural integrity created by the engineers of LERA allowed perhaps
thousands of persons to evacuate the buildings prior to the fire-induced
collapse." http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/LesRobertson.html (http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/LesRobertson.html)

Leslie E. Robertson, , said: on being hit by a commercial jet -
" It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all
of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors
perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The
structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others.
The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very
much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing
707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of
the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner
reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable
happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the
fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)


Leslie E. Robertson, , said: more on design for jet impact –
" The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear
industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It
was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK
or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects
of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that
circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to
control the effects of such fires."

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)

More on Robertson -

http://interactive.wsj.com/fr/emailthis/retrieve.cgi?d=SB1002665463810757240.djm (http://interactive.wsj.com/fr/emailthis/retrieve.cgi?d=SB1002665463810757240.djm)

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/LERPresentation.htm (http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/LERPresentation.htm)

A quick review
The original structural engineering Leslie E. Robertson said; -design of WTC included an impact only of a "slow-flying Boeing 707."

-"wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of
the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed"

Leslie Robertson's building fell, how does he feel? Dr Jones is making up stuff about explosives blowing up the building. Dr Jones is the one who should feel bad. No wonder he retired/fired. Now he is on the circuit speading his lie couched in just wanting the truth and another look! This loon is 5 years too late!

[Laith]

And you have a problem with that? Please explain.

He's an experienced structural engineer and I've heard many times that they all believe building 7 was a simple collapse.

Hae you heard the audio?

[T.A.M.]

Laith:

Your posts will always be allowed (as long as they break no rules). They may not be accepted, and may be ridiculed, but that is the way it is here on a skeptics Forum. Please feel free to post, but people will call you on everything here.

Welcome to the JREF Forum on Conspiracy Theories.

TAM

[Gravy]

How can you say collapse would be total down to ground level? On what basis. Jones is a Professor of Physics you know.Jones is an academic fraud who was kicked out of his job of 21 years for making claims he couldn't substantiate.

[Arus808]

How can you say collapse would be total down to ground level? On what basis. Jones is a Professor of Physics you know.

What do you think should happen when two 110 story towers, are hit by two multi-tonnage airplanes, with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, infernos on several floors that were impacted and were burning all that time with no amount of effort to put them out?

ETA: sorry, had to make an correction. my bad on reading the original post.

[Gravy]

He's an experienced structural engineer and I've heard many times that they all believe building 7 was a simple collapse.

Hae you heard the audio?You've heard Robertson opine on WTC 7? When?

[Laith]

Arus808 it's STEVEN JONES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[T.A.M.]

So let me get this straight.

The radio show you are listening to is Alex Jones, the wingnut radio show host, debating Les Robertson, not Steven Jones.

Ahhh...that changes it a little...Alex knows much less than Steven.

Please post link, or equivelent, so we may listen.

TAM

[Shrinker]

The reason Robertson is 'reeling' (if indeed he is) is because he is being asked about a bunch of bizarre nonsense that only CTists and debunkers have ever even heard of. He's no doubt being caught off guard by the sheer randomness of the claims.

The collapse times issue is meaningless in the real world. Only crazy CTists would think of timing the collapses in order to detect some kind of anomaly. Only CTists think that the timing of the collapse can somehow prove the existence of secret squads of invisible demolition teams and silent explosives.

And lets not forget the old trick: "How do you explain THIS?!", where 'THIS' is a completely made up 'fact' where the live interviewee has never heard of this 'fact' before (because it was made up), and has no hope of proving that its made up (because you can't prove a negative).

[Laith]

Jones is an academic fraud who was kicked out of his job of 21 years for making claims he couldn't substantiate.

He retired. So your not going to listen to the audio? Ok.

[Laith]

The reason Robertson is 'reeling' (if indeed he is) is because he is being asked about a bunch of bizarre nonsense that only CTists and debunkers have ever even heard of. He's no doubt being caught off guard by the sheer randomness of the claims.

The collapse times issue is meaningless in the real world. Only crazy CTists would think of timing the collapses in order to detect search for some kind of anomaly. Only CTists think that the timing of the callpase can somehow prove the existence of secret squads of invisible demolition teams and silent explosives.

And lets not forget the old trick: "How do you explain THIS?!", where 'THIS' is a completely made up 'fact' where the live interviewee has never heard of this 'fact before' (because it was made up), and has no hope of proving that its made up (because you can't prove a negative).

No robertson has just claimed he has never met a person talking about molten steel. I have quotes from academics who inspected ground zero if you would like to see them

[Piggy]

How can you say collapse would be total down to ground level? On what basis.
By the time the collapse initiated, there was a multi-floor fire raging within the structure, initiated by an airliner full of jet fuel, and stoked by massive amounts of paper, furniture, and other combustible materials.

When collapse began, the weaking of support structures guaranteed that several floors would be taken down by the force of the falling structure which included the entire mass of the building above the collapse point.

Given the mass and energy which must have been in play by the time this collapse reached lower floors, especially considering the grid structure of the building, it would have been nothing short of miraculous if the collapse had somehow stopped.

[Laith]

So let me get this straight.

The radio show you are listening to is Alex Jones, the wingnut radio show host, debating Les Robertson, not Steven Jones.

Ahhh...that changes it a little...Alex knows much less than Steven.

Please post link, or equivelent, so we may listen.

TAM

No. Steven jones is having a debate with robertson on a colorado radio station. Alex Jones is not involved and I never mentioned him

[Arus808]

Laith, if you bothered to look, i made a correction

Still, why would this be interesting, knowing that Steven Jones has been suspended from BYU for trying to push his claims on unfounded evidence?

[Laith]

By the time the collapse initiated, there was a multi-floor fire raging within the structure, initiated by an airliner full of jet fuel, and stoked by massive amounts of paper, furniture, and other combustible materials.

When collapse began, the weaking of support structures guaranteed that several floors would be taken down by the force of the falling structure which included the entire mass of the building above the collapse point.

Given the mass and energy which must have been in play by the time this collapse reached lower floors, especially considering the grid structure of the building, it would have been nothing short of miraculous if the collapse had somehow stopped.

Could I see your calculations on that? I have searched for some calculations done and even NIST has not done them

[Shrinker]

He retired. So your not going to listen to the audio? Ok.

He was retired.

[T.A.M.]

Thanks Laith

[Arus808]

No robertson has just claimed he has never met a person talking about molten steel. I have quotes from academics who inspected ground zero if you would like to see them

please provide them now. YOu dont have to ask if we would like to see them. ASSUME we always want proof of what you claim here.

And thes academics are the "scholars" are they; that already blows their credibility.

[beachnut]

How can you say collapse would be total down to ground level? On what basis. Jones is a Professor of Physics you know.

cold fusion is his game, he has changed from only Thermite to RDX in many of his versions of his paper

his paper use to have the torch cut from clean up as his thermite proof

how do you change a peer reviewed paper over and over

he added RDX with his thermite when he learned CD does not use thermite,

his paper is really his trip on learning CD trying to prove his idea that explosives brought down the WTC towers

Then the real expert, the one and first hand expert said the following i posted back a few

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2043018&postcount=20

[Laith]

Laith, if you bothered to look, i made a correction

Still, why would this be interesting, knowing that Steven Jones has been suspended from BYU for trying to push his claims on unfounded evidence?

Have you read Jones paper? He retired after being on paid leave.

[T.A.M.]

Could I see your calculations on that? I have searched for some calculations done and even NIST has not done them

Do you have prove they didn't do them, or are you just unable to find them because (1) they are not widely available, or (2) NIST has not released them.

TAM

[Gravy]

He retired. So your not going to listen to the audio? Ok.
He was pulled out of his classes after the semester had begun and placed on paid leave. He and the school negotiated a retirement package. He did not leave by choice.

Sure, I'll listen to the audio. When are you going to post it?

[Laith]

please provide them now. YOu dont have to ask if we would like to see them. ASSUME we always want proof of what you claim here.

And thes academics are the "scholars" are they; that already blows their credibility.

This link has numerous sourced quotes from reliable experts:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

[Arus808]

Have you read Jones paper? He retired after being on paid leave.
1) yes i have. and nothing in it is even remotely possible and his suggestions of what brougth the towers down are laughable.
2) he retired after being suspended. being suspended doesn't mean you dont get paid.

[senorpogo]

He was pulled out of his classes after the semester had begun and placed on paid leave.

He was wired with explosives and demolished?

[chipmunk stew]

Jones does mention some engineers I haven't heard of who, he claims, have done calculations that collapse should be at least 36 seconds.
Yes, that would be Judy "Star Wars Space Beam" Wood. AKA, Judy "Keebler Elves" Wood. AKA, Judy "Billiard Balls" Wood.

She's a total kook.

[Piggy]

So your not going to listen to the audio? Ok.

Has it been posted? If so, I missed it. Will someone please repost? Thanks.

[Gravy]

please provide them now. YOu dont have to ask if we would like to see them. ASSUME we always want proof of what you claim here.

And thes academics are the "scholars" are they; that already blows their credibility.Arus, several people did report seeing molten metal there. Not surprising. Some said "steel," although the metal was never tested.

[T.A.M.]

georgewashington blog is directly connected to the "Scholars". they refer to it often, link to it. I suspect one of them actually runs it.

TAM

[Gravy]

He was wired with explosives and demolished?No, he was withdrawn from an area that was in danger of collapsing on him. :D

[Laith]

He was pulled out of his classes after the semester had begun and placed on paid leave. He and the school negotiated a retirement package. He did not leave by choice.

Sure, I'll listen to the audio. When are you going to post it?

He had to leave because of people objecting. Academic freedom is dead.

Heres the audio:

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/StevenJones_LeslieRobertson_20061026.mp3

[senorpogo]

No, he was withdrawn from an area that was in danger of collapsing on him. :D

Well played.

[beachnut]

He retired. So your not going to listen to the audio? Ok.

Laith you need to read his paper here is one version online

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf

Dr Thermite Jones is also a

Archaeometrist

in listening to Jones or Robertson - the designer of the structure wins

Jones knows nothing about stucture and steel etc...

Robertson does - by an order of magnitude

Read Jones paper,, oops you could go deeper into the cult of truth

[T.A.M.]

Judy woods calculations are based on the "Billiard Ball" model, where each ball has to reach the one below before it moves, etc...complete junk science, from what I can see...

Her latest theory, that a "STAR WARS" mini beam was responsible for the WTC collapse, makes here keebler elf "the WTCS are like trees" theory seem...almost scientific.

TAM

[Arus808]

This link has numerous sourced quotes from reliable experts:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html


Okay nice to link to a blog, about it, but word of note that you failed to realize
1) much of the quotes were being made by people who just arrived there and making a QUICK visual assessment.
2) much of what they thought were steel were actually just many different types of alloys (including aluminum, which is not an uncommon metal in office buildings to melt faster than most known metals)
3) it was possible for melted steel to be found because of the ongoing fires beneath the rubble that were let to burn without being fought. the debris themselves created a nice oven effect, thereby increaing the temperature and heat.

So, why should Robertson know about this again?

[Gravy]

He had to leave because of people objecting. Academic freedom is dead.

Heres the audio:

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/StevenJones_LeslieRobertson_20061026.mp3

Yes, a university certainly doesn't have a right to object to academic fraud in its ranks. Thanks for the link.

Perhaps you'd like to explain what you think is valid about Jones' research.

[Laith]

georgewashington blog is directly connected to the "Scholars". they refer to it often, link to it. I suspect one of them actually runs it.

TAM

And? the quotes are all sources to reputable publications. Some say steel. in fact one of them is a Ph.D who went to inspect the site.

[Piggy]

Could I see your calculations on that? I have searched for some calculations done and even NIST has not done them

If you want numbers, I don't have them, but I also know that you have no numbers to demonstrate that a cessation of collapse is plausible. Since every bona fide investigator who's looked into the matter finds the non-cessation of the collapse unremarkable, on exactly the grounds I've cited, I will need a little convincing to believe that "it should have stopped" is any kind of counter-argument that should be taken seriously.

Try the documentary "Why the Towers Fell", for example.

[Laith]

Yes, a university certainly doesn't have a right to object to academic fraud in its ranks.

Fraud? Could you link me to a source please?

[Arus808]

Arus, several people did report seeing molten metal there. Not surprising. Some said "steel," although the metal was never tested.

Yes, I know that many investigators saw molten metal. however, OP is swtiching from molten metal to steel then back again in his postings.

And he just linked to a document of quotes where much of it seems to be quotes from initial assessments, not by those who tested that metal.

[Arus808]

And? the quotes are all sources to reputable publications. Some say steel. in fact one of them is a Ph.D who went to inspect the site.

visualling seeing what was there and actually testing what it was are two different things.

did that PHD do a test right on scene, to see if it was steel or just combination of several metals?

[Laith]

If you want numbers, I don't have them, but I also know that you have no numbers to demonstrate that a cessation of collapse is plausible. Since every bona fide investigator who's looked into the matter finds the non-cessation of the collapse unremarkable, on exactly the grounds I've cited, I will need a little convincing to believe that "it should have stopped" is any kind of counter-argument that should be taken seriously.

Try the documentary "Why the Towers Fell", for example.

So you have done no calculations but you confidently assert it had to be total collapse??

I am just saying that non total collapse would be the assumed thing and even Robertson got on the backfoot when that was put to him.

[Laith]

visualling seeing what was there and actually testing what it was are two different things.

did that PHD do a test right on scene, to see if it was steel or just combination of several metals?

I suspect a Ph.D, presumably in something relevent, would know the difference.

[Arus808]

Fraud? Could you link me to a source please?

teaching something that is wholly without merit, not backed by evidence, or facts, and passing them off as if it were true, is fraud.

[Arus808]

I suspect a Ph.D, presumably in something relevent, would know the difference.

by doing a quick visualization and not a physical test?

did you bother to take any science class in elementary/middle/high school?

[Laith]

teaching something that is wholly without merit, not backed by evidence, or facts, and passing them off as if it were true, is fraud.

He has never taught this, he wrote a paper and we are all entitled to do that.

[Arus808]

So you have done no calculations but you confidently assert it had to be total collapse??

the hundreds of investigators seem to think it was something that could not be stopped, unless ... well... for the act of some higher force...

I am just saying that non total collapse would be the assumed thing and even Robertson got on the backfoot when that was put to him.

Maybe because
HE WAS not on on the investigating team so, he wouldn't have an opinion or otherwise on the subject?

[Gravy]

Fraud? Could you link me to a source please?Several examples in my paper on WTC 7, which is linked in my signature.

[Laith]

by doing a quick visualization and not a physical test?

did you bother to take any science class in elementary/middle/high school?

Why are you insulting me?

This person never said it was a quick inspection.

[Arus808]

He has never taught this, he wrote a paper and we are all entitled to do that.


funny, it was publicized that was what he was planning to do in his class before the semester started.

and publishing a paper, is as much going to be held against you, if you are professing to claim something and pass it off as the truth, withouth review. These are all things that universities look at for the employment of those who are going to teach students. IF a professor isn't going to follow the decorum to do research and have that research reviewed by his peers, what is he telling his students?

[Laith]

Several examples in my paper on WTC 7, which is linked in my signature.

No, when I said source I meant like notes from a disciplinary panel or an indictment, not your paper.

If he is a fraud, why would he so happily agree to debate a designer of the trade centre?

[Arus808]

Why are you insulting me?

This person never said it was a quick inspection.

BY Their quotes, you can tell they were making quick assessments and just posting their opion.

Of course, Im not going to believe that blog over the countless reports by investigators testimonies.

So, aGAIN why would Robertson need to know this?

[Laith]

funny, it was publicized that was what he was planning to do in his class before the semester started.

and publishing a paper, is as much going to be held against you, if you are professing to claim something and pass it off as the truth, withouth review. These are all things that universities look at for the employment of those who are going to teach students. IF a professor isn't going to follow the decorum to do research and have that research reviewed by his peers, what is he telling his students?

Could you provide a link to the publication? I never heard he was planning to teach it...

[Gravy]

No, when I said source I meant like notes from a disciplinary panel or an indictment, not your paper.

If he is a fraud, why would he so happily agree to debate a designer of the trade centre?Fraud. Deliberate deception and misrepresentation. If you think otherwise, read the examples in my paper and make your case.

[gavqt]

He has never taught this, he wrote a paper and we are all entitled to do that.

Not if you use you academic standing to lend weight to it, you're not.

(I can't believe I got dragged into this idiocy)

[Laith]

BY Their quotes, you can tell they were making quick assessments and just posting their opion.

Of course, Im not going to believe that blog over the countless reports by investigators testimonies.

So, aGAIN why would Robertson need to know this?

I assume your not a physicist? Why would you so easily dismiss all these on site experts and Jones?

[Arus808]

No, when I said source I meant like notes from a disciplinary panel or an indictment, not your paper.

Read his paper. You'd have had your answer.

If he is a fraud, why would he so happily agree to debate a designer of the trade centre?

Because he knows that he wouldn't be able to DEBATE one of the hundreds of invetigators, so he "picks" his battles, so that he "looks" good.

[Garb]

No, when I said source I meant like notes from a disciplinary panel or an indictment, not your paper.

If he is a fraud, why would he so happily agree to debate a designer of the trade centre?

Is anyone else having deja vu here?

[Arus808]

I assume your not a physicist?
Does it matter? What does a physicist have to do with molten metal?

Why would you so easily dismiss all these on site experts and Jones?

because he is a quack and thank heavens, he's not spreading his ideals to impressionable minds.

[Laith]

Fraud. Deliberate deception and misrepresentation. If you think otherwise, read the examples in my paper and make your case.

Did he lose his job because of what you cite in your paper? Is that what you are saying?

[Arus808]

Is anyone else having deja vu here?

Yup. its pdoherty and docker i bet. By the time he started asking questions after question in rapid succession, it came to me.

[Laith]

Does it matter? What does a physicist have to do with molten metal?



because he is a quack and thank heavens, he's not spreading his ideals to impressionable minds.

He may be a quack but what about all the onsite experts you just regarded? Physics is very relevent. Jones is an expert in archeometry too.

[Arus808]

Could you provide a link to the publication? I never heard he was planning to teach it...

read gravy's paper.

or use google. im not going to do your homework.

[Laith]

Yes, that would be Judy "Star Wars Space Beam" Wood. AKA, Judy "Keebler Elves" Wood. AKA, Judy "Billiard Balls" Wood.

She's a total kook.

No not Judy Wood. Listen to the audio please. He cites a maths professor and a mechanical engineering one.

[Laith]

read gravy's paper.

or use google. im not going to do your homework.

So you cant. He wasn't planning to teach it. Why lie?

[Shrinker]

No not Judy Wood. Listen to the audio please. He cites a maths professor and a mechanical engineering one.

Did you come here to actually discuss the collapse of the towers, or are you just interested in the personalities involved and their debating tactics? We've already had a couple of such visitors you know...

[Arus808]

He may be a quack

Then that ends it. If he's a quack, then anything he says, should be treated as the ramblings of one.

but what about all the onsite experts you just regarded?

They are all on the back of hte NIST and FEMA reports. What about them?



Physics is very relevent. Jones is an expert in archeometry too.
So? He wasn't there to investigate 9/11. So what does his "expertise" have to do with finding molten metal?

And AGAIN, why should Robertson know this?

[alexg]

Is anyone else having deja vu here?
uh, yea laith=docker?

[T.A.M.]

SO I am half way through the pod cast, and Steven Jones has said nothing in anyway that Leslie cannot explain...Les is far from reeling at any point.

TAM

[Laith]

Laith you need to read his paper here is one version online

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf

Dr Thermite Jones is also a

Archaeometrist

in listening to Jones or Robertson - the designer of the structure wins

Jones knows nothing about stucture and steel etc...

Robertson does - by an order of magnitude

Read Jones paper,, oops you could go deeper into the cult of truth


I have read his paper. Archeometry is actually very relevent when it comes to analysing samples.

[Laith]

Well what a nice friendly debate I must admit.

[Laith]

Still 15 more posts before an avatar

[beachnut]

Judy woods calculations are based on the "Billiard Ball" model, where each ball has to reach the one below before it moves, etc...complete junk science, from what I can see...

Her latest theory, that a "STAR WARS" mini beam was responsible for the WTC collapse, makes here keebler elf "the WTCS are like trees" theory seem...almost scientific.

TAM

I use the borthers in a tree model to debunk her

brother 1 is in a 110 foot tree at the top he falls and 2 tries to stop him but loose his grip instantly and begins falling with 1 who was only 10 feet above him, the new velocity of 1+2 is that velocity based on the momentum of 1 now with the the new mass of 1+2, 1+2 hit 3 and he instanly fails his grip broke his arm and now is with 1+2+3 headed for 4, 4 is a lot bigger yet 1+2+3 hit 4 and he also put up some resistance but is instantly accelerated or ripped and 1234 are now at that instant traveling as the new mass with a velocity porpotional to the momentum of 123, yes each collision stole some enegy breaking bones and ripping braches but took place conservign momemntum, no stops on this train as #5 looms to save the day, #5 moves and avoids the collison saving the last brother by using physics, he avoided the collison to live.

I left out how gravity is a force acting constantly on each, and as the brother 1234 accelerate to their doom, the constantly increasing speed will ensure a large impact equal to all the PE each had in his place in the tree minus energy expeled in breaking bones and branches and heat in any collisions.

brother 5 had taken pysics and move quickly knowing the energy of his brothers 1234 was greater than he could sustain!

Seem she kind of keeps her junk separte from clemson work, but witht the star war weapon think she may be hitting the funny farm soon!

[Shrinker]

Still 15 more posts before an avatar

Give it 10 minutes

[alexg]

Still 15 more posts before an avatar
you mean 15 minutes right? post a minute limit

who's it gonna be this time?

[T.A.M.]

The only engineers he has referred to is Gordon Ross, so far (20 minute mark).

[Laith]

Will you please stop derailing my thread with nonsense?

Could someone please give me the calculation showing complete collapse is inevitable after the failure conditions were reached?

[beachnut]

I have read his paper. Archeometry is actually very relevent when it comes to analysing samples.

not on explosive in buildings

did you miss his first paper? Papers?

so you baited us? thanks, post a little zinger and rope in the guys to tell us

So you have read all of Robertsons papers and letters on 9/11???

[T.A.M.]

oh, and of course, the only journal he can pull out is dum da dum...the journal of 9/11 studies...the biggest sham of a journal I have ever seen.

Peer reviewed...please...Jones should be ashamed as a scientist to say the articles in that paper are peer reviewed.

TAM

[Arus808]

So you cant. He wasn't planning to teach it. Why lie?

so, I may have been mistakened - it may not be him (but I do remember a professor/university teacher being admonished for making students in his syllabus required to read some questionable papers on 9/11).

However, it still doesn't detract from the fact that it was his papers that got him into trouble.

So, again, why should Robertson know anything beyond the construction and design of the WTC towers?

[Laith]

The only engineers he has referred to is Gordon Ross, so far (20 minute mark).

He mentions two who have done the specific calculations on falltime being more than 36 seconds.

[Laith]

so, I may have been mistakened - it may not be him (but I do remember a professor/university teacher being admonished for making students in his syllabus required to read some questionable papers on 9/11).

However, it still doesn't detract from the fact that it was his papers that got him into trouble.

So, again, why should Robertson know anything beyond the construction and design of the WTC towers?

So you outright lied to counter my argument. Thanks

[delphi_ote]

Can anyone imagine a scenario where the building would've stopped collapsing when it started? How would a structure designed to hold a certain stationary mass somehow stop a falling and undistributed mass (i.e. all the falling floors from above)? Unless the building fell in such a way that the top stories didn't collapse onto the bottom stories (which obviously isn't what we saw in the World Trade Center terrorist attack), sorry. Kinetic energy is clearly going to bring the whole damn thing down.

[T.A.M.]

unamed engineers are useless

[Augustine]

Will you please stop derailing my thread with nonsense?

Could someone please give me the calculation showing complete collapse is inevitable after the failure conditions were reached?

Bazant & Zhou.

[Arus808]

So you outright lied to counter my argument. Thanks

making a mistatement, and lying are two different things.
But you have problem as always, docker, with taking things out of context to suit your needs.

Still, why do you ignore that it was his papers that got him into trouble anyway, so if he planned on using it in his class or not, is actually a moot point.

[Garb]

So you outright lied to counter my argument. Thanks

Hmmm, who might you be?

[T.A.M.]

You know what. I am now convinced, beyond a doubt, that if one of the NIST engineers, like Sunder, or Lew, were to debate with Jones, he (Jones) would leave crying...

TAM

[Arus808]

Hmmm, who might you be?

its docker. best to start reporting him for forum violations.

[Laith]

Can anyone imagine a scenario where the building would've stopped collapsing when it started? How would a structure designed to hold a certain stationary mass somehow stop a falling and undistributed mass (i.e. all the falling floors from above)? Unless the building fell in such a way that the top stories didn't collapse onto the bottom stories (which obviously isn't what we saw in the World Trade Center terrorist attack), sorry. Kinetic energy is clearly going to bring the whole damn thing down.

Could you give me a calculation showing this? I can't find one.

I would suspect the collapse would dissipate in the sense of lateral loss of debris so when the thicker core columns were reched the collapse would stop.

[Augustine]

Can anyone imagine a scenario where the building would've stopped collapsing when it started? How would a structure designed to hold a certain stationary mass somehow stop a falling and undistributed mass (i.e. all the falling floors from above)? Unless the building fell in such a way that the top stories didn't collapse onto the bottom stories (which obviously isn't what we saw in the World Trade Center terrorist attack), sorry. Kinetic energy is clearly going to bring the whole damn thing down.

Not really. Only if the planes had struck very close to the top of the building, and if the floor collapse was partial.

[Shrinker]

Could you give me a calculation showing this? I can't find one.

I would suspect the collapse would dissipate in the sense of lateral loss of debris so when the thicker core columns were reched the collapse would stop.

Could you give me a calculation showing this? I can't find one.

[Arus808]

I would suspect the collapse would dissipate in the sense of lateral loss of debris so when the thicker core columns were reched the collapse would stop.


you dont understand gravity and force do ya?

[Laith]

its docker. best to start reporting him for forum violations.

Who's docker? What violations?

[Augustine]

Could you give me a calculation showing this? I can't find one.

I would suspect the collapse would dissipate in the sense of lateral loss of debris so when the thicker core columns were reched the collapse would stop.

Wrong.

To halt the collapse, the plastically dissipated energy (the energy to form plastic hinges in the columns) in the impacted floor would have to be greater than the gravitational potential energy released from the fall of the floors above (converted to kinetic energy). In the WTC, the kinetic energy was on the order of 8 times greater than the energy required to form plastic hinges. Consequently, the collapse would accelerate from floor to floor.

[Laith]

you dont understand gravity and force do ya?

Yes I have a very good understanding. Gravity is a force so the and was superfluous.

[Arus808]

Who's docker? What violations?

dont worry, I'll let the admins deal with you. They can deduce whether you're not docker or you are under another name. Till this time, I will believe that you are docker. Evidence provided thus far, only makes me believe that you are.

[Arus808]

Gravity is a force so the and was superfluous.

say what?

[Laith]

Wrong.

To halt the collapse, the plastically dissipated energy (the energy to form plastic hinges in the columns) in the impacted floor would have to be greater than the gravitational potential energy released from the fall of the floors above (converted to kinetic energy). In the WTC, the kinetic energy was on the order of 8 times greater than the energy required to form plastic hinges. Consequently, the collapse would accelerate from floor to floor.

But what about the large amounts of debris that came out laterally and pulverised? That weight would be lost as the columns were actually getting thicker towards the bottom.

[Laith]

Why is everyone attacking me?

If anyone can give me the calculation I have asked for please do.

[Arus808]

But what about the large amounts of debris that came out laterally and pulverised? That weight would be lost as the columns were actually getting thicker towards the bottom.

So you honestly think that the small amount of large debris, ejected during collpase, would be enough to slow a global collapse?

[Arus808]

Why is everyone attacking me?

because you are docker
If anyone can give me the calculation I have asked for please do.why dont you present us with your calculations first?

[Augustine]

But what about the large amounts of debris that came out laterally and pulverised? That weight would be lost as the columns were actually getting thicker towards the bottom.

Okay, what percentage of the weight of the floors above (and the collapsing floors) are you assuming is getting ejected laterally to arrive at the conclusion that the kinetic energy is not greater than the plastically dissipated energy?

[Shrinker]

But what about the large amounts of debris that came out laterally and pulverised? That weight would be lost as the columns were actually getting thicker towards the bottom.

Show your calculations Laith. The entire industry disagrees with you. Forget opinions, produce the figures.

[Lisa Simpson]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67186

[milesalpha]

Arus I think you were mixing up that Barret character with Jones.

Just curious did Jones ever get around to publishing his paper in an appropriate academic journal as he promised he would back in April? (Rhetorical question really, I know he didn't and it says everything about the value of his paper).

[beachnut]

Will you please stop derailing my thread with nonsense?

Could someone please give me the calculation showing complete collapse is inevitable after the failure conditions were reached?

the top floors began to fall, the structure below could not stop it

the new combined mass move along destroying the whole building as seen on 9/11

no one can quickly calculate the chaos of the collapse, but you can break it down to floor by floor

The PE of a tower was 1,000,000,000,000 joules

That is a fact you can calculate PE=MASS x Gravity x Height

Does the WTC look like 1000 500 pound bombs hit the area twice???

That is the PE released on 9/11, just from falling buildings.

Since you seem to have CT tendencies you are a student of CD, and the major tenant of CD is you use the building to destroy itself! Not explosives, this is the real sad part of meeting CT people, they have not clue on CD or energy and structures.

Anyone meet any CTers with an understanding of CD or physics? Present numbers? Proof? Evidence?

After failure conditions are met and the building begins to move at the impact area the KE of the moving mass is greater than resistance of the building below, and each section that fails below start falling with the force of gravity acting and the mass grows in a chain reaction, gee there was an 80 story of so spire that stood for almost 30 seconds, not quite free fall speed and the acre foot print building x 2 trashed 19 acres as it fell in its "own footprint"!!! funny 19 acres are not a 2 acre foot print!!

those ct guy always ironic and disrespectful all at once, with a name like truth it has to be good

[Augustine]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67186

Awww....

[Augustine]

I think Leslie Robertson really is baffled by the insanity of Jones. As an aside, I've met Leslie Robertson, attended a few seminars where he presented, very nice man.

[milesalpha]

Damnit Lisa, we were putting the boot to the groin here...metaphorically.

[beachnut]

Arus I think you were mixing up that Barret character with Jones.

Just curious did Jones ever get around to publishing his paper in an appropriate academic journal as he promised he would back in April? (Rhetorical question really, I know he didn't and it says everything about the value of his paper).

yes, that is why he was put on leave and retired

the journal was the now famous, started by DR Jones

his own online journal for 9/11 studies as someone already posted

[gavqt]

Why is everyone attacking me?

If anyone can give me the calculation I have asked for please do.

I have a friendly suggestion for you. Stop posting. Just for an hour. Really - take your hands off the keyboard and stop sending in a post once a minute.

Use that time to THINK about what people have said to you and, in particular, about what it might be like and what kinds of things could happen if an airliner, fully loaded with fuel, hits a building at 500 miles an hour or so.

You might find it useful. And you might realize why you are getting attacked.

[Shrinker]

Okay everyone well done. The UK pubs close a little later tomorrow so expect the next incursion to be a couple of hours later and a little more vigorous. Spelling will probably be worse too.

[Arus808]

Arus I think you were mixing up that Barret character with Jones.

Thanks. I knew it was a professor, but didn't realize it was Barret. Seeing as they are all quacks, they begin to sound alike.

Just curious did Jones ever get around to publishing his paper in an appropriate academic journal as he promised he would back in April? (Rhetorical question really, I know he didn't and it says everything about the value of his paper).

The answer: No

[Lisa Simpson]

I'm doing my best, but you wouldn't believe the number of times he's tried.

[milesalpha]

yes, that is why he was put on leave and retired

the journal was the now famous, started by DR Jones

his own online journal for 9/11 studies as someone already posted


Cough, as the forum's resident old stoner, I can unequivocally state that even I couldn't get stoned enough to consider the "Journal for 911 Studies" a journal, let alone appropriate.

[Piggy]

So you have done no calculations but you confidently assert it had to be total collapse??

I am just saying that non total collapse would be the assumed thing and even Robertson got on the backfoot when that was put to him.

I understand what you are just saying, but you happen to be just wrong.

There is no justification for "assuming" that the lower floors would stop the momentum.

Here's what some qualified people have to say....

A very early analysis from The University of Sydney (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml):

Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor progressively "pancaked" to the ground.

<snip>

The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.


There's no great mystery here at all. The laws of physics, of mass and energy, together with the realities of economics going into building design and construction, make it implausible that a structure such as the WTC could somehow arrest the collapse of so many upper floors.

An article in JOM (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html):

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

Subsequent analysis by qualified persons and organizations has never come to any significantly different conclusions.

Therefore, if you want to argue a case which proposes that the collapse could have been somehow arrested by lower structures which were never designed to carry anywhere near an equivalent load, you're going to have to present some evidence.

[beachnut]

Cough, as the forum's resident old stoner, I can unequivocally state that even I couldn't get stoned enough to consider the "Journal for 911 Studies" a journal, let alone appropriate.

oh, it is the most respected tin foil hat journal in the world of truth on 9/11

now I must say, I am going to post my next nut case paper as soon as i get out of my room and white jacket

[DanKirby]

That guy's way too persistant. How long until the next sock comes around?

[Garb]

That guy's way too persistant. How long until the next sock comes around?

First was like 24 hourse.
Second was like 10 hours.


5 maybe?

[Gravy]

I'm doing my best, but you wouldn't believe the number of times he's tried.Oh, yes, yes we would. :rolleyes:

Thanks, Lisa.

[beachnut]

was laith

docker????

[Brainster]

Cough, as the forum's resident old stoner, I can unequivocally state that even I couldn't get stoned enough to consider the "Journal for 911 Studies" a journal, let alone appropriate.

It always cracked me up that the name of the journal is the Journal Of Nine-Eleven Studies (i.e., JONES).

[Arus808]

It always cracked me up that the name of the journal is the Journal Of Nine-Eleven Studies (i.e., JONES).


:eek::eye-poppi:D:covereyes

[W6102LA]

Still 15 more posts before an avatar

Let me guess what that avatar would of been..hmmmm.....Alex Jones!!!!

:D

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Could you provide a link to the publication? I never heard he was planning to teach it...


Does not matter if he was teaching it or not, he was using BYU equipment and resources to investigate it, while accusing other in the Mormon community of committing or covering up for capital crimes.
That violated the ethics codes.
Also there are several reasons that molten metal even steel might have been created in the collapse other than thermite-thermate devices those include natural thermite-thermate like Metal Oxidizing reactions.

[realitybites]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67186
Poor guy couldn't even make it three hours....

[beachnut]

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/

[beachnut]

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/

this is jones' journal

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001. All content is freely available online.

no laughing class

ferris

[Shrinker]

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/

Let's submit a paper!

[Gravy]

For the newcomers here, structural engineer Zdenek Bazant of MIT wrote a much-quoted paper on the collapses that was released just a couple of days after 9/11 and updated a couple of times. He didn't have the benefit of the knowledge gathered by NIST, whose conclusions about the mechanism of the collapses were different. The paper remains an interesting read for its calculations showing that the force exerted by the falling tops was an order of magnitude greater than that necessary to stop the collapse. http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

In June, 2006 Bazant released another, detailed paper on the mechanics of progressive collapse:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf


Chemist and WTC sleuth Frank Greening's calculations in two papers cover the collapse, momentum transfer, etc. The math is beyond me, but seems to stand up according to knowledgeable people. By necessity, the collapse scenario is much simplified. As others have pointed out here, even the most powerful computers running the latest failure analysis software would have trouble accurately modeling the collapses beyond initiation. There are millions of variables.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf

[Gravy]

Let's submit a paper!And the editors? Two people who were removed from their chosen professions for misrepresenting the facts of 9/11.

[alexg]

I think Leslie Robertson really is baffled by the insanity of Jones. As an aside, I've met Leslie Robertson, attended a few seminars where he presented, very nice man.
If you run into him again get him to sign a statement that he didn't put a concrete core in the buildings:D

[Gravy]

I understand what you are just saying, but you happen to be just wrong.

There is no justification for "assuming" that the lower floors would stop the momentum.

Here's what some qualified people have to say....

A very early analysis from The University of Sydney (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml):



There's no great mystery here at all. The laws of physics, of mass and energy, together with the realities of economics going into building design and construction, make it implausible that a structure such as the WTC could somehow arrest the collapse of so many upper floors.

An article in JOM (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html):



Subsequent analysis by qualified persons and organizations has never come to any significantly different conclusions.

Therefore, if you want to argue a case which proposes that the collapse could have been somehow arrested by lower structures which were never designed to carry anywhere near an equivalent load, you're going to have to present some evidence.
Piggy, the conclusions in that JOM article were superseded by those of the NIST study. NIST did not support the "pancake" collapse theory, which begins with the separation of floor trusses from walls. Instead, NIST concluded that the floors sagged, pulling the outer columns inward, which led to buckling and collapse. This is borne out by photos of the exterior walls bowing in, and by reports from helicopter pilots who reported the same.

NIST's FAQ page (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) is handy to have when the CTs come knocking.

[Augustine]

structural engineer Zdenek Bazant of MIT


I believe Dr. Bazant is on the faculty of Northwestern. He has been there since 1969. Licensed Structural Engineer (SE) in the state of Illinois. (Me too!:p )

[Augustine]

Additionally, as far as credentials, Dr. Bazant has them out the wazoo....

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/resume.pdf

(this ain't no Steven Jones/Judy Wood second-rate academic...)

[Gravy]

I believe Dr. Bazant is on the faculty of Northwestern. He has been there since 1969. Licensed Structural Engineer (SE) in the state of Illinois. (Me too!:p )Of course. Thank you. I was looking at the first URL, which said MIT.

[qarnos]

The paper remains an interesting read for its calculations showing that the force exerted by the falling tops was an order of magnitude greater than that necessary to stop the collapse. http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

Bolding mine.

I think this is meant to read "the force exerted by the falling tops was an order of magnitude greater than the force the underlying structure could withstand" or something similar. It doesn't really make sense as it is (unless I have had a brain meltdown).

[kookbreaker]

I see I missed the latest sock puppet. I wonder how many you have to make before the admins start talking to ISPs?

Anyway, I note that we have a sticky for 911 conspiracy editorials. Perhaps we should have a sticky for 911 peer reviewed studies of the collapse. The zhou paper, Bazant, and others could be listed as a quick counter to the 'did anyone do the calculations' nonsense.

[qarnos]

I see I missed the latest sock puppet. I wonder how many you have to make before the admins start talking to ISPs?

I don't think it would ever come to that - he hasn't broken any laws or anything, he's just being a douche.

On the LC forums he is telling everyone Gravy got him banned because he put him on ignore! :p

[kookbreaker]

I don't think it would ever come to that - he hasn't broken any laws or anything, he's just being a douche.


Yes, but being a douche and wasting admin's time on purpose is enough to makes ones own ISP take a few steps. I know the BautForum has a process where they contact the ISPs if a sock keeps trying to show up. It seems to work, too.

[JamesB]

Let's submit a paper!

I tried submitting a paper, but Jones rejected me for violations of academic ethics. :confused:

[Kent1]

Of course. Thank you. I was looking at the first URL, which said MIT.

Could you give me a calculation showing this? I can't find one.

I would suspect the collapse would dissipate in the sense of lateral loss of debris so when the thicker core columns were reched the collapse would stop.
This is referenced in the NIST report and in Bazant's paper

pg 323 Northerwestern University
Roughly NIST agrees with the assessment of the tower's required structural capacity to absorb the released energy of the upper building section as it began to fall as an approximate lower bound. The likelihood of the falling building section aligning vertically with the column below was small, given the observed tilting, so that the required capacity would be greater if interaction with the floors was also considered, as pointed out in the study.

Bazant's 2006 version is located here.
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/
ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf

The subsequent progressive collapse was not simulated at NIST because its inevitability, once triggered by column buckling, had already been proven by Bazant and Zhou's (2002) comparison of kinetic energy to energy absorption capability.

[Piggy]

Piggy, the conclusions in that JOM article were superseded by those of the NIST study. NIST did not support the "pancake" collapse theory, which begins with the separation of floor trusses from walls. Instead, NIST concluded that the floors sagged, pulling the outer columns inward, which led to buckling and collapse. This is borne out by photos of the exterior walls bowing in, and by reports from helicopter pilots who reported the same.

NIST's FAQ page (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) is handy to have when the CTs come knocking.

Thanks. I'd actually referred to the FAQ page in another thread, but didn't bookmark it. I'll do so now. The "pancake" language did bother me a bit, because I knew it was not the currently credited model and because on site film shows exterior walls bowing inward, but since the argument at hand concerned specifically whether lower structures could be "assumed" to be capable of arresting the momentum of the collapse, I figured that the distinction was irrelevant for the moment, since pancaking or no did not significantly affect the energy that would be impacting the lower floors.

My point was that total collapse was accepted by knowledgable people literally from day-one, and no subsequent analysis differed as far as whether the collapse could have been stopped by lower structures. But I do appreciate your point, that CTers will grasp at any inconsistency they can find, whether relevant or not.

[Gravy]

I tried submitting a paper, but Jones rejected me for violations of academic ethics. :confused:Takes one to know one! :D

Was he specific at all?

[W6102LA]

All i can say is if that debate doesn't convince people that Dr Jones is a nutjob then nothing will. How far out of touch with reality are these people

:boggled:

[R.Mackey]

My point was that total collapse was accepted by knowledgable people literally from day-one, and no subsequent analysis differed as far as whether the collapse could have been stopped by lower structures. But I do appreciate your point, that CTers will grasp at any inconsistency they can find, whether relevant or not.

Well, there is one, but it's by Troother Gordon Ross, and his math is incorrect. Here (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf) again is Dr. Greening's work showing, not only does it collapse, but the timing is even about as expected. Ross and Greening trade shots at the (ahem) Journal of 911 Studies (http://www.journalof911studies.com/) here. Ross gets the last word, unsurprising since he's on the editorial staff...

I have twice pointed out Ross's mistakes, both his original paper and his rebuttal to Greening, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1822297#post1822297) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1829989#post1829989) in my conversations with Michiel Brumsen, a former Troother, and reasonable fellow.

So there you go. Besides the excellent work of Bazant and Zhou, some of us have done the math, and it's utterly credible that WTC 1 and 2 would have fallen precisely as they did. And, for the record, I have a Physics degree too. I'll see Steven Jones's credentials and raise him some actual work.

As I've always said, debates are not the best forums for discussion. The science is solid. It doesn't matter whether every single person on the side of logic knows every single detail. It can all be independently verified. There's nothing that has to happen in front of a live microphone.

[uk_dave]

Can anyone imagine a scenario where the building would've stopped collapsing when it started? How would a structure designed to hold a certain stationary mass somehow stop a falling and undistributed mass (i.e. all the falling floors from above)? Unless the building fell in such a way that the top stories didn't collapse onto the bottom stories (which obviously isn't what we saw in the World Trade Center terrorist attack), sorry. Kinetic energy is clearly going to bring the whole damn thing down.

I would suggest that if the collapse had started much much lower on the building then it is more likely that the collapse could stop due to the lessening of loading from above as the building is effectively 'shortened' by the partial collapse at low level, whereas a collapse which starts at the top can only gain momentum as the amount of falling material increases with each floor that fails.

http://www.compfused.com/directlink/1070/

How embarassing! :D

There are some examples of demolition which haven't quite gone to plan.

[chipmunk stew]

I just listened to this debate. I'm sure I'm biased, but Robertson dominated this debate.

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/StevenJones_LeslieRobertson_20061026.mp3

We've now heard from the horse's mouth what Jones' motivation is. He fancies himself a modern-day Patrick Henry. He's seeking his chapter in the history books. Unfortunately for him, he'll get an embarassing footnote instead.

[delphi_ote]

I would suggest that if the collapse had started much much lower on the building then it is more likely that the collapse could stop due to the lessening of loading from above as the building is effectively 'shortened' by the partial collapse at low level, whereas a collapse which starts at the top can only gain momentum as the amount of falling material increases with each floor that fails.

http://www.compfused.com/directlink/1070/

How embarassing! :D

There are some examples of demolition which haven't quite gone to plan.
Wow. That was one seriously over-designed building! Thanks for sharing the link and the information. I asked if anyone could imagine a scenario, and clearly you could. :D

[Piggy]

Wow. That was one seriously over-designed building! Thanks for sharing the link and the information. I asked if anyone could imagine a scenario, and clearly you could. :D

Not really, though. The collapse didn't stop below the fracture point there. A large chunk of the top (well, ok, all of it) remained intact, but nothing below the break point stopped its fall.

[delphi_ote]

Not really, though. The collapse didn't stop below the fracture point there. A large chunk of the top (well, ok, all of it) remained intact, but nothing below the break point stopped its fall.
It's a different type of collapse, but it is a scenario which fits the description of a building which "stopped collapsing when it started." I just needed to be a bit more specific in my question. :D

[TruthSeeker1234]

I highly endorse this debate. Steven Jones mopped the floor with Les Robertson. Please everyone listen to how silly and indefensible the official story is. Please listen to this.

[apathoid]

Please everyone listen to how silly and indefensible the official story is. Please listen to this.

....says the guy who posits that secret underground volcanoes and nukes destroyed the WTC.

[GlennB]

I would suggest that if the collapse had started much much lower on the building then it is more likely that the collapse could stop due to the lessening of loading from above as the building is effectively 'shortened' by the partial collapse at low level, whereas a collapse which starts at the top can only gain momentum as the amount of falling material increases with each floor that fails.

http://www.compfused.com/directlink/1070/

How embarassing! :D

There are some examples of demolition which haven't quite gone to plan.

Ah, but did you spot the nice little pyroclastic flow ? :D

[MarkyX]

I highly endorse this debate. Steven Jones mopped the floor with Les Robertson. Please everyone listen to how silly and indefensible the official story is. Please listen to this.

Les Robertson wasn't part of the investigation...

Is this how desperate the 9/11 Deniers have go to? They attack people NOT EVEN RELATED to the investigation?

[Foolmewunz]

What I don't get and didn't get when I saw this being bandied around some CT boards..... What would possess Robertson to go on radio in Colorado with Doctor Thermate?

I think he once answered a Gravy enquiry with a two line email; seemed rather distant from the discussion, if not just displeased (but he was good enough to respond). Has he been seen anywhere else taking up the anti-CT torch?

[Miss Anthrope]

[quote=Laith;2043065]He had to leave because of people objecting. Academic freedom is dead.

What is academic freedom? Paying out the nose just to have some professor present unfounded theories, junk science and nonsense--then have the nerve to GRADE you on his "facts"?

It appears to me that academic *accountability* is alive and well, at least in one university.

[Gravy]

I highly endorse this debate. Steven Jones mopped the floor with Les Robertson. Please everyone listen to how silly and indefensible the official story is. Please listen to this.Can you point me to the list of skyscrapers (http://www.lera.com/projects/) that Steven Jones has designed? My Google-fu must be weak today. Thanks.

[Gravy]

What I don't get and didn't get when I saw this being bandied around some CT boards..... What would possess Robertson to go on radio in Colorado with Doctor Thermate?No idea. He may not have known Jones' premise, or may have thought that a common sense approach would be sufficient.

I think he once answered a Gravy enquiry with a two line email; seemed rather distant from the discussion, if not just displeased (but he was good enough to respond). Has he been seen anywhere else taking up the anti-CT torch?I haven't had any contact with him. He seems to have been pretty busy designing tall buildings.

[RandFan]

Steven Jones mopped the floor with Les Robertson. ???

Huh?

Robertson rebutted every point made by Jones that Robertson was qualified to respond to.

[T.A.M.]

I highly endorse this debate. Steven Jones mopped the floor with Les Robertson. Please everyone listen to how silly and indefensible the official story is. Please listen to this.

Are we talking about the Seattle debate. You must be talking about another one. I listened to that debate a few days ago, and Jones did no such thing. Robertson stood his ground, and made a tonne of sense.

Your comments prove how delusional you truely are TS.

As for the sham mag the scholars call a "journal", the ultimate in hypocracy is to deny publication of an article in this journal for "academic ethics" violations, when the entire shammag itself is a violation of academic ethics. It's Peer Review committee on any given publication is selected in part by Jones himself, who is also a submitter of publications. There are numerous "conflict of interest" violations amongst the submissions that are published and the positions of those who publish them.

Is there a regulating body that keeps tabs and/or standards on what defines a "journal" and if so, how do I contact them?

TAM

[chipmunk stew]

Is there a regulating body that keeps tabs and/or standards on what defines a "journal" and if so, how do I contact them?
I don't think so. The credibility of a journal is based on its reputation among experts and academics in the field, as far as I know. I'm pretty sure it's a "free market", with the "product" being quality of research and academic standards and the "currency" being reputation.

[delphi_ote]

Are we talking about the Seattle debate. You must be talking about another one. I listened to that debate a few days ago, and Jones did no such thing. Robertson stood his ground, and made a tonne of sense.

Your comments prove how delusional you truely are TS.

As for the sham mag the scholars call a "journal", the ultimate in hypocracy is to deny publication of an article in this journal for "academic ethics" violations, when the entire shammag itself is a violation of academic ethics. It's Peer Review committee on any given publication is selected in part by Jones himself, who is also a submitter of publications. There are numerous "conflict of interest" violations amongst the submissions that are published and the positions of those who publish them.

Is there a regulating body that keeps tabs and/or standards on what defines a "journal" and if so, how do I contact them?

TAM
Technically, I suppose I am my own peer.

[Gravy]

Technically, I suppose I am my own peer.I'm merely my own MP. Stop lording it over us.

[Foolmewunz]

No idea. He may not have known Jones' premise, or may have thought that a common sense approach would be sufficient.

I haven't had any contact with him. He seems to have been pretty busy designing tall buildings.

Sorry, mis-attributed - I had to go searching just now. It was Kent1!

[Gravy]

Sorry, mis-attributed - I had to go searching just now. It was Kent1!Kent1 is always doing stuff like contacting people who were directly involved in the WTC's construction and investigations. By now you should know to avoid him.

[Foolmewunz]

Kent1 is always doing stuff like contacting people who were directly involved in the WTC's construction and investigations. By now you should know to avoid him.

I know... Pesky Researchers and Facts Getting in the Way of the Truth. The guy doesn't know when to quit!


Yeah, if we're going to keep up with Russell, we have to rely more on gut instincts, impressions, and "just doesn't seems". :spjimlad: :spjimlad: