9-11 anniversary

[Mr. Jones]

That is what gets me about these assholes... because the WANT to believe conspiracy,

It is you idiots that want/need to believe in the most outrageous conspiracy.19 Arabs...with box cutters, and poor flying skills, knocking down 3 buildings with 2 planes, blamed on fires from kerosene...bypassing NORAD...

they portray these whacked out unrealistic theories as proof... they have zero scientific proof

BS there is scientific proof that NIST is full of shit.

and when it is scientifically shown that their theories are wrong and that what happened because of the planes impacting the towers and Pentagon is scientifically provable,

Wrong...It hasn't been "shown" to be scientifically viable for the laws of physics to be circumvented by Muslims that day, or any other day.

they stick their fingers in their ears and repeat "lalalalalalalala".... these people are a waste of oxygen and would do the world a favor by drinking bleach

The OCT and the NIST theories have been examined, and proven to be what they are..BS.The only thing their fable has "proven" is how stupid the people who unquestionably believe it truly are.

 

[daws101]

Same old shit about prove it, when we have linked and shown the proof that the OCT and the NIST explanations for the destruction do not make sense nor add up to scientific explanation. No one with counter theories about the attacks is saying they did not happene or were not horrible, and tragic, just that the government and their agencies lied, and continue to do so, while making the public paranoid that boogeymen are out to get them because they hate our freedoms, while all along it has been the very same government that tells us this load of shit, that is taking away, and chipping away at the freedoms Americans are used to having.

If by now you haven't bothered to research what tall the fuss is about why NIST and the government isn't being believed by more and more people all the time, then you really have no right to judge them and try to defame their character.

dawgshit101's level of intelligent rebuttal.

actually the photo precisely describes your unending dogma spewing ,if you had even a reasonable amount of intelligence you would have understood that ,(as in a picture paints a thousand words)

as to the content of your missives ,they are just a rehash of debunked garbage that is made up of lies ,rumors fairy tales,pseudo science,ignorance, superstition,and plain ol ordinary stupidity..BTW how much do you charge for your"informational" books and videos?
__________________

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Same old shit about prove it, when we have linked and shown the proof that the OCT and the NIST explanations for the destruction do not make sense nor add up to scientific explanation. No one with counter theories about the attacks is saying they did not happene or were not horrible, and tragic, just that the government and their agencies lied, and continue to do so, while making the public paranoid that boogeymen are out to get them because they hate our freedoms, while all along it has been the very same government that tells us this load of shit, that is taking away, and chipping away at the freedoms Americans are used to having.

If by now you haven't bothered to research what tall the fuss is about why NIST and the government isn't being believed by more and more people all the time, then you really have no right to judge them and try to defame their character.

dawgshit101's level of intelligent rebuttal.

Thats how troll daws debates.how he addresses evidence and facts.the one i laugh over all the time is when you showed all those videos of experts saying the official version was b.s and you showed links of evidence and like the troll he is,his rebuttal was like this one just saying B.S. His rebuttals are great comedy stuff. He wouldnt last one minute against a first grader in a debate debating like that since you are actually suppose to address the points brought up.

 

[daws101]

dawgshit101's level of intelligent rebuttal.

Thats how troll daws debates.how he addresses evidence and facts.the one i laugh over all the time is when you showed all those videos of experts saying the official version was b.s and you showed links of evidence and like the troll he is,his rebuttal was like this one just saying B.S. His rebuttals are great comedy stuff. He wouldnt last one minute against a first grader in a debate debating like that since you are actually suppose to address the points brought up.

actually the photo precisely describes your unending dogma spewing ,if you had even a reasonable amount of intelligence you would have understood that ,(as in a picture paints a thousand words)

as to the content of your missives ,they are just a rehash of debunked garbage that is made up of lies ,rumors fairy tales,pseudo science,ignorance, superstition,and plain ol ordinary stupidity..BTW how much do you charge for your"informational" books and videos

 

[Rat in the Hat]

So, the Toronto hearings are over, and the evidence is in.

When does the first "perp" go on trial, based on the evidence presented by Richard Gage, Dylan Avery, David Ray Griffin, David Chandler, and Niels Harrit?

And don't give me any of this "new investigation" shit. If they can't haul someone into court after 4 days of hearings, then all they were doing was JAQing around.

Oh, by the way, none of them had the balls to go to NYC on 9/11/11 and spew their babble at Ground Zero. They had to run to another country because they know they are irelevent in the United States.

 

[Mr. Jones]

...as to the content of your missives ,they are just a rehash of debunked garbage that is made up of lies ,rumors fairy tales,pseudo science,ignorance, superstition,and plain ol ordinary stupidity..

When has it been debunked. by who,? Prove it or STFU, until then the NIST report rebuttals, and the proof of evidence that it is flawed stands.

 

[Liability]

...as to the content of your missives ,they are just a rehash of debunked garbage that is made up of lies ,rumors fairy tales,pseudo science,ignorance, superstition,and plain ol ordinary stupidity..

When has it been debunked. by who,? Prove it or STFU, until then the NIST report rebuttals, and the proof of evidence that it is flawed stands.

Most of your shit is self refuting for anybody who understands the irrational and illogical bases of your claims.

 

[daws101]

...as to the content of your missives ,they are just a rehash of debunked garbage that is made up of lies ,rumors fairy tales,pseudo science,ignorance, superstition,and plain ol ordinary stupidity..

When has it been debunked. by who,? Prove it or STFU, until then the NIST report rebuttals, and the proof of evidence that it is flawed stands.

here's a partial list just for starters:

Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...

For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...

"Walter P. Murphy Professor of

Civil Engineering and Materials Science

Northwestern University

The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:

Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).

That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.

I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "theory of intelligent design" except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books."

Why did the World Trade Center towers collapse?

The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

Our site has changed! | American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

Editor:

Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
[email protected]

http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?corotis

Editorial Board:

Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma MPGE | The University of Oklahoma ||

Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts Dr. C.S. Chang | Civil and Environmental Engineering

Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/

Henri Gavin, Duke University
Henri P Gavin | CEE

Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
People: Department of Civil Engineering: U of MN.

Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html

Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/

Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/

Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5

Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/who/stafflists/academicAlpha.htm

Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm

Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm

Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
Our site has changed! | American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiadjis_George/Voyiadjis_Gbio.htm

Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi



Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee

Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
Alexander Cheng Homepage

James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
James L. Beck

Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
USC Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering: Roger G. Ghanem

Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i

Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
MIT - Faculty - Chiang C. Mei | Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, MIT

Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact

Journal of Engineering Mechanics

 

[Mr. Jones]

Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...

For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...

"Walter P. Murphy Professor of

Civil Engineering and Materials Science

Northwestern University

The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:

Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).

That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.

I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "theory of intelligent design" except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books."

Why did the World Trade Center towers collapse?

The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

Our site has changed! | American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

Editor:

Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
[email protected]

http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?corotis

Editorial Board:

Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma MPGE | The University of Oklahoma ||

Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts Dr. C.S. Chang | Civil and Environmental Engineering

Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/

Henri Gavin, Duke University
Henri P Gavin | CEE

Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
People: Department of Civil Engineering: U of MN.

Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html

Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/

Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/

Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5

Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/who/stafflists/academicAlpha.htm

Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm

Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm

Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
Our site has changed! | American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiadjis_George/Voyiadjis_Gbio.htm

Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi



Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee

Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
Alexander Cheng Homepage

James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
James L. Beck

Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
USC Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering: Roger G. Ghanem

Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i

Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
MIT - Faculty - Chiang C. Mei | Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, MIT

Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact

Journal of Engineering Mechanics

The Bazant theory and write up was put together just days after the collapses, and have been subsequently thoroughly scrutinized and picked apart, exposing the flaws, even after his attempt to bolster his ailing theories.

I asked you to produce evidence of the independent scientists theory which obviously came about AFTER such papers by Bazant came out.
All you have produced here is a study that has been gone over and ripped apart.

When NIST encountered the sticky problem of how to explain the various facets of the collapse of the WTC Towers which did not fit their pre-ordained conclusion they must have been overjoyed to come across a hastily written paper by Dr. Bazant which purported to show, in a theoretical manner, that once started, the tower collapse would inevitably progress to ground level.

Dressed up a little to remove the obvious shortcoming that it talked of the columns reaching temps of 800 C the paper could be presented in NIST's final report in place of what should have been there - a comprehensive examination of all of the evidence which could be gleaned from the collapse and the debris field. When it all comes on top NIST can stand back and point at Dr. Bazant as the reason for their failure to study the collapse. It was he after all who assured them that collapse was inevitable.

But NIST's attempts to hide behind this theoretical paper, hampered as they were by the large hole at its centre, are now under threat by Dr. Bazant's latest attempts to bolster his ailing theory. Moving from the previously safe haven of his theoretical world he now moves into the real world of physical observations of the events of the day. But the harsh light of reality easily shines through the still retained security blanket of mathematical formulae to reveal this theory's true nudity.

Did it never occur to him ask why NIST avoided like a plaque, any detailed mention of the collapse process?-Gordon Ross, ME, June 4, 2007

But the fundamental problem with his theory remains that it is a physical impossibility. He assumes that all of the energy of the upper section will be somehow transferred to act only on the uppermost storey of the lower section. He ignores the fact that in order for the energy to even reach that storey, it must be transferred through every column in the storeys of the upper section. For his theory that the energy would concentrate in and overcome the columns sequentially down the tower to be correct, the columns of the upper section would have to transfer loads sufficient to cause failure to the stronger, less damaged and less thermally affected columns of the lower section, without themselves absorbing any energy whatsoever.

With increasing awareness of the shortcomings of his theory, Dr. Bazant, has selected a single piece of physical evidence and now holds it up to fend off the criticism. NIST could not have asked for a more staunch defender. But the physical world is a dangerous place for a flawed theory. A theory must fit all of the evidence and a cursory glance at the sequence of the collapse of the towers shows evidence that completely contradicts his argument.

It is time that individuals and institutions within the worldwide engineering and scientific community exposed themselves to the information, openly and impartially analyzed the history of these events and verified for themselves the true cause of the collapse of the twin towers.

A final message to Dr. Bazant - it's not too late to resign from your position as NIST's fall guy. I must also admit total surprise when I viewed the list of co-authors, although I am tempted to ask, "Is this analysis, with or without bolts?"

* You can see more of Gordon Ross's work at The Journal of 9/11 Studies.
Journal of 9/11 Studies

 

[Mr. Jones]

Originally Posted by daws101
...as to the content of your missives ,they are just a rehash of debunked garbage that is made up of lies ,rumors fairy tales,pseudo science,ignorance, superstition,and plain ol ordinary stupidity..

This is an example of one of the independent scientific studies, I refer to that you say are indicative of the above post. Again I ask you to prove where it fits your description?

Momentum transfer analysis of the collapse of the upper stories of WTC 1
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

Here's another one entitled The Missing Jolt
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OEkDZTldt8]Patriots Question 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SFC Ollie]

Originally Posted by daws101
...as to the content of your missives ,they are just a rehash of debunked garbage that is made up of lies ,rumors fairy tales,pseudo science,ignorance, superstition,and plain ol ordinary stupidity..

This is an example of one of the independent scientific studies, I refer to that you say are indicative of the above post. Again I ask you to prove where it fits your description?

Momentum transfer analysis of the collapse of the upper stories of WTC 1
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

Here's another one entitled The Missing Jolt
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

This is written by the guy that your author (Ross) references....

Can any truthers make up their minds?

Conclusions
Several of the parameters of the present mathematical model have a large range of uncertainty.
However, the solution exhibits small sensitivity to some of them, and the values of others can
be fixed on the basis of observations or physical analysis. One and the same mathematical
model, with one and the same set of parameters, is shown capable of matching all of the
observations, including: (1) the video records of the first few seconds of motion of both towers,
(2) the seismic records for both towers, (3) the mass and size distributions of the comminuted
particles of concrete, (4) the energy requirement for the comminution that occurred, (5) the
wide spread of the fine dust around the tower, (6) the loud booms heard during collapse, (7)
the fast expansion of dust clouds during collapse, and (8) the dust content of cloud implied by
its size. At the same time, the alternative allegations of some kind of controlled demolition are
shown to be totally out of range of the present mathematical model, even if the full range of
parameter uncertainties is considered.
These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no
doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects
of fire.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/p...TC Collapse - What Did & Did Not Cause It.pdf

 

[Mr. Jones]

Originally Posted by daws101
...as to the content of your missives ,they are just a rehash of debunked garbage that is made up of lies ,rumors fairy tales,pseudo science,ignorance, superstition,and plain ol ordinary stupidity..

This is an example of one of the independent scientific studies, I refer to that you say are indicative of the above post. Again I ask you to prove where it fits your description?

Momentum transfer analysis of the collapse of the upper stories of WTC 1
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

Here's another one entitled The Missing Jolt
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

This is written by the guy that your author (Ross) references....

Can any truthers make up their minds?

Conclusions
Several of the parameters of the present mathematical model have a large range of uncertainty.
However, the solution exhibits small sensitivity to some of them, and the values of others can
be fixed on the basis of observations or physical analysis. One and the same mathematical
model, with one and the same set of parameters, is shown capable of matching all of the
observations, including: (1) the video records of the first few seconds of motion of both towers,
(2) the seismic records for both towers, (3) the mass and size distributions of the comminuted
particles of concrete, (4) the energy requirement for the comminution that occurred, (5) the
wide spread of the fine dust around the tower, (6) the loud booms heard during collapse, (7)
the fast expansion of dust clouds during collapse, and (8) the dust content of cloud implied by
its size. At the same time, the alternative allegations of some kind of controlled demolition are
shown to be totally out of range of the present mathematical model, even if the full range of
parameter uncertainties is considered.
These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no
doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects
of fire.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/p...TC Collapse - What Did & Did Not Cause It.pdf

Of course he references people that he is countering! Your point?

 

[daws101]

Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...

For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...

"Walter P. Murphy Professor of

Civil Engineering and Materials Science

Northwestern University

The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:

Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).

That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.

I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "theory of intelligent design" except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books."

Why did the World Trade Center towers collapse?

The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

Our site has changed! | American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

Editor:

Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
[email protected]

http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?corotis

Editorial Board:

Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma MPGE | The University of Oklahoma ||

Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts Dr. C.S. Chang | Civil and Environmental Engineering

Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/

Henri Gavin, Duke University
Henri P Gavin | CEE

Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
People: Department of Civil Engineering: U of MN.

Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html

Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/

Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/

Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5

Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/who/stafflists/academicAlpha.htm

Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm

Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm

Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
Our site has changed! | American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiadjis_George/Voyiadjis_Gbio.htm

Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi



Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee

Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
Alexander Cheng Homepage

James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
James L. Beck

Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
USC Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering: Roger G. Ghanem

Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i

Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
MIT - Faculty - Chiang C. Mei | Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, MIT

Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact

Journal of Engineering Mechanics

The Bazant theory and write up was put together just days after the collapses, and have been subsequently thoroughly scrutinized and picked apart, exposing the flaws, even after his attempt to bolster his ailing theories.

I asked you to produce evidence of the independent scientists theory which obviously came about AFTER such papers by Bazant came out.
All you have produced here is a study that has been gone over and ripped apart.

When NIST encountered the sticky problem of how to explain the various facets of the collapse of the WTC Towers which did not fit their pre-ordained conclusion they must have been overjoyed to come across a hastily written paper by Dr. Bazant which purported to show, in a theoretical manner, that once started, the tower collapse would inevitably progress to ground level.

Dressed up a little to remove the obvious shortcoming that it talked of the columns reaching temps of 800 C the paper could be presented in NIST's final report in place of what should have been there - a comprehensive examination of all of the evidence which could be gleaned from the collapse and the debris field. When it all comes on top NIST can stand back and point at Dr. Bazant as the reason for their failure to study the collapse. It was he after all who assured them that collapse was inevitable.

But NIST's attempts to hide behind this theoretical paper, hampered as they were by the large hole at its centre, are now under threat by Dr. Bazant's latest attempts to bolster his ailing theory. Moving from the previously safe haven of his theoretical world he now moves into the real world of physical observations of the events of the day. But the harsh light of reality easily shines through the still retained security blanket of mathematical formulae to reveal this theory's true nudity.

Did it never occur to him ask why NIST avoided like a plaque, any detailed mention of the collapse process?-Gordon Ross, ME, June 4, 2007

But the fundamental problem with his theory remains that it is a physical impossibility. He assumes that all of the energy of the upper section will be somehow transferred to act only on the uppermost storey of the lower section. He ignores the fact that in order for the energy to even reach that storey, it must be transferred through every column in the storeys of the upper section. For his theory that the energy would concentrate in and overcome the columns sequentially down the tower to be correct, the columns of the upper section would have to transfer loads sufficient to cause failure to the stronger, less damaged and less thermally affected columns of the lower section, without themselves absorbing any energy whatsoever.

With increasing awareness of the shortcomings of his theory, Dr. Bazant, has selected a single piece of physical evidence and now holds it up to fend off the criticism. NIST could not have asked for a more staunch defender. But the physical world is a dangerous place for a flawed theory. A theory must fit all of the evidence and a cursory glance at the sequence of the collapse of the towers shows evidence that completely contradicts his argument.

It is time that individuals and institutions within the worldwide engineering and scientific community exposed themselves to the information, openly and impartially analyzed the history of these events and verified for themselves the true cause of the collapse of the twin towers.

A final message to Dr. Bazant - it's not too late to resign from your position as NIST's fall guy. I must also admit total surprise when I viewed the list of co-authors, although I am tempted to ask, "Is this analysis, with or without bolts?"

* You can see more of Gordon Ross's work at The Journal of 9/11 Studies.
Journal of 9/11 Studies

mega dodge!

 

[daws101]

Originally Posted by daws101
...as to the content of your missives ,they are just a rehash of debunked garbage that is made up of lies ,rumors fairy tales,pseudo science,ignorance, superstition,and plain ol ordinary stupidity..

This is an example of one of the independent scientific studies, I refer to that you say are indicative of the above post. Again I ask you to prove where it fits your description?

Momentum transfer analysis of the collapse of the upper stories of WTC 1
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

Here's another one entitled The Missing Jolt
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

hey mister dense...I know this is a tough concept for you ,so I'll make it as simple as I can..any opinion, extrapolation,of ANY 911 truth based organization is erroneous ,as it is based on a false and unprovable premise..
any study, report or opinion based on that premise is by definition false.

 

[Liability]

Originally Posted by daws101
...as to the content of your missives ,they are just a rehash of debunked garbage that is made up of lies ,rumors fairy tales,pseudo science,ignorance, superstition,and plain ol ordinary stupidity..

This is an example of one of the independent scientific studies, I refer to that you say are indicative of the above post. Again I ask you to prove where it fits your description?

Momentum transfer analysis of the collapse of the upper stories of WTC 1
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

Here's another one entitled The Missing Jolt
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

hey mister dense...I know this is a tough concept for you ,so I'll make it as simple as I can..any opinion, extrapolation,of ANY 911 truth based organization is erroneous ,as it is based on a false and unprovable premise..
any study, report or opinion based on that premise is by definition false.

but but but

what about the YouTube videos?

 

[Mr. Jones]

This is an example of one of the independent scientific studies, I refer to that you say are indicative of the above post. Again I ask you to prove where it fits your description?

Momentum transfer analysis of the collapse of the upper stories of WTC 1
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

Here's another one entitled The Missing Jolt
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

hey mister dense...I know this is a tough concept for you ,so I'll make it as simple as I can..any opinion, extrapolation,of ANY 911 truth based organization is erroneous ,as it is based on a false and unprovable premise..
any study, report or opinion based on that premise is by definition false.

but but but

what about the YouTube videos?

I didn't post any UTube videos, I posted scientific studies that counter and point out the flaws in the NIST report and official theory of building collapse, and all you idiots do is avoid responding in any intelligent manner, showing off what fucking losers you are again

 

[daws101]

hey mister dense...I know this is a tough concept for you ,so I'll make it as simple as I can..any opinion, extrapolation,of ANY 911 truth based organization is erroneous ,as it is based on a false and unprovable premise..
any study, report or opinion based on that premise is by definition false.

but but but

what about the YouTube videos?

I didn't post any UTube videos, I posted scientific studies that counter and point out the flaws in the NIST report and official theory of building collapse, and all you idiots do is avoid responding in any intelligent manner, showing off what fucking losers you are again

since those studies were based on a false premise ,they are worthless..

 

[Liability]

hey mister dense...I know this is a tough concept for you ,so I'll make it as simple as I can..any opinion, extrapolation,of ANY 911 truth based organization is erroneous ,as it is based on a false and unprovable premise..
any study, report or opinion based on that premise is by definition false.

but but but

what about the YouTube videos?

I didn't post any UTube videos, I posted scientific studies that counter and point out the flaws in the NIST report and official theory of building collapse, and all you idiots do is avoid responding in any intelligent manner, showing off what fucking losers you are again

The individual NIST conclusions could be erroneous to some degree in one respect or another (or in many). But you dwell on the quibbles.

The fact remains, that there is less than no credible evidence whatsoever that anybody wired the buildings or planted any explosives of any kind... or could have conceivably done so without being observed.

The "implosion" contention is devoid of any value.

You are a loon and a miserable lowlife with a very diseased mind.

Every word scumbags like you post underscores what vermin you and all Twoofers are.

 

[Mr. Jones]

The individual NIST conclusions could be erroneous to some degree in one respect or another (or in many).

Fabrications actually.

The fact remains, that there is less than no credible evidence whatsoever that anybody wired the buildings or planted any explosives of any kind... or could have conceivably done so without being observed.

BS, Many chances since 1993 that would have given assess for such "work".

The "implosion" contention is devoid of any value.

Total BS, and denial on your part.

You are a loon and a miserable lowlife with a very diseased mind.

You're a pussy and and don't want to see the very real evidence and proof that the OCT and the NIST explanations for the collapses are BS.

Every word scumbags like you post underscores what vermin you and all Twoofers are.

You are the scumbag that would rather go along with absurd explanations and highly improbable theories, that have been shown to be as such in many instances of the 9-11 OCT, instead of standing up for your country and demanding the truth when the lies have been exposed.

You are a disgrace, and a coward and resort to your "safety mode" mechanism in your feeble little brain, rather then be a man and face the facts that are presented by credible people in many fields of expertise that destroy the OCT and the NIST BS. You instead deny this and get angry about it cause you refuse to face the real world.

Drop dead you useless POS coward. You are a disgrace for an American citizen.