NIST is an agency of the US Dept of Commerce, who deny global warming

[rollingrock]

The NIST report was written by political hacks in the US Dept. of Commerce who deny the existence of global warming, not serious scientists. Or if it exists, they say it isn't a threat or a real problem. The science is inclusive, in their view.




---------------------

Scientific Integrity » Abuses of Science

Press Releases Controlled for Political, Not Scientific, Importance

Union of Concerned Scientists

Public affairs officials at federal agencies traditionally choose which research results to highlight in official press releases based on whether the research is scientifically significant or of interest to the general public. However, in recent years officials at NASA and NOAA have held back from publicizing significant research in the field of climate change science to avoid highlighting research that contradicts the (Bush) administration’s policies.1

At NOAA and the Department of Commerce, a flow chart obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) details the extremely complicated process by which a press release is submitted, reviewed, and approved—or not—by several layers of bureaucracy. The chart makes clear how each press release must pass review by several entities that primarily serve political and public relations functions. Scientists do not decide which research ultimately receives an official press release, nor do they have a final review to ensure scientific accuracy of the release.


One NOAA scientist recalls attempting in 2001 to raise media attention for a published paper that determined, from a comparison of climate models and empirical data, the influence of human activities on the warming of Earth’s oceans. At first, the scientist said, there was going to be a media advisory and press conference to highlight the important findings, but it “kept getting degraded until it was canceled.” The scientist contrasted this experience under the Bush administration with work done on a “heat index” in the late 1990s, when then-Vice President Al Gore, on behalf of the Clinton administration, actively helped to publicize the results.2

Another NOAA scientist, Dr. Richard Wetherald, encountered similar difficulties publicizing scientific findings. The following excerpts are from a September 26, 2002, email conversation between NOAA public affairs staffer Jana Goldman and Wetherald, a research meteorologist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL). The conversation, obtained through a FOIA request, refers to an article Wetherald co-authored on a study of how the world’s water cycles will change with global warming.

Wetherald: “…I have not bothered to write a draft NOAA press release since the last time it was turned down by the Dept. of Commerce. Apparently at that time, greenhouse or global warming papers were considered to be the literary equivalent of ‘persona non grata’ by the current administration. I assume that this is still the case? I don’t want to waste both of our times if it is. Anyway, here is the summary for your information. Please let me know if this policy has changed…”

Goldman: “…What I think I may do is pass the abstract along downtown and see what they think. I agree with you, the attitude seems to have changed regarding climate change, but let’s also avoid doing unnecessary work if it’s not going to go anywhere…”



Wetherald: “…That sounds like a sensible idea. If by some miracle, you can use it as a NOAA press release, this would be fine as long as it contains the basic conclusions in the summary that I sent. I will certainly help out if it comes to that…”



Goldman: “…I sent the abstract down to see if it would fly -- if so, we would have to draft a release, but at least we would know that it would go through and our work would not be in vain…”3



The New Jersey Star-Ledger reported that Wetherald has had three proposed press releases rejected—beginning with an early 2001 publication regarding “committed warming and its implications” in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters. He was told that his most recent 2004 press release, accompanying the publication of another global warming paper, was rejected by officials at the Department of Commerce. “Obviously, the papers had a message, and it was not what they wanted it to be,” Dr. Wetherald stated in the Star-Ledger article. “A decision was made at a high level not to let it out.”4



Scientists at agencies other than NOAA also encountered difficulties with press release approval. Dr. Christopher Milly, a United States Geological Survey (USGS) research hydrologist who studies the interaction of climate with the global water cycle, reported two incidents of interference with press releases. The first case was in 2002 when a USGS press officer indicated that the subject matter of a press release (the increased risk of extreme flooding due to global warming) was considered “sensitive” and could cause problems at the White House. The Department of the Interior (USGS’ parent agency) declined to issue the release, arguing that one would probably be released by Nature, the journal that published the research paper on this subject. In fact, while Nature did issue a release, its decision to do so only occurred after the Department of the Interior refused to do so.



The second case reported by Milly was in November 2005, when a press release on the impact of climate change in water supply modeling went out only after a public affairs officer altered the text, without Milly’s knowledge, and removed words such as “global warming,” leaving the scientific content intact but possibly lowering its visibility. Milly did not know what officials made the ultimate decisions, but said that others told him that personnel in the USGS public affairs department considered climate change and energy to be “hot-button” issues for the Bush administration, and that reference to such sensitive issues, outside of scientific papers, are thus handled and edited “with care.”5



A NASA scientist spoke of a press release written by a public affairs officer (PAO) that was ready to be posted to the NASA website. However, when the press release, which was about research into the impact of climate-related flooding on agriculture, was sent for a higher level of review, it was rejected without explanation. The scientist, believing the results to be significant, had to ask high-level colleagues to lobby to get the release approved.6



In mid-September 2004, Dr. Drew Shindell, an ozone specialist and NASA climatologist, submitted a press release to the Goddard Space Flight Center public affairs office to announce the publication of a paper on climate change in Antarctica. Shindell and the PAO together suggested the title “Cool Antarctica may warm rapidly this century, study finds.” NASA headquarters, on reviewing the draft, asked that the title be “softened.” Headquarters also rejected the next suggestion that Dr. Shindell and the PAO offered—“NASA Scientists expect temperature flip-flop at the Antarctic”—and instead, over Shindell’s objections, titled it “Scientists predict Antarctic climate changes.” Not surprisingly, Shindell commented, the press release generated relatively little media interest.7 When Shindell inquired about the delays and alterations to the release, press officers responded that releases were being delayed because two political appointees and the White House were now reviewing all climate related press releases.8



In testimony at a 2007 House Oversight Committee hearing on Political Influence on Government Climate Change Scientists, Shindell testified that political control of press releases robs policymakers of information needed to make informed decisions. Shindell testified that “these restrictions were not imposed on our NASA colleagues in Space Science, or even those in areas of Earth Science other than climate change…Suppression of results demonstrating ever-increasing scientific knowledge of the principles underlying global warming, of the data demonstrating its rapidity and its consequences, and exaggeration of the remaining scientific uncertainties, certainly gave the appearance that scientific evidence that could undermine a rationale for inaction on climate change was being targeted.”9

www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/press-releases-controlled-for.html

Fall 2002: Commerce Department Blocks News Release on Global Warming Study


The US Department of Commerce rejects a news release about an article on global warming written by NOAA research meteorologist Richard Wetherald. No reason is provided. This is the second time a news release written on an article by Wetherald has been rejected. The first time was in 2001 (see (April 2001))

October 5, 2002: Study Suggests Global Warming Could Cause Hydrologic Changes

The Journal of Geophysical Research publishes a study by research meteorologists Richard Wetherald and Syukuro Manabe on how global warming might impact the hydrology of different regions. According to their computer model, high latitudes would experience higher run-off rates as a result of global warming. Winters would see higher soil moisture levels than winters currently do, while summers would see lower than normal soil moisture levels. Soil moisture in lower latitudes would be lower year-round, potentially leading to the expansion of deserts.

2004:Commerce Department Blocks News Release on Global Warming Paper

The US Department of Commerce blocks publication of a news release about an article on global warming written by NOAA research meteorologist Richard Wetherald. No reason is provided. This is the third time the DOC has rejected a news release written about an article by Wetherald. The other two times were in 2001 and 2002 (see (April 2001) and Fall 2002, respectively).

Early December 2006: NOAA Rejects Media Request for Interview with Federal Scientist Who Has Complained about Censorship

When reporter Kitta MacPherson contacts the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for a story she is writing about the NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Plainsboro, New Jersey, she is told that she will be granted “unprecedented access” to the lab’s scientists. She interviews nine scientists for 30 minutes each. However a request to interview Richard Wetherald, a scientist who has complained about censorship (see September 26, 2002), is rejected, and her interview with scientist Ants Leetmaa is only permitted on the condition that a press official is present.

www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=richard_wetherald_1




Edit/Correction: NIST is an agency of Department of Commerce, not Chamber of Commerce

[SDuderstadt]

1. Dude..

NIST is NOT an agency of the "US Chamber of Commerce".

Do you know the difference between the US DEPARTMENT of Commerce and the US Chamber of Commerce???


This is why people don't take you seriously here. Fucking unbelievable.

[rollingrock]

3. You think there's much of a difference?

the Department of Commerce is run by the Secretary of Commerce, who is a political appointment made by the president. That's even worse.

[SDuderstadt]

6. You don't think there's a difference between the US Department of Commerce and...

the US Chamber of Commerce? Are you trying to make yourself look foolish?

[HannibalCards]

7. Um, yes.

There's a huge difference.

[rollingrock]

17. Not in their position on global warming

The Chamber of Commerce AND the Dept of Commerce are global warming deniers.



Read the article in the OP about several NOAA scientists, including Dr. Richard Wetherald, who couldn't get their scientific papers on global warming published because of interference by the Bush DEPT of Commerce.

The NOAA is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which like NIST is another agency that falls under the administration and control of the Department of Commerce.


Note: the Dept. of Commerce's position on global warming has changed under the Obama administration, but under Bush it wasn't taken seriously. Under Bush the Department of commerce regularly suppressed or even falsified the work of their own NOAA scientists if it did not agree with Bush policy. Again, this is the same Dept of Commerce that was in charge of overseeing the NIST.

[HannibalCards]

20. So the Bush administration interfered with findings on Global Warming

No surprise. I see from your links that these interferences and suppression were reported on and noted publicly.

Where are the reports of suppression and interference from NIST and 9/11?

[SDuderstadt]

22. Dude...

do you know the difference between present and past tense???

Are you honestly claiming the Department of Commerce is a global warming denier? Do you have proof of that?

It's also stupid to claim the DOC was a "global warming denier" under Bush. That hardly means they took effective action, but it's simply not true that the DOC denied global warming even under Bush as shown below:

Secretary of Commerce Don Evans also announced a $103 million two-year federal initiative to accelerate the deployment of new global observation technologies, focused on oceans and atmospheric aerosols and carbon. This initiative will provide critical data needed to improve mankind's understanding of global climate change and the ability of all nations to apply their knowledge. "The Bush Administration has brought a total government spending on climate-change related programs to $4.5 billion. This critical investment announced today will accelerate select high priority research projects and climate observations that will help us fill critical knowledge gaps."

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=4472&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=Bush%20To%20Scientists%3A%20%20Study%20Natural%20Causes%20of%20Warming&Cache=False

Again, as usual, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. I'm begging you to quit embarrassing DU. Please.

[rollingrock]

24. Apparently, you can't read

for the benefit of the slow-witted, I will post it again:


Note: the Dept. of Commerce's position on global warming has changed under the Obama administration, but under Bush it wasn't taken seriously. Under Bush the Department of commerce regularly suppressed or even falsified the work of their own NOAA scientists if it did not agree with Bush policy. Again, this is the same Dept of Commerce that was in charge of overseeing the NIST.

[SDuderstadt]

25. Apparently you can't read OR write, dude....

here are your exact words:

The Chamber of Commerce AND the Dept of Commerce are global warming deniers.

Do you know the difference between "were" and "are"? There's only one way for your claim to be true and that would be for the Department of Commerce to currently be a global warming denier.

Seriously, dude. You have some significant cognitive problems.

[rollingrock]

29. Anyone can take one sentence out of context

while completely ignoring all the other sentences. good job, dude!

[SDuderstadt]

30. How did I "take it out of context", dude?

Do you know what context means? Why do you continue to blame other people for YOUR poor writing?

[HannibalCards]

26. These suppresions were made public

even before Bush left office.

I'll ask again; where are the reports of DoC suppressing NIST's findings?

Since you insist policy has changed under Obama - shouldn't the DoC be showing how the previous administration changed the NIST findings, or intimidated them?

[rollingrock]

2. NIST

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), known between 1901 and 1988 as the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), is a measurement standards laboratory which is a non-regulatory agency of the United States Department of Commerce. The institute's official mission is:1

To promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve quality of life.

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

[HannibalCards]

4. Are you reading what you post?

NIST is an agency of the US Department of Commerce.

The US Chamber of Commerce is an entirely different entity.

[SDuderstadt]

5. You just disproved your own claim...

and demonstrated your abject lack of reading comprehension in the process. Did you see that?

Read your fucking OP again. In it you claim that NIST is an agency of the US CHAMBER of Commerce, not the US DEPARTMENT of Commerce. Do you know the difference? What does the US Department of Commerce have to do with the US Chamber of Commerce???

Either you don't understand the difference between the two organizations or you can't even manage to get basic facts straight. In fact, I'm sure you don't even see the difference between your OP and your subsequent response to me.

Again, this is why no one takes you seriously here. Fucking unbelievable. Of course, what should I expect from someone who can't distinguish between the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission and its Executive Director?

[rollingrock]

8. My mistake

I didn't know there was a difference, to be honest. No one's perfect, at least I'm man enough to admit my mistake unlike yourself, but the point still stands. The NIST report was under the direct control and influence of the US Dept of Commerce, which was under the control of a Bush political crony.


The NIST themselves have made many material errors in their own report,
and they admitted some of those and corrected them in subsequent reports as well,
though obviously there are many that they still do not admit to.

[HannibalCards]

9. Have you read the NIST reports?

Can you cite the material errors they have not admitted to?

In addition, can you cite where the US Dept of Commerce (or any government entity) influenced the members of NIST that investigated the WTC complex?

[rollingrock]

12. Also notice all the references to the DEPT of Commerce

in the sources I gave in my OP regarding their position on global warming.



Fall 2002: Commerce Department Blocks News Release on Global Warming Study


The US Department of Commerce rejects a news release about an article on global warming written by NOAA research meteorologist Richard Wetherald. No reason is provided. This is the second time a news release written on an article by Wetherald has been rejected. The first time was in 2001 (see (April 2001))


2004:Commerce Department Blocks News Release on Global Warming Paper

The US Department of Commerce blocks publication of a news release about an article on global warming written by NOAA research meteorologist Richard Wetherald. No reason is provided. This is the third time the DOC has rejected a news release written about an article by Wetherald. The other two times were in 2001 and 2002 (see (April 2001) and Fall 2002, respectively).

www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=richard_wetherald_1


----------
From the Union of Concerned Scientists website:

Scientist Richard Wetherald writes how his press releases were being rejected by the Dept of COMMERCE

Wetherald: “…I have not bothered to write a draft NOAA press release since the last time it was turned down by the Dept. of Commerce. Apparently at that time, greenhouse or global warming papers were considered to be the literary equivalent of ‘persona non grata’ by the current administration. I assume that this is still the case? I don’t want to waste both of our times if it is. Anyway, here is the summary for your information. Please let me know if this policy has changed…”

[HannibalCards]

13. Once again

can you cite where the US Dept of Commerce (or any government entity) influenced the members of NIST that investigated the WTC complex?

Please don't dodge the question.

[rollingrock]

14. Naturally, they do

the NIST is an agency of the Dept of Commerce. That is who employees of the NIST report to and take their orders from. The Dept of Commerce has the final say. That's how it works.

[SDuderstadt]

15. Yet you have no evidence whatsoever that...

the Department of Commerce tried to interfere with the NIST report in any way.

You really need to quit enbarrassing yourself further in this matter.

[HannibalCards]

16. Show proof

not blind speculation;

Cite where the US Dept of Commerce (or any government entity) influenced the members of NIST that investigated the WTC complex?

The problem with your speculation here is now you have explain how you keep hundreds of NIST agents - as well as engineers and scientists world wide - quiet about the actual evidence they looked at and reported, if the DoC demanded their findings be changed or muzzled?

[rollingrock]

19. Are you claiming the NIST is an independent agency?

that is independent of the government? because that's the only way the Department of Commerce could possibly NOT have any political influence over it.

you seem to be clueless about how the government actually functions, or how any large bureaucratic organization works for that matter. a 12 year old could probably tell you that.

[HannibalCards]

21. Then it should be easy

for you to show proof that the DoC influenced NIST, and what was changed.

Otherwise all you have is speculation with no facts.

[SDuderstadt]

23. "you seem to be clueless about how the government actually functions"

I hardly think someone who admits they did not know the difference between the US Chamber of Commerce and the US Department of Commerce should presume to lecture anyone else about how our government works, dude.

[rollingrock]

41. Touche

seriously though, that's how it works in any large top-down organization, whether it be public or private. orders come from the top. with politicians at the top of the hierarchy, in the chain of command, and the scientists are below them. the scientists work for the politicians, not the other way around. do you disagree with that? I don't think you honestly can.

[SDuderstadt]

47. Then you should easily be able to find some actual...

evidence of precisely that happening, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

127. Yet, despite all the references to the DEPARTMENT of Commerce...

in YOUR sources, you initially claimed that NIST was an agency of the US CHAMBER of Commerce. Do you go out of your way to make yourself the object of derision?

[SDuderstadt]

10. "I didn't know there was a difference, to be honest."

Dude, this is why trying to reason with you, let alone explain things like this to you is totally fruitless. You don't know the difference between the US Department of Commerce and the US Chamber of Commerce???

You've actually demonstrated your bias in your admission. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about but, since the Department of Commerce was "run by a Bush crony" (I'm willing to bet you don't even know who the Secretary of Commerce was in the Bush administration), that just means their reports re: 9/11 were wrong.

Did you know that NIST farmed out a lot of work with respect to the reports to engineering and science professionals? Do you have any evidence that any of those professionals have the slightest bit of doubt about the reports?

Again, this is why you're not taken seriously here, dude. Fucking unbelievable.

This is why half or more of the knock down, drag out arguments you start originate to begin with. You need to seriously stop embarrassing yourself and DU in the process.

[SDuderstadt]

11. It should be pointed out to anyone who wanders into this morass....

that Rollingrock's initial subect line read, "NIST is an agency of the US Chamber of Commerce".

And, no, it wasn't a typo. He really did not know the difference. This is why you can't take anything he claims seriously. Fucking unbelievable.

[HannibalCards]

18. In addition

it should be noted that the NIST report is more than just a press release on assigning guilt. It is a scientific paper used and studied world wide on why the WTC towers 1&2 (and later, 7) failed. One of its primarily mandates was to assist in future planning in structural creation of high rise buildings.

It has been reviewed and accepted by engineers and scientists worldwide.

[rollingrock]

27. Peer-reviewed?

can you tell me in what peer-reviewed scientific journal it has been published?

I'm not saying it has or it hasn't, I'm just asking you to back up your statement.

[SDuderstadt]

28. Dude...

the NIST report is some 10,000 pages long.

Why in the fuck would it be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Beyond that, how in the fuck would one publish it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal givne its SHEER SIZE? Duh.

Please quit embarrassing DU. I'm begging you, dude.

[rollingrock]

33. So you admit

the NIST report on the WTC is not a peer-reviewed paper? so it is not a widely accepted scientific work. so it really has zero credibility in the scientific community?

thanks for admitting that.

[SDuderstadt]

34. I did no such thing, dude....

first of all, it's not a "paper". Secondly, we've had discussions about the review process for the NIST report before. There were public hearings, dude.

Quit twisting what I actually said. I won't ask again.

[HannibalCards]

31. I don't believe I used that term

Care to answer the question I posed to you? Or post some proof to your claims of DoC suppression of information?

Or will you continue to play dodgeball?

[SDuderstadt]

32. You know...

there's a point past which attempting to reason with Rollingrock begins to approach masochism.

I'd like to suggest we passed that point quite some time ago.

[HannibalCards]

39. I agree

Since RR refuses to acknowledge my questions, I'll just leave it there. The OP was apparently just a desperate attempt to make some kind of connection.

[OnTheOtherHand]

43. anyone else thinking of Miracle on 34th Street?

Therefore, the Post Office Department -- a branch of the federal government -- recognizes this man, Kris Kringle, to be the one and only Santa Claus!

Granted, rollingrock is using the argument in reverse (to impugn NIST scientists and their conclusions).

[rollingrock]

35. So what is your idea of 'peer-review?'

that Cheney read it and put his stamp of approval on it?



:rofl:

stop it yer killin' me.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Dude...

do you understand the idea of public hearings and a public review/comment process??

Did you know that a number of the NIST critics you cite were given the opportunity to comment on the Report before it was published? Did you know that a number of prominent engineers HAVE submitted peer-reviewed papers that support the conclusions of NIST?

[rollingrock]

40. If you say so

I guess.

[HannibalCards]

37. See post #31

[SDuderstadt]

38. "Truther Logic"....

scientific papers often run 10,000 pages in length.

[rollingrock]

42. Huh? Am I supposed to be impressed

by the sheer volume?

yeah, I'm impressed someone could cram so much BS in one report. haha

[SDuderstadt]

50. No, dude...

you're supposed to realize the difference between a paper and a report. Your comprehension deficiencies are the root of nearly all the "debates" you spark. It's truly comical to watch.

[eomer]

44. It has been criticized and rejected by engineers and scientists worldwide.

Both of these are true statements:

• It has been reviewed and accepted by engineers and scientists worldwide.
  
• It has been criticized and rejected by engineers and scientists worldwide.

But they both create a misleading impression by omitting important information.

A better way of putting it, that is the full truth rather than a misleading selection of partial truths, would be:

• It has been reviewed by engineers and scientists worldwide, accepted by some, and criticized and rejected by others.

[HannibalCards]

45. Even better

It has been reviewed by engineers and scientists worldwide, accepted by the vast majority, and criticized and rejected by a small, ignorant minority, most of whom have an agenda.

[eomer]

46. Do you have a link to a scientific study to back up those claims?

I'm assuming that is the standard you would want to apply, right?

Edit to add: the way to resolve scientific disputes is by doing science. The number of scientists who agree or disagree with an assertion is not necessarily meaningful, particularly if those scientists have given it only cursory consideration.

[HannibalCards]

56. Here's a bunch of them

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/somecritiquesofnist%27swtcinvestigationbyk

Critiques and support of NIST findings by knowledgeable scientists and engineers worldwide.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. Teach the controversy. n/t

[eomer]

53. So the status quo is always correct, then? All controversies can be dismissed out of hand?

That approach will be something of a drag on scientific progress won't it?

I would suggest that each controversy needs to be considered on its merits. A blanket approach that all controversies are bogus is, well, bunk.

[HannibalCards]

55. The status quo is the status quo

Until it is proven false. The NIST report has not been proven false.

[rollingrock]

98. The NIST have proven themselves false on more than one occasion

and were forced to correct themselves in subsequent reports.

in subsequent reports, they have:

* discarded their own pancaking theory (although they initially treated the idea of pancaking as if it were a fact instead of a theory). they later abandoned the pancaking idea altogether. this is a huge admission, because it destroys the central idea of their report on the twin towers.

* they abandoned the idea that diesel fuel tanks were responsible for sustaining the fires in Bldg 7.

* they abandoned the assertion made in a preliminary report that bldg 7 fell at a constant speed, when in fact it was not constant but in acceleration. they were forced to correct that mistake as well after it was pointed out to them by David Chandler and Steven Jones.

* they were forced to admit to a period of freefall in regard to Bldg 7, which they initially denied.


I could go on and on.

[SDuderstadt]

99. What you're describing is...

the scientific method, dude. Perhaps you've heard of it.

[rollingrock]

100. It's sloppy work

people with Ph.Ds in engineering shouldn't be making such simple errors. but that's what happens when you start out with a conclusion (ie: that Building 7 was brought down by fire) and work backwards from there to make the data fit your conclusion. the only way to do that is to manipulate the data parameters to get the results you want. that isn't science.

FEMA was more honest about it when they concluded and wrote in their own report: "our best hypothesis (the fire collapse hypothesis) has only a low probability of occurrence."

[SDuderstadt]

101. Oh, bullshit, RR...

like you know anything at all about the scientific method. After some of your more recent gaffes, you have no credibiity left, assuming you had any to begin with.

You haven't even read the NIST report, so your objections are what someone else told you to think, dude.

[rollingrock]

102. NIST has me beat in the gaffe department

on that score, they have no credibility to speak of.

[SDuderstadt]

103. Dude..

as I've said before, your objections to the NIST report are someone else telling you what to think.

[rollingrock]

104. Your unquestioning support of the official story

is the result of Big Brother telling you what to think.

[SDuderstadt]

107. Here we go again, dude...

I've read the report. You haven't. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. If I asked you how many separate projects the NIST investigation was comprised of, you wouldn't have the slightest idea. Until I corrected you, you claimed that NIST was an agency of the US Chamber of Commerce. You revel in your ignorance. You have no idea how the scientific method works. You can't even articulate what you believe NIST got wrong beyond some generalized adjectives like "sloppy" or "criminal".

Dude, you sound like a refugee from a failed anti-NWO protest with your claims of Big Brother.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

116. After you...

dude.

[SDuderstadt]

119. No, my support (which is hardly unquestioning) of the CONSENSUS view of 9/11 is...

a result of it making far more sense than the nonsense you spread.

[Bolo Boffin]

59. "A blanket approach that all controversies are bogus is, well, bunk."

If I had advocated such a position, you might have a point.

Funnily enough, your suggestion is the position I was actually in favor of. 9/11 conspiracy theories have indeed been considered on their merits. This is why they have been found incredibly wanting.

[eomer]

67. This is just silly.

If you want to make an argument, go ahead. Just claiming that it's already been proved adds nothing to the discussion. Obviously those who read this are not helped by naked claims with no foundation provided.

[Bolo Boffin]

68. You misrepresenting what I said is indeed silly.

I wish you would stop.

[SDuderstadt]

49. Please point to the peer-reviewed papers...

rejecting it.

[eomer]

51. The NIST WTC report was not peer-reviewed.

The alleged scientists who agree with it are not by peer-reviewed papers.

The peer review score is zero to zero.

[SDuderstadt]

52. Bullshit, Eomer....

There are scores of peer-reviewed papers dealing with elements of the NIST report. It's rather silly to contend there should be a peer-reviewed paper of the totality of a report that runs 10,000 pages in length.

[eomer]

54. Peer-reviewed papers that address the actual science?

To be peer reviewed a paper would need to meet minimum standards regarding the way it lays out the question being studied, the methods applied, and the conclusion reached. A casual statement of support, even if it appears in some scientific journal, does not constitute a peer-reviewed paper.

If there are scores of them, can you link to a few?

[SDuderstadt]

57. Start with these, dude...

http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Scholarly+Papers

I'd also love for you to direct us to the library of peer-reviewed papers from the "truther" side.

[Theobald]

58. Take your pick

http://cedb.asce.org/cedbsrch.html Do a search for World Trade Center

2009 Dominant Factor in the Collapse of WTC-1

2009 Evaluation of an Existing Steel Frame Building against Progressive Collapse

2008 Agent Based Simulation of Human Movements during Emergency Evacuations of Facilities

2008 Closure of "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions"

2008 Discussion of "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions"

2008 Discussion of "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions"

2008 Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-I

2008 An Experimental Study on the Behaviour of Full-Scale Composite Steel Frames under Furnace Loading

2008 Fire and Concrete Structures

2008 NIST: World Trade Center Building 7 is First Known Case of a Tall Building Collapsing ’Primarily’ from Fire

2008 Preserving an Historic Structure at the World Trade Center Site

2008 Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple Analysis

2008 Steel Connection Design for Structural Integrity

2008 Structural Design for Fire in Tall Buildings

2008 What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?

2007 Master Planning for a New Seaport in Doha, Qatar

2007 Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions

2007 Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1

2007 Structural Response of Tall Buildings to Multiple Floor Fires

2007 Structures: Building Code Changes Reflect World Trade Center Investigation

2006 Condition Assessment of Buildings

2006 Enhancing Transit Facility Design Using Pedestrian Simulation

2006 Impacts of the 2001 World Trade Center Attack on New York City Critical Infrastructures

2006 ”Postcards” — Staten Island September 11th Memorial

2006 Practical Means for Energy-Based Analyses of Disproportionate Collapse Potential

2006 Progressive Collapse of Structures: Annotated Bibliography and Comparison of Codes and Standards

2006 A Simplified Risk Analyses Method and an Electric Systems Solution to Reliability and Continuity of Vital Service Problems in Critical Service Facilities: A Brief Overview of the Work Before the ASCE/AEI C2P Committee

2006 Starting Over

2006 Structures: Three Tower Designs Announced for World Trade Center Site

2006 Wind Speeds for the Estimation of World Trade Center Towers’ Response

2005 Book Review: Imagining Ground Zero: Official and Unofficial Proposals for the World Trade Center Site by Suzanne Stephens, with Ian Luna and Ron Broadhurst. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., 2004

2005 Buildings: Architect Reveals Cultural Center Design for World Trade Center Site

2005 Closure of "Rebuilding the World Trade Center"

2005 Discussion of "Rebuilding the World Trade Center"

2005 Discussion of "Rebuilding the World Trade Center"

2005 Effect of Assembly Size, End Restraints, and Fireproofing Thickness on Fire Endurance Testing of Floor Systems

2005 Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center

2005 Innovation, Risk and Reward at Ground Zero

2005 Lessons Learned From 9/11: The Report of the World Trade Center Building Code Task Force

2005 The NIST Building and Fire Safety Recommendations

2005 Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires

2005 Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks

2005 Two International Finance Centre, Hong Kong — the Implications of 9/11

2004 Approaches to Infrastructure Redevelopment, WTC, Lower NYC and the Region

2004 Closure of "World Trade Center Collapse—Civil Engineering Considerations"

2004 Design and Evaluation of Ground Support for the Exchange Place Station Improvements Project

2004 Discussion of "World Trade Center Collapse—Civil Engineering Considerations"

2004 Lessons Learned on Improving Resistance of Buildings to Terrorist Attacks

2004 NewsBriefs: EPA Forms World Trade Center Panel (Environmental Protection Agency)

2004 Progressive Analysis Procedure for Progressive Collapse

2004 The Remote Sensing Response to September 11th

2004 Restoration of PATH Service to WTC Site: Exchange Place Improvements

2004 Structures: Final World Trade Center Tower Design Is Safe, ’Green,’ and Sculptural

2004 Structures: World Trade Center Memorial Finalists Unveiled

2004 Urban Design: Reflecting Pools Chosen to Memorialize World Trade Center Attack

2004 Use of High-Efficiency Energy Absorbing Device to Arrest Progressive Collapse of Tall Building

2003 Analysis of the Thermal Exposure in the Impact Areas of the World Trade Center Terrorist Attacks

2003 Anatomy of a Disaster: A Structural Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapses

2003 Architectural Engineering: Two Finalists Emerge for World Trade Center Redevelopment

2003 Architecture: Nine Design Unveiled for World Trade Center Site

2003 Book Review: American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center by William Langewiesche. New York: North Point Press, 2002

2003 Closure of "Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"

2003 Closure of "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis"

2003 Discussion of "Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"

2003 Discussion of "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis"

2003 Errata for "Landmarks in American Civil Engineering History: World Trade Center"

2003 Forensic Engineering (2003)

2003 Geotechnical Engineering: Foundation Completed for New 7 World Trade Center

2003 Holding Up

2003 Rebuilding the Winter Garden

2003 Rebuilding the World Trade Center

2003 Restoring PATH

2003 Service Implications of Managing Infrastructure Distribution Systems in Crises

2003 Structures: Construction Begins on Taller, Safer 7 World Trade Center

2003 Teachable Moments and the Tyranny of the Syllabus: September 11 Case

2003 World Trade Center Disaster: Damage/Debris Assessment

2002 Addendum to “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis”¹

2002 Architecture: World Trade Center Proposal Showcased

2002 Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?

2002 Dissecting the Collapses

2002 The Excavation

2002 Investigating the Disaster in New York City: Conducting Field Research Following the Collapse of the World Trade Center

2002 Landmarks in American Civil Engineering History: World Trade Center

2002 Structures: NIST Launches Long-Term World Trade Center Investigation

2002 Technology: Simulator Models World Trade Center Fire

2002 Up into the Sky

2002 Wave Equation Analyses of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite Piling

2002 Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis

2002 The World Trade Center ”Bathtub” Recovery Effort

2002 World Trade Center Collapse—Civil Engineering Considerations

2001 Blast Mitigation Research and Technology Transfer

2001 Retrofitting Industry for Stormwater Quality Management

2001 Schwartz Honors SEAoNY for Work at World Trade Center

2001 September Eleventh, The Days After, The Days Ahead

2001 Technology: Aerial Mapping Depicts World Trade Center Debris

2001 U.S. Embassy Designs against Terrorism: A Historical Perspective

2001 World Trade Center Study a Cooperative Effort

[eomer]

66. The first one I picked does not demonstrate any conclusion of the NIST WTC report.

I looked at:
2007 http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf">Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions

This paper essentially looks at whether a collapse crushing one story of a WTC tower would then progress on to collapse the rest of the building. The NIST WTC report does not consider that question. It only goes so far as the initiation of collapse and therefore stops at a time just before the paper you cited starts. So this paper does not support any conclusion of the NIST WTC report.

Just because a paper gives a search hit on the phrase "World Trade Center" does not mean that the paper demonstrates one of the conclusions of the NIST WTC report.

So please let me know if you've got a specific peer-reviewed paper that actually does demonstrate one of the conclusions of the NIST report. My guess is that none of those papers you spammed me with actually do so. More likely they all assume the conclusions of the NIST report and go on from there like the one I looked at does.

In particular, I'd like to see a paper that demonstrates scientifically that the collapse has to have been due to the plane impact and fires. The NIST report just leaps to that conclusion without demonstrating it scientifically. And that is the conclusion in the NIST report that is actually at controversy. NIST spent a lot of time and trees demonstrating that the building could have collapsed due to the impact and fires, which is not actually the interesting question. Then they just jumped to the conclusion that if they buildings could have collapsed due to those causes then they did collapse due to those causes. They don't rule out or in any other way discriminate between the various possible causes of collapse; rather they just pick the politically correct one and ignore the rest. This jumping to the main conclusion is completely lacking in scientific basis. So a peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates some NIST conclusion that is non-interesting will be, well, non-interesting.

And, by the way, I'm not a subscriber to ASCE Publications, so I'll need a link that is available to the public rather than one available only to ASCE subscribers.

[Bolo Boffin]

69. What a piece of work is man! n/t

[SDuderstadt]

70. Here's an idea...

we'll spot you tit for tat.

You first.

[Theobald]

72. Let me help you out here

You are looking for a, and I quote, "Peer-reviewed papers that address the actual science? If there are scores of them, can you link to a few? "

Here is one, how many more would you like? I need you to focus on this and not wander off after the next shiny object. Please address the question and comment on the paper without bringing any irrelevant non-sequitur into the mix.


Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions
J. Engrg. Mech. Volume 133, Issue 3, pp. 308-319 (March 2007)
Issue Date: March 2007 ABSTRACTREFERENCES (22)CITING ARTICLESBuy This Article (US$30)

Zdenk P. Bažant,1 F.ASCE and Mathieu Verdure2
1McCormick School Professor and W.P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science, Northwestern Univ., 2145 Sheridan Rd., CEE/A135, Evanston, IL 60208. E-mail: [email protected]
2Visiting Fellow, Northwestern Univ., 2145 Sheridan Rd., CEE/A135, Evanston, IL 60208; on leave from Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France.

Progressive collapse is a failure mode of great concern for tall buildings, and is also typical of building demolitions. The most infamous paradigm is the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. After reviewing the mechanics of their collapse, the motion during the crushing of one floor (or group of floors) and its energetics are analyzed, and a dynamic one-dimensional continuum model of progressive collapse is developed. Rather than using classical homogenization, it is found more effective to characterize the continuum by an energetically equivalent snap-through. The collapse, in which two phases—crush-down followed by crush-up—must be distinguished, is described in each phase by a nonlinear second-order differential equation for the propagation of the crushing front of a compacted block of accreting mass. Expressions for consistent energy potentials are formulated and an exact analytical solution of a special case is given. It is shown that progressive collapse will be triggered if the total (internal) energy loss during the crushing of one story (equal to the energy dissipated by the complete crushing and compaction of one story, minus the loss of gravity potential during the crushing of that story) exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story. Regardless of the load capacity of the columns, there is no way to deny the inevitability of progressive collapse driven by gravity alone if this criterion is satisfied (for the World Trade Center it is satisfied with an order-of-magnitude margin). The parameters are the compaction ratio of a crushed story, the fracture of mass ejected outside the tower perimeter, and the energy dissipation per unit height. The last is the most important, yet the hardest to predict theoretically. It is argued that, using inverse analysis, one could identify these parameters from a precise record of the motion of floors of a collapsing building. Due to a shroud of dust and smoke, the videos of the World Trade Center are only of limited use. It is proposed to obtain such records by monitoring (with millisecond accuracy) the precise time history of displacements in different modes of building demolitions. The monitoring could be accomplished by real-time telemetry from sacrificial accelerometers, or by high-speed optical camera. The resulting information on energy absorption capability would be valuable for the rating of various structural systems and for inferring their collapse mode under extreme fire, internal explosion, external blast, impact or other kinds of terrorist attack, as well as earthquake and foundation movements.

[eomer]

75. Did you read the post you replied to?

That is the same paper that I just pointed out does not support any conclusion of the NIST WTC report. It deals with a question that NIST did not address.

1. The NIST report studies what happens only up to the point of initiation of collapse.
   
2. The Bažant paper studies what happens only after the point of initiation of collapse.

So (2.) does not provide any support for (1.) -- it covers something entirely different.

[Theobald]

74. Why not go for the obvious one? Did the title stump you?

What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?
by Zdenek P. Bazant, Hon.M.ASCE, (McCormick Inst. Prof. and W. P. Murphy Prof. of Civ. Engrg. and Materials Sci., Northwestern Univ., 2145 Sheridan Rd., CEE/A135, Evanston, IL 60208 (corresponding author). E-mail: [email protected]), Jia-Liang Le, (Grad. Res. Asst., Northwestern Univ., 2145 Sheridan Rd., CEE, Evanston, IL 60208), Frank R. Greening, (Engrg. Consultant, 12 Uplands Ave., Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 3X7), and David B. Benson, (Prof. Emeritus, School of Electrical Engrg. and Computer Sci., Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99164)

Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 134, No. 10, October 2008, pp. 892-906, (doi 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:10(892))

Download fulltext
Purchase Subscription
Permissions for Reuse
View Issue Table of Contents



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document type: Journal Paper
Abstract: Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. However, it remains to be determined whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not. The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse is shown to agree with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but, despite uncertain values of some parameters, it is totally out of range of the free fall hypothesis, on which these allegations rest. It is shown that the observed size range (0.01 — 0.1 mm) of the dust particles of pulverized concrete is consistent with the theory of comminution caused by impact, and that less than 10% of the total gravitational energy, converted to kinetic energy, sufficed to produce this dust (whereas, more than 150 t of TNT per tower would have to be installed, into many small holes drilled into concrete, to produce the same pulverization). The air ejected from the building by gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, the speed of almost 500 miles per hour (or 223 m/s, or 803 km/h) on average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains the loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and other fragments, and shows that the lower margin of the dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front. The resisting upward forces due to pulverization and to ejection of air, dust, and solid fragments, neglected in previous studies, are indeed found to be negligible during the first few seconds of collapse but not insignificant near the end of crush-down. The calculated crush-down duration is found to match a logical interpretation of seismic record, while the free fall duration grossly disagrees with this record.

[eomer]

88. Bazant is spouting utter nonsense in this one.

First, I concede that this is in fact a peer reviewed paper. Second, the peer review process apparently does not filter out utter nonsense.

One of the key conclusions of the paper is that the allegations of controlled demolition do not have any scientific merit. I didn't have to look any further than the first few lines of the abstract to see that the line of reasoning behind this conclusion is idiotic:

Abstract: Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade
Center Towers. However, it remains to be determined whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit.
The present analysis proves that they do not. The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse is shown to agree with the
motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but, despite uncertain values of some parameters, it is
totally out of range of the free fall hypothesis, on which these allegations rest.

So Bazant dismisses all variations of controlled demolition because some unknown advocate claimed incorrectly at some unknown place and time that the towers fell in free fall time and further claimed that that was evidence of CD. But the person who said that was an idiot and it was false on its face. So how does that figure into a scientific analysis of whether CD was used or not?

To demonstrate scientifically that CD was not used, by some argument along these lines, you would first need to provide a scientific basis for how fast the towers would fall if CD were used. Since there are many different possible ways that CD could have been implemented then you would have to exhaustively analyze them all and establish their fall times. The you would have to rule every one of them out, including the farthest range of any uncertain factors, in order to demonstrate that CD was not used. Bazant skips all of this required scientific demonstration and instead just accepts the unsupported statement of an anonymous idiot on the internet that CD = free fall. Utter nonsense.

This nonsense in the abstract is repeated in the body:

Now note that these durations are, on the average, 65.5% and
47.3% longer than those of a free fall of the upper part of each
tower, which are 7.74 s for the North Tower and 7.11 s for the
South Tower. So, the seismic record also appears to contradict the
hypothesis of progressive demolition by timed explosives.

Obviously there is some force at work here that will cause a paper with such nonsense to get published in a peer reviewed journal. My guess is that it was either that contradicting the principal author of the NIST WTC report was correctly seen as being a career threatening move or that the reviewer's politics caused a strong bias in favor of the government story, or both.

So, thanks, you fulfilled my request that you produce a peer-reviewed paper. Unfortunately it only proves that idiotic nonsense can get past the reviewers.

[SDuderstadt]

89. Well, who to believe....

Eomer or Bazant?


Hmmm, I'm going with Bazant, dude.

[eomer]

90. You should believe logic.

And think for yourself.

[SDuderstadt]

91. You should too, dude....

It's silly to claim I don't think for myself because I cited a peer-reviewed paper and agreed with its authot based upon science, dude.

Now, where's your peer-reviewed paper proving controlled demolition? Tit for tat and all that...

[eomer]

92. You didn't agree based on science. You agreed with no stated basis.

So deal with the logic:

Bazant's conclusion depends on the assertion that CD would result in a collapse in free fall time.

Where is Bazant's scientific basis for that assertion?

[SDuderstadt]

93. How the fuck would you know what I agreed...

based upon, dude? Quit being silly.

You also need to re-read what Bazant actually wrote. You left out significant parts.

[eomer]

94. I'm not disputing all the parts of it right now; just this part that he emphasizes in the abstract.

If you've got some scientific or logical basis for agreeing with his conclusion, then go ahead and state it.

Bazant's conclusion depends on the assertion that CD would result in free fall speed.

Where is the scientific demonstration that that assertion is true?

[SDuderstadt]

95. Did you miss this part, dude?

The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse is shown to agree with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse

[eomer]

96. No, I did not miss that part.

That the rate of fall in the video is consistent with one theory does not tell us it is inconsistent with any other.

Please remember that it was Bazant and his team who fine-tuned the model to make it produce a result consistent with the video. Obviously it would be possible to produce a CD model that would also be consistent with the rate of fall seen in the video.

[SDuderstadt]

97. Dude...

I'm sorry, but I really don't want to belabor this further. All the available evidence just doesn't show what should be expected from controlled demolition. CD experts were part of the clean-up team and report nothing out of the ordinary.

When you have a smoking gun, I'm more than willing to listen. Until then, I just don't see the point.

[lovepg]

105. Translation your post is kicking my butt and i must stop before someone believes The great Bazant..

Is a big word spouting bullshit artist. Which he is.

[SDuderstadt]

108. Dude...

you'd better tell Northwestern University. They seems to regard him as a structural engineering expert.

[lovepg]

110. I am sure his degree served him well as any academic knows how to spout scientific gobbledy gook

that the average person will never be able to understand. To bad its not good enough to hide its complete BS.

[SDuderstadt]

111. Oh, you're an anti-intellectual, too?

Why am I not surprised?

Here's a thought, dude. Why don't you write a detailed point-by-point refutation of Bazant? Be sure to include your math. Let us know when you're done.

[lovepg]

112. I wrote one you refuse to address which i guess makes You the anti intellectual

[SDuderstadt]

114. Dude...

maybe you should look up the definitions of the terms "detailed refutation" and "anti-intellectual" before you embarrass yourself further.

[lovepg]

123. You can't answer my SIMPLE questions why bother with details that are over your head?

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lovepg]

128. No offense taken everyone here understands your role on this post. They just put you on ignore.

[SDuderstadt]

129. Then why don't you instead of....

battering me with your inane questions?

[lovepg]

130. And miss all the fun????

[OnTheOtherHand]

113. "So Bazant dismisses all variations of controlled demolition"

Well, no. Bazant et al. reject "recent allegations" based on incorrect claims about the rate(s) at which the towers fell and other arguments that they address. Those allegations bear an uncanny resemblance to arguments published in Journal of 9/11 Studies, so I don't think Bazant et al. are cherry-picking or setting up straw men.

You may think there is a much more cogent variation of controlled demolition that Bazant and the Powers That Be (hmm, could be a band...) are disregarding. Even if you're right, I don't think it's fair to blame Bazant.

[eomer]

117. Yes, actually, he does.

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/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/476%20WTC%20collapse.pdf

As seen by his final concluding sentence in the paper, clearly he is pretending that he has disproved CD in general.

[OnTheOtherHand]

118. mmmph

As a matter of logic, one should generally eschew expressing "no doubt" about anything. But I'm sure that after hacking through seven years of drivel, it's hard to remain attuned to nuance. I was pretty well shot after two.

If that's your biggest gripe about Bazant, well, shrug. It seems pretty much like Mitofsky's blurting, "This kills the fraud argument." Careless statement, but the substance remains.

[eomer]

120. My biggest gripe is that he is a con artist liar.

Other than that I think he's swell.

In this paper he spent many pages of fancy diagrams and impressive looking differential equations that essentially add nothing at all to the argument. Those pages of equations were largely devoted to pretending to calculate how fast the towers would have collapsed due to fire and impact. Which is a complete sham -- he has no idea how fast they really would have fallen. And then when it came time to calculate how long it would take for the towers to collapse due to CD he apparently was out of fancy equations so he just assumed that what some idiot said would be good enough, even though it is false on its face.

And the whole premise is a sham to begin with. He produces a theoretical model of one theory and tweaks it until it matches the video evidence. Then he pretends that the fact that the model matches the video evidence is proof that it is the one true explanation. But the reason it matches the video evidence is because he backed into the model that would be needed to make it match. He further pretends that once you've found one model that you've forced to match the video then all other theories are somehow disproved. Even though you could just as easily have taken one of the alternative theories and made a model of it that would match the video evidence just as well. This is not just a slip of the tongue in the way he worded it. The entire approach is a fraud.

And, even more, the NIST WTC report itself is the exact same fraud. So it's not a mere slip of the tongue -- it is a fraudster M.O.

And, no, the substance doesn't remain. There is no substance to the argument. Here is his argument: I've made a theoretical model that matches some of the observed evidence. Q.E.D. But, no, that is not what was to be demonstrated. He has actually done nothing to falsify any of the alternative theories. He goes on and on with reams of differential equations that are beside the point and then pretends he has proved something, which he hasn't.

Sorry for the rant but for some reason this particular thing has really set me off. Maybe it's because of the arrogant way this paper was pointed out to me (not by you obviously) as being so on point and peer-reviewed! And then I find it is utter nonsense. Sorry, rant off.

[Bolo Boffin]

122. You think Bazant is a con artist liar?

:rofl:

[SidDithers]

126. I'm now hoping that poster uses Gage as an expert to counter Bazant...

that would be poetic :)

Sid

[OnTheOtherHand]

124. I guess we've gone down this road before

My impression -- at the risk of being reductive -- is that you're looking for the page where they (purport to) prove that CD is physically impossible, and not finding it, you conclude that the entire article is "many pages of fancy diagrams and impressive looking differential equations that essentially add nothing at all to the argument."

In this, you appear to distinguish between the vulgar CD argument that they reject, and the sophisticated CD argument that you prefer. The trouble is that as far as I can tell, the sophisticated CD argument is largely in your head -- and, at the limit, it is observationally indistinguishable from the no-CD argument. The 'debate' doesn't seem to have progressed much beyond the waltz of

- "It's screamingly obvious that the towers were brought down by CD -- no other way it could happen."

- "Actually, the 'official story' fits the evidence better than any alternative I've seen."

- "Meh, you can't disprove CD, you're a stooge!"

If something far more subtle is going on, I wish you would write it up. You think Bazant et al. have done something screamingly intellectually dishonest with the observational evidence, but I don't see it.

[eomer]

131. Something more subtle going on where?

You seem stuck on the sublimely ridiculous blathering of idiots. Maybe it is from hanging around here too much. And the fact that Bazant chose to focus on the same is among my complaints.

I was expecting better from him and certainly from you. I don't think it is more subtle; rather it is more serious, more scientific, and more logical.

[OnTheOtherHand]

132. what is?

Yes, I probably am distracted by the blathering of idiots, as is Bazant. But if you're assuming that we know where to find the serious folks, think again. In the election fraud gig, I could name some folks who apparently think of themselves as the serious minds, but aren't. (When it comes to structural engineering, of course, I have to hedge my judgments.)

If you're saying that it makes more sense to assume that planes hit the towers than not, I certainly agree. But as for a more specific engagement of the physics of the collapse, where specifically is the argument that Bazant et al. should be paying more attention to?

ETA: Running out the door right now -- feel free to add words wherever I obviously said too little. :)

[eomer]

133. The investigation that we need.

The investigation that we need is one that is more serious, scientific, and logical.

Let me construct another argument using the same logic as Bazant:

1. Somebody said that the towers fell into their own footprints and that that was an indication that controlled demolition was used.
   
2. The towers didn't fall into their own footprints.
   
3. Therefore controlled demolition was not used.

Maybe I can get this idiotic drivel published in The Journal of Engineering Mechanics; all I'll need to do is to say it once in the abstract, again in the conclusion, and then sandwich twelve pages of engineering Lorem Ipsum in between.

Here is Bazant's argument, similarly distilled:

1. Somebody said that the towers fell at free fall speed and that that was an indication that controlled demolition was used.
   
2. The towers didn't fall at free fall speed.
   
3. Therefore controlled demolition was not used.

Obviously both of these arguments suffer from a serious logical fallacy. I don't know the name for this fallacy but essentially it is that finding a flaw in a proffered proof does not constitute proof of the converse proposition.

If we fix the logical fallacy, here is what we would have:

1. Somebody said that the towers fell into their own footprints and that that was an indication that controlled demolition was used.
   
2. The towers didn't fall into their own footprints.
   
3. Therefore the argument fails, leaving us with nothing demonstrated one way or the other about whether controlled demolition was used.

1. Somebody said that the towers fell at free fall speed and that that was an indication that controlled demolition was used.
   
2. The towers didn't fall at free fall speed.
   
3. Therefore the argument fails, leaving us with nothing demonstrated one way or the other about whether controlled demolition was used.

Now that we've so quickly and easily disposed of those two original arguments, that were false on their face, the next step is to move on to a serious study of whether controlled demolition was used. If Bazant wants to apply the same approach to the controlled demolition theory as he did to the fire and impact theory then he will see if it is possible to construct a CD model that fits all the observational evidence. I can save him a lot of time and trouble: it is possible.

That will leave the investigation more or less where it started. Bazant's approach of constructing a model turns out to have no discriminating power between these alternative theories.

What to do next? I'm neither a forensic scientist nor an engineer but I would say the investigation should start over at the step of collection of evidence. There may well be physical evidence at and around the WTC site that can still be collected. I previously posted a story about the death of Napoleon Bonaparte. 140 years after his death it was found that some physical evidence was available that had not yet been considered. A newly discovered strand of hair was tested and arsenic at a level that would have been fatal was found. So the original cause of death finding (stomach cancer) was overturned by physical evidence discovered 140 years later.

Edit to add: Regarding: "But if you're assuming that we know where to find the serious folks, think again."

We need to be the serious folks (you, Bazant, and I). Bazant, in particular, is not a member of a debate team that has been given one side of a question to defend. He should be seeking all the different possible explanations, exploring them, and giving them all equal time and weight. In his role at NIST he's supposed to be impartial. If he can't manage that then I would suggest that while he is searching for some serious folks he should take care not to spill his coffee by bumping into twelve of them in the NIST hallway. He could have assembled an entire team of serious folks with the assignment of developing alternative theories. Just didn't want to.

[OnTheOtherHand]

134. "controlled demolition" per se isn't a theory

AFAICT, there will always be some variant of "controlled demolition" for which any conceivable analysis will have no discriminating power. So?

What I want to know is, is there any reason why I should spend any more time on the CD notion? Jones and Harrit think they've found nanothermite. OK, maybe I can use my peripheral vision to see if they ever convince any competent authority who wasn't leaning that way already. What else? Aren't the best and brightest minds in CD supposed to be publishing in Journal of 9/11 Studies? Does any of that work rise to the level of moderate interest? Based on what I saw from Szamboti here, I'm skeptical.

In the real world, academics will not spend indefinite amounts of time pursuing poorly specified and ultimately unfalsifiable "alternative theories." They want to learn something; failing that, they want to publish something. Your desire to be convinced that CD didn't happen isn't sufficient incentive.

[eomer]

135. Neither is "fire and impact" a theory per se.

But all NIST had to start with was "fire and impact". They had to develop the rest.

Why would it be the responsibility of citizens to do the investigation and develop the theories? They have no funding. The job of whoever is assigned to do the investigation is to develop the alternative theories and then work through the science need to discriminate between them.

Does a police crime investigation unit wait for members of the public to deliver well-developed theories? That is absurd.

Bazant's assignment was not to defend the establishment position. It was to investigate all the possibilities and get to the truth.

You're right -- we've been through this before. You will always consider the establishment position to have a deified status; I will never agree.

[OnTheOtherHand]

136. you're scanting something basic

There is quite apparent evidence of impact and fire. CD, not so much.

I don't think that acknowledging this fact constitutes granting the "establishment position... a deified status."

ETA: There are arbitrarily many alternative theories of why the towers collapsed. Why are we discussing only these two? Bluntly, eomer, what are you trying to hide? ;)

[eomer]

137. No, I don't think so.

There is quite apparent evidence of impact, fire, and explosions.

[OnTheOtherHand]

138. I referred to CD, not evidence of explosions

Clearly some people do believe that there is evidence of explosions that constitutes, in turn, evidence of CD. I am utterly unmoved. I think my point stands.

[eomer]

139. What, an empty thermite box that floats out of the sky and lands next to Al Suqami's passport?

We're talking about evidence that falls out of the sky and hits us on the head like the Coke bottle in The Gods Must Be Crazy, right? Because this is evidence that we have by sheer luck before we decide that we should look for any evidence.

What kind of evidence of CD did you have in mind?

[HannibalCards]

141. Thermite again?

Thermite does not explode.

In "The Gods Must Be Crazy" the tribe does not understand what the 'evil thing' that fell from the sky was. The 'Truth' Movement does not understand the actual evidence. Your analogy is apt.

[eomer]

142. Some thermite does in fact explode.

Thermite is a fairly generic term. Some types of thermite explode; some don't.

By the way, I was being facetious about the thermite box floating down. My point is just that all the reports of explosions were ample justification for searching the crime scene for residues and other evidence of explosives. And still is ample justification, to whatever extent evidence can still be found.

[SDuderstadt]

79. Did you read this part?

Review of Causes of WTC Collapse
Although the structural damage inflicted by aircraft was severe, it
was only local. Without stripping of a significant portion of the
steel insulation during impact, the subsequent fire would likely
not have led to overall collapse
Bažant and Zhou 2002a; NIST
2005. As generally accepted by the community of specialists in
structural mechanics and structural engineering
though not by a
few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives, the
failure scenario was as follows:
1. About 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face of framed
tube
and about 13% of the total of 287 columns were severed,
and many more were significantly deflected. This
caused stress redistribution, which significantly increased the
load of some columns, attaining or nearing the load capacity
for some of them.
2. Because a significant amount of steel insulation was stripped,
many structural steel members heated up to 600°C, as confirmed
by annealing studies of steel debris
NIST 2005 the
structural steel used loses about 20% of its yield strength
already at 300°C, and about 85% at 600°C
NIST 2005;
and exhibits significant viscoplasticity, or creep, above
450°C
e.g., Cottrell 1964, p. 299, especially in the columns
overstressed due to load redistribution; the press reports right
after September 11, 2001 indicating temperature in excess of
800°C, turned out to be groundless, but Bažant and Zhou’s
analysis did not depend on that.
3. Differential thermal expansion, combined with heat-induced
viscoplastic deformation, caused the floor trusses to sag. The
catenary action of the sagging trusses pulled many perimeter
columns inward
by about 1 m, NIST 2005. The bowing of
these columns served as a huge imperfection inducing multistory
out-of-plane buckling of framed tube wall. The lateral
deflections of some columns due to aircraft impact, the differential
thermal expansion, and overstress due to load redistribution
also diminished buckling strength.
4. The combination of seven effects—
1 Overstress of some
columns due to initial load redistribution;
2 overheating
due to loss of steel insulation;
3 drastic lowering of yield
limit and creep threshold by heat;
4 lateral deflections of
many columns due to thermal strains and sagging floor
trusses;
5 weakened lateral support due to reduced in-plane
stiffness of sagging floors;
6 multistory bowing of some
columns
for which the critical load is an order of magnitude
less than it is for one-story buckling; and
7 local plastic
buckling of heated column webs—finally led to buckling of
columns Fig. 1
b. As a result, the upper part of the tower
fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height,
impacting the lower part of the tower. This triggered progressive
collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper
part exceeded
by an order of magnitude the energy that
could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing
in the lower part of the tower.
In broad terms, this scenario was proposed by Bažant
2001,
and Bažant and Zhou
2002a,b on the basis of simplified analysis
relying solely on energy considerations. Up to the moment of
collapse trigger, the foregoing scenario was identified by meticulous,
exhaustive, and very realistic computer simulations of
unprecedented detail, conducted by S. Shyam Sunder’s team at
NIST. The subsequent progressive collapse was not simulated at
NIST because its inevitability, once triggered by impact after column
buckling, had already been proven by Bažant and Zhou’s

2002a comparison of kinetic energy to energy absorption capability.
The elastically calculated stresses caused by impact of the
upper part of tower onto the lower part were found to be 31 times
greater than the design stresses
note a misprint in Eq. 2 of Bažant
and Zhou 2002a: A should be the combined cross section area of
all columns, which means that Eq. 1, rather than 2, is decisive.
Before disappearing from view, the upper part of the South
tower was seen to tilt significantly
and of the North tower
mildly. Some wondered why the tilting Fig. 1
d did not continue,
so that the upper part would pivot about its base like a
falling tree see Fig. 4 of Bažant and Zhou
2002b. However,
such toppling to the side was impossible because the horizontal
reaction to the rate of angular momentum of the upper part would
have exceeded the elastoplastic shear resistance of the story at
least 10.3

Bažant and Zhou 2002b.
The kinetic energy of the top part of the tower impacting the
floor below was found to be about 8.4
larger than the plastic
energy absorption capability of the underlying story, and considerably
higher than that if fracturing were taken into account

Bažant and Zhou 2002a. This fact, along with the fact that
during the progressive collapse of underlying stories Figs. 1
d
and 2 the loss of gravitational potential per story is much greater
than the energy dissipated per story, was sufficient for Bažant and
Zhou
2002a to conclude, purely on energy grounds, that the
tower was doomed once the top part of the tower dropped through
the height of one story
or even 0.5 m. It was also observed that
this conclusion made any calculations of the dynamics of progressive
collapse after the first single-story drop of upper part superfluous.

[lovepg]

106. His story is based on two unprovable points...

The amount of core column damage and the amount of insulation stripping that occurred.
Its all just CONJECTURE.
Show me anywhere he PROVES the amount of damage done to either the columns or the insulation that his story rests on.
And NO backward engineered computer simulations do NOT count.

[SDuderstadt]

109. Did I ask you, dude?

No, I didn't.

[defendandprotect]

60. Agree . . . it's all a farce -- and we need new INDEPENDENT investigation of 9/11 . . .

[HannibalCards]

61. What do you mean

by 'independent' exactly? No experts?

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HannibalCards]

63. Well you are correct, and

Supposedly he has me on ignore anyway ... just have to keep that post count up for the NWO tally.

[rollingrock]

64. Conducted by engineers and scientists not beholden to the Department of Commerce

for starters.

[SDuderstadt]

65. Do you honestly believe that engineers and scientists, even if...

"beholden to the Department of Commerce", would just cover up evidence of an "inside job"?

I find your anti-government bias troubling, dude.

[rollingrock]

71. If they intend to keep their jobs

and/or their lives, they do indeed need to play their part in the cover up.

[SDuderstadt]

73. What bullshit....

simple question. With Obama now in the WH, where are all the scientists who had to play along? Do you honestly expect us to believe that Obama is continuing it?

Since 9/11 happened so early in Bush's term, do you think the NIST scientists were moral under Clinton, then turned amoral under Bush? Or, was Clinton "in on it, too"? Again, your anti-government bias is quite troubling.

[rollingrock]

76. Obama buys the official story

why wouldn't he continue the cover up? as we have seen on a number of issues, one of Obama's main priorities is appeasing the right-wing, or what he refers to as 'bipartisanship.' I voted for Obama in the general elections, knowing that he would probably never do anything to rock the apple cart and sadly, I was right. that's called maintaining the status quo, not real change we can believe in. I think your pro-government bias is a bit troubling.

[SDuderstadt]

77. You are accusing the president of the United States of a cover-up...

As far as my "pro-government bias", do you think government, especially in a democratic republic, is evil?

With all due respect, dude, you sound like a fugitive from a failed anti-NWO rally.

[rollingrock]

80. Obama said himself he wants to cover up Bush torture

Obama said it himself, all the Bush crimes are in the past and we must move forward and not look back. He said it himself, not me.

[SDuderstadt]

81. Did Obama say...

"I want to cover up Bush torture"? Or, is that your spin? What does that have to do with covering up the murder of nearly 3,000 of our fellow citizens, dude. Do you honestly believe that Obama believes Bush is responsible for the murder of 3,000 Americans and has decided to cover that up? As I have said before, you are an absolute embarrassment to DU.

[rollingrock]

82. It means the same thing

it couldn't have been more clear what he was saying.

He didn't say 'I don't want to cover up Bush torture because there is no evidence for it.'

He simply did not have the stomach to challenge the right-wing, period. Being spineless is not a valid excuse for not investigating, and amounts to a cover-up. Unless you think Obama has a valid reason for not wanting to look into and investigate the crimes of Bush? If so, I'd like to hear what those reasons are. If there is no good reason, then its a cover up.

[SDuderstadt]

83. Maybe you missed this, dude...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/22/torture.prosecution/index.html

Does that sound like a "cover-up" to you?

[rollingrock]

84. It does

'Holder also repeated assurances the Obama administration had given CIA interrogators who employed the controversial techniques that they would not be charged.'

Holder only wants to go after the lawyers who gave the Bush administration legal advice on torture. Which is legally harder to do because giving advice isn't a clear crime, if it is at all. It appears he won't be going after those who ordered the torture or those who carried it out. So, it seems to be a pointless pursuit.

[SDuderstadt]

85. Almost as pointless as trying to reason with you, dude...

You're accusing President Obama if treason, dude. Again, you are an embarrassment to DU.

[rollingrock]

86. Where did I accuse Obama of treason?

quit putting words into my mouth.

I don't accuse anybody of anything. I simply let the facts speak for themselves.

[SDuderstadt]

87. Dude...

do you honestly deny that covering up the murder of 3,000 fellow citizens by our government would not be treason???

Jesus, considering I had to help you understand the difference between the US Chamber of Commerce and the US Department of Commerce, you are truly one of the most uninformed posters I've ever met, dude.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

121. Dude...

if, as you claim, NIST denied global warming under Bush, why in the world did they publish this paper taking issue with Michael Crichton's global warming denial?

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:fx5SS6jHjAYJ:math.nist.gov/~BRust/pubs/Interface2005/PrePrint.pdf+NIST+global+warming&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

For once, would you please try to get basic facts correct before you post such nonsense?

[defendandprotect]

140. k i c k