profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

Newton 1 NIST 0
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

A truncated article from The Guardian that fails to give the full context of nit-picking whistle-blower Jenkins' work:

The Guardian: Dr Cate Jenkins Gets Her Job Back

The significance of the principled whistle-blower Dr Cate Jenkins of the US Environmental Protection Agency is that she saw the 2001 finely-pulverised, pyroclastic dust for what it was and recognised its danger to human health.

It appears that because the event was sold as an organic, unexpected 'gravity collapse', toxicity was 'underestimated'. Cover-up and lies ensued, documented in excruciating detail by senior scientist Dr Jenkins.

Did people fall ill unnecessarily because the 2001 site was not declared and treated for what it was? Very finely pulverised dust not acknowledged?

This massive pulverisation of concrete masonry was witnessed by British journalist Jon Snow, who toured 'Ground Zero' early on:
"Deep inside Ground Zero you realise that all concrete, all masonry vaporised to nothing leaving mangled ironwork in its wake." - Snow.

Hear Jon Snow talk about the 'volcanic' landscape and 'heat rising up with each shovel load': (Compare with the words 'volcanic', 'heat' and 'portland' (ie finely pulverised) cement used by Dr Jenkins in her paper.)

Dr. Cate Jenkins, a senior chemist with more than three decades of agency tenure, publicly charged that due to falsified EPA standards First Responders waded into dust so corrosive that it caused chemical burns deep within their respiratory system.

After raising this issue to the EPA Inspector General, Congress and the FBI, Dr. Jenkins was isolated, harassed and ultimately removed from her position on December 30, 2010 by EPA based upon an un-witnessed claim that the soft-spoken, petite childhood polio survivor threatened her 6-foot male supervisor.

In a ruling dated May 4, 2012, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) unanimously vacated Dr. Jenkins’ termination and ordered she be fully restored by May 25th and awarded back pay with interest.

Should the Guardian - in the interests of impartiality and presenting all sides/ arguments - not mention this article:
Energetic materials as a potential cause of the 911 first responder illnesses?

[snip]... 'similar to the findings of aluminum silicates in the lungs of first responders, the aluminum found in the nanothermite of WTC dust samples was present, along with silicon, in plate-like (platy) configurations.[9] Whether or not the platy configurations of aluminum silicates in the lungs of WTC workers are related to the platy configurations of aluminum and silicon in WTC dust samples is a question that should be answered through further investigation." [end snip]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Open, transparent debate among qualified experts is called for.
"I don't understand this stuff!" say the journalists. Shouldn't science journalists explain it for us in clear layman's terms? Isn't that the role of science journalism'? Even fairly complex science can be explained in simple-enough terms to be sufficiently grasped by Science 101 students.

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

** [This 'natural' collapse was supported by the Bazant-Zhou paper issued 48 hours after the event, prior to any forensics. The Bazant-Zhou paper was clutched by US officials and the Pentagon as US armies swept into Afghanistan weeks later.

Scientist Jim Hoffman writes with his signature dry humour:

"Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou must be super-geniuses. They were able to understand how two skyscrapers could crush themselves to rubble, a newly observed behavior for steel structures, and write a paper about it in just two days....
"One of the paper's assumptions it does disclose is that all of the columns of the first story to collapse were heated to 800º C. In that case they would have been glowing red-hot. Perhaps Bazant and Zhou can be forgiven for this oversight and for their wildly inaccurate engineering assumptions, given the short publication deadline they had to meet

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

[1] Jon Snow in The Guardian, November 2001:

[2] Jenkins' paper:
Complaint and Additional Evidence of pH Fraud by: USGS, OSHA, ATSDR, NYC, EPA, and EPA-funded scientists
by Dr. Cate Jenkins (2007)
Journal of 9/11 Studies 12.

[3] PEER: Crusading Scientist Returned To Work

[4] List of cancers arising out of toxic dust:

[5] Democracy Now: As Study Links 9/11 Debris to Cancer, Details Emerge on How Officials Downplayed Ground Zero Dangers

[6] EPA Whistleblower on Dangers of 9/11 Toxic Dust Reinstated to Job

[7] New Statesman (2007): 'Cover ups'

Last edited by marc on Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:15 am; edited 5 times in total
Wed May 09, 2012 9:34 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Speaking Science: 'Corrosive atmosphere' - Nature Journal

[Dr Cate Jenkins won an earlier whistle-blower case in 1996 involving Vietnam War veterans’ exposure to Agent Orange.]

Excerpt from longer article:

Q: What did you find when you started looking into safety issues at the World Trade Center shortly after the cleanup began?

A: Jenkins: I started going through actual data from the EPA and New York City health officials, rather than relying on their press statements. The findings I reported seemed to be very helpful to people. It just mushroomed. You are allowed official time to do this at the EPA, but the reports and the things I was generating were very comprehensive. I overturned every little rock and stone. I was doing this pretty much on my own time.

Q: Have these problems been corrected today?

A: No. First responders and citizens living and working near Ground Zero (the World Trade Center site) continue to experience health effects. The EPA has failed to correct its falsified regulation regarding corrosive dust. Today, people living near cement-manufacturing plants are inhaling corrosive dust without warning because of the EPA’s falsified regulation. Implosion demolitions of buildings are billed as a spectator events, without warning that the dust is corrosive when inhaled.

Q: How do you view the government’s actions concerning public safety at Ground Zero?

A: I grant that at the time, there was a legitimate national-security interest in not looking like we were falling apart. However, if first responders had known they were being exposed to a corrosive atmosphere, there would have been much greater impetus for wearing protective equipment, and medical personnel would have known how to treat the respiratory symptoms if they had known World Trade Center dust was corrosive.

Q: Have you ever looked into official pollution data without finding manipulation of some kind?

A: Never, never, and an Internal Revenue Service auditor will tell you the same thing. There is always reasonable suspicion to begin with. The type of audits I do are on the chemical and testing side. I have the skills as a chemist to see how data have been manipulated. It’s grueling, hard work, but I can always find it.

What is the lesson? Our regulations on the books are extremely difficult to adhere to. If the EPA were to enforce things to the letter, it would be very difficult. [Agency officials] always cut industry slack, and they do it by manipulating the data. I wouldn’t call it malevolent so much. I would call it human nature, like speeding. But the falsification of the EPA’s corrosivity characteristic regulation was no mistake.

Q: The Merit Systems Protection Board ruling focused on a violation of your constitutional right to due process. Is your job safe now?

A: I hope they don’t have the stomach to try to fire me again.

Q: In parallel, a whistleblower case involving these same issues is still pending before an administrative judge at the Department of Labor. What comes next?

A: The Department of Labor case is not just about due-process violations, but the full range of my whistle-blowing. I think the World Trade Center case is going to be alive for the rest of my life.

From Jenkins' paper:

p.18: Talking of the testing the EPA performed in Nov 2001 when, instead of doing a 1:1 ratio of water to solids to determine pH levels, they did an extreme dilution of 60:1 - which guaranteed they did not find a high pH.
"This is extremely dishonest. This is fraud that can be easily understood by the public" - Dr Cate Jenkins.

p19. CJ talks of th calcium oxide (quick lime) present in the WTC concrete dust 'because of high temperature fires.'

Indeed, these 'high temperature fires' are what have attracted the interest of scientists and chemists who ask what the source of these high temperatures was, given that NIST itself acknowledges that the jet fuel burned off in under 15 minutes - in the top fifth of the building - and that thereafter fires were fed only on office furnishing content, slowly dying off. The cold, hard steel in the bottom four=fifths of the towers stood foursquare as it had been engineered to do. So why, after an hour, did this cold steel suddenly shred from top to bottom in seconds?
An energy deficit lies at the heart of the official narrative.
What energy source caused 'Mid-air pulverisation of 90,000 tons of concrete and metal decking'? (

"One EPA scientist Dr Cate Jenkins, later testified that the EPA’s testament about the air was not a mistake, but a lie. Why did the EPA lie? According to EPA Inspector General Nikkie Tinsley, pressure came from the White House, which ‘convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones”, a consequence of which was that workers did not wear protective gear" - p.17. Debunking 911 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory , D. R Griffin (Olive Branch Press) 2007.

Last edited by marc on Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
Sat May 19, 2012 6:35 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

9/11: The Simple Facts: Why the Official Story Can't Possibly Be True
- Arthur Naiman and Gregg Roberts. Soft Skull Press (2012)


"As part of their investigation, US Dept of Commerce's NIST hired Underwriters Laboratories to build floor trusses like the ones in the Twin Towers, subject them to fires much hotter than any in the towers could have been and then pile on twice as much weight as the actual trusses in the towers bore.

"In spite of these rigorous tests, none of the trusses failed

"The maximum amount of sag UL was able to produce was three inches.

"NIST's response? They threw out the UL data and claimed that, according to their computer simulations, the trusses in the towers should have sagged 42 inches - fourteen times more than UL's actual physical tests had shown!

"When whistle-blower Kevin Ryan of Underwriter Labs wrote NIST a public letter stating that "the results of the [UL's] tests showed that [the Towers] should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by burning jet fuel [and office materials]", he was fired from his job.

"For more details on the failings of NIST's report - its omissions and fudged data - see Jim Hoffman's essay "Building A Better Mirage"[15]"

[15] Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century

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

“To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports…the [NIST] investigators adjusted the input… Thus, for instance, the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted. How fun to tweak the model like that, until one gets the desired result! But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is, of course, not compelling.” - Steven Jones.


If you're looking for NIST’s explanation of the collapse of the undamaged sections in their final report, it occurs on page 146. It's a few paragraphs long.

"The structure below the level of the collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by that downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of deformation.
"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass."

The official government investigation of the buildings’ destructions stops there. No scientific data is provided to support these narrative statements.

NIST does not explain why the intact structure offered “minimal resistance” or provide an estimate of “the potential energy” that was released or explain why it “far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure.”

They give no data, offer no calculations for energy or mass. They don't do science, in other words.

Read more:

Last edited by marc on Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:53 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

'Gravity .uh.. affects all bodies on this planet" -lead NIST investigator S Shyam Sunder Confused

Sunder handwaves

This video has now been removed from the official US Department of Commerce NIST site.
Make a copy if you want to hang on to it.

David Chandler's blog --

"NIST has placed itself in the untenable position of arguing that the buildings of the World Trade Center were brought down by office fires started by jet fuel (kerosene) , which burn 1000°F cooler than the melting point of iron, while denying the evidence that temperatures hot enough to melt iron were present." - David Chandler (member of American Institute of Physics Teachers) and Jon Cole (engineer).
Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:51 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Reindeer Games: Even if it's true I still wouldn't believe you

Civil engineer Jonathan Cole's Santa Claus analogy:

[Draft transcript of radio interview at]

"Think back to when you were a kid in the playground. Christmas is coming up and everyone is excited and wondering about the gifts Santa will bring.

A new kid comes up and says "I don't think Santa exists". The crowd is upset and asks why. "Because I know that reindeers can't fly. And because I know reindeers can't fly, the whole story falls apart".

The other kids are outraged.

"I've sat on Santa's lap. He does exist!"
"My parents say he exists and so do our teachers!'.
"His picture was in the newspaper!"
"What, do all our parents and teachers and reporters have secret meetings and then tell big lies to millions of us?'
"NORAD even tracks Santa Claus's ride on Christmas Eve on TV. I saw it!'
"Someone would have told us by now. You're talking rubbish.'
'Why on earth would they want to do that?"

"Well, I can't answer who or why," goes the new kid. "But I do know that according to the laws of physics the reindeer can't fly and therefore the official story can't be true... Look, I know what I say isn't fun. This is a downer."

"We're going to ignore you," say the other kids. "Your physics goes against our beliefs. Even talking about this isn't fun. Leave him alone - let's go play.'

Jon Cole is an engineer who has undertaken to perform experiments to prove or disprove theories on NY building performance circa 11/9/2001, for example : eutectic steel in Appendix C in the FEMA Report and the BBC's 'gypsum dry board' theory as to its existence.

See Jon Cole's work on YouTube at physicist David Chandler's site:

Last edited by marc on Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:39 am; edited 2 times in total
Wed Aug 29, 2012 1:00 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

House of Bricks or House of Cards?
The buildings fell too fast. Not rocket science, simple physics and maths.

From Dave Heller:
There is a principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum.

I'll briefly explain how these principles work.

Let's assume there are two identical Honda Civics on the freeway. One is sitting in neutral at a standstill (0 mph). The other is coasting at 60 mph. The second Honda slams into the back of the first one. The first Honda will then instantaneously be going much faster than it was, and the second will instantaneously be going much slower than it was.

This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction – with the added constant force of gravity added to it.

Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this.

He calculated that even if the quarter-mile-high steel structure itself offered no resistance – that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air – the "pancake" theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.

So, even if the building essentially didn't exist – if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse – just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would've taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. [The towers in fact shredded in 11 seconds each].

But of course the buildings did exist. They had stood for over 30 years. The floors weren't hovering in mid-air. So how did the building provide no resistance?


The official conspiracy theory says the fire weakened the steel.

The first building was hit straight on [North Tower] and all the fuel burnt inside, yet it stood far longer (106 minutes), eventually tearing apart after the second building [South Tower] which had a corner clipped by an aircraft whose fuel burnt outside (as evidenced by the huge fireball). The building hit second plunged to ground first [after less fire time] after only 56 minutes.


- - Can a scientist/engineer/class of Physics 101 students explain how one steel structure fell through the path of greatest resistance after only 56 minutes - while another identical structure stood firm for 106 minutes, before suddenly tearing apart in an identical manner?

- - Structure hit asymmetrically at different angles responds differently. Why did these two structures come down in identical symmetrical fashion, at identical speeds?


South Tower Fireball

The South Tower was the second to be hit by a plane and the first to be destroyed. Upon impact, large fireballs emerged, indicating that a sizeable portion of the estimated 10,000 gallons of fuel burned outside South Tower. During the next 56 minutes, the fires appeared to be suffocating as no flames were visible, and only black smoke was emerging. Despite less fire time and evidence that fuel expended outside the structure, this building fell after only 56 minutes.

(i) 8.46am > NORTH Tower hit by Flight 11

(ii) 9.03am > SOUTH Tower hit by Flight 175

(iii) 9.58am > SOUTH Tower falls

(iv) 10.28am > NORTH Tower falls

Towers fell 1340 feet (408 metres) in 11 seconds - Building 7 fell 576 feet (175.5 metres) in 7 seconds

------------- --------_----------------
Extract from:

Falsifiability and the NIST WTC Report:
A Study in Theoretical Adequacy

Anonymous and F. Legge

Each individual possesses a conscience which to a greater or lesser degree serves to restrain the unimpeded flow of impulses destructive to others. But when he merges his person into an organizational structure, a new creature replaces autonomous man, unhindered by the limitations of individual morality, freed of humane inhibition, mindful only of the sanctions of authority.
- S. Milgram.

A Word on Interpretation

It has been said that the world is one continuous Rorschach inkblot test: we see what we expect to see based on our fears and desires. All sides of the World Trade Centre (WTC) collapse issue can see definitive corroboration in the same photos and videos, the same laboratory tests and the same reports. In this way both authors of this paper initially accepted the official explanation for the collapse of the buildings, as set out in the technical report of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),[2] but they now undeniably approach the report from a skeptical perspective.

The NIST Report is not a special case in which logic and rationality do not or should not apply. Given proper resources for investigation, there can be nothing mythical or unexplainable about the collapse of the towers. If the accumulated explanation falls short of making sense, it should
give anyone—regardless of ideological leanings—a reason to be suspicious and a cause to look more deeply into what happened that day. The official explanation should be a testable theory
outlining a sequence of events. It should be able to explain the physical evidence and should not dismiss incongruous empirical data as irrelevant. On this, we can all agree.

Theoretical Adequacy

It is our contention that the conclusions proffered by the NIST report, if analyzed against data from within the report itself, demonstrate critical inconsistencies. The most obvious of these relates to the temperature at which the structural steel is likely to fail. The NIST report does not
take into account the results of their own laboratory-controlled floor truss tests in which the steel reached temperatures in excess of 800º C without failure, as we shall see. The fact that the test trusses survived temperatures far beyond the temperature possible in the towers, while heavily loaded, for far longer than either tower stood, should be indication enough that the NIST theory of collapse may be incomplete at best.

Full paper available at

Last edited by marc on Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:19 am; edited 2 times in total
Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:59 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, this press conference is two years old. But did any of us ever get a whiff of it in local, national or international media?

Journalism Professor Mark Crispin Miller of New York University introduces Prof Emeritus Niels Harrit of University of Copenhagen, Niels Bohr Institute:
Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:09 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Examining the Fore-Knowledge of Building Seven Destruction

See also Debunking the *Real* Myths

David Ray Griffin noted in The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven: Why NIST’s Final 9“11 Report is Unscientific and False:

[I]f NIST did engage in fraudulent science, this would not be particularly surprising. NIST is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.”

By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science.

Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,” with the result that scientists work ng for NIST “lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.’” Referring in particular to NIST’s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget–“an arm of the Executive Office of the President,” which “had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST’s] work.”

Last edited by marc on Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:45 am; edited 2 times in total
Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:59 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote


Last edited by marc on Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:16 am; edited 2 times in total
Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:21 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

"Modern science begins with data." -- Feynman


Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou must be super-geniuses. They were able to understand how two skyscrapers could crush themselves to rubble, a newly observed behavior for steel structures, and write a paper about it in just two days. 1 [Their paper published on 13 Sept 2001 has been clutched by defenders of the official narrative ever since]

Their "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?-Simple Analysis" uses "Elastic Dynamic Analysis" to confidently proclaim: "The structural resistance is found to be an order of magnitude less than necessary for survival."

The paper repeatedly claims to make the most optimistic assumptions about building survival with no discussion of what that means. It contains nonsensical engineering claims such as: "[... if the] majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed."

"There are two major fallacies in this assertion: ...." >> continue reading at the link provided.

Comment #1:

"Is it possible to see a report of the peer review process? Bazant's paper has an initial publication date of 13/09/01 [two short days after sept 11 building implosions event] with a few revisions that were 'finalized' one week later on the 22nd of September, 2001.

"I don't know directly about how the 'peer review' process typically unfolds, but publishing that fast -- and with a theory two days after the event -- before any physical evidence has been gathered and before any real measurements had been taken gives the appearance of an academic fraud."

Comment #2:

" I believe it is crucial that Bazant's [later] paper ("What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse..." 2008) be evaluated meticulously step by step, and by someone with PhD level math and/or physics experience. Both Bazant's verbal language and his equations, including their validity pertaining to the specific event, must be carefully scrutinized.

"This project would be laborsome but crucial in waking up the engineering world, should Bazant be shown fraudulent. Some authors have specifically refuted Bazant's paper ("What Did and Did Not..."), but not in the comprehensive, detailed, and mathematical manner, in which I am imagining.

"It is Bazant, as much as the collapses, that need to be here evaluated. Bazant is no half-wit. He is among the most knowledgeable structural engineers on the planet. Any absurd errors committed by him are likely committed on purpose.

Any mainstream engineer who learns Bazant is fraudulent regarding 9/11 has to scratch his/her own head. To destroy Bazant is to destroy perhaps the strongest piece of the official collapse narrative...

"... some quick notes about Bazant and his 2008 paper (which is itself a revision of a paper by the same title...):

"Bazant fails to reference the very authors he is claiming to debunk...

"Bazant speaks in the paper's abstract of the amount of TNT required to comminute the concrete. He doesn't mention thermite until later in the paper, and only in passing.

"Bazant presumably knows much more about nanocomposites than he is letting on. At this site one can find the following citation and quote...

"During the last few years, Bazant focused attention on the scaling of thin metallic films and nanocomposites on approach to nanoscale."

"That quote is taken (by Kevin Ryan) from Bazant's resume at Northwestern University... The last time I tried to access Bazant's resume, the page was no longer available.

"... prove Bazant a fraud by means of his own paper, and I think the centre of the official story will fall apart."

source of comments ----

See: Dr Bazant: NIST's Fall Guy ---

Just because we don't want to look at the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." ~ Mark Twain

Last edited by marc on Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:33 pm; edited 2 times in total
Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:52 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Bazant Bamboozle Reply with quote

What would Isaac Newton say about ... lack of deceleration?

Remember the favourite official-narrative-supporting 'science paper' - rapidly published by Bazant an incredible two short days after the 9/11 event?

The Bazant Bamboozle continues to be exposed:

WTC Destruction: An Analysis of Peer Reviewed Technical Literature
2001 — 2012

Timothy E. Eastman, Ph.D. (Geophysics), and Jonathan H. Cole, P.E.

Here's the abstract:

"The importance of understanding the mechanisms of collapse for the three World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001 cannot be over-estimated, for these unusual collapses and their disputed causes raise questions regarding all future steel-frame building design. A literature review was conducted to identify the evolving trend in research results in this area, which have become increasingly diverse over time. Recommendations for further research are presented."

One point extracted from Eastman-Cole paper:

"The first submitted draft paper on the mechanism of collapse is that by Bazant, submitted September 13, 2001 (see first entry of Table 2, including its footnote). It is our professional opinion that, by any measure, a responsible, professional research paper on this complex event that was not begun until September 11 could not have been completed and submitted by September 13

"It seems Bazant did try to head off criticism like this by calling it a simple analysis. However, we now know he got several things wrong in that paper that he did not check for prior to writing it. The most glaring is that when the fall of WTC 1 was finally measured it turned out there was no deceleration, which he presumed there was in his claim that there would have been a powerful jolt generating a dynamic load and causing the failure of the lower structure.
"This lack of deceleration (missing jolt) is actually very real evidence that the collapse had assistance.'
- Tony Szamboti, Engineer

Full paper available in pdf:

Extract / Introduction

Over the past decade there have emerged two primary hypotheses regarding the mechanism of destruction for World Trade Centre (WTC) buildings 1, 2 and 7, namely, the official fire-inducedProgressive Collapse (PC) versus the alternate Controlled Demolition (CD). The question of which of these two hypotheses is correct is singularly important because its current lack of resolution leaves unmet the following critical needs (assuming PC):

(1) Thousands of other structures may also be subject to such catastrophic destruction by office fires, and inspections and upgrades based on determination of what caused the WTC buildings to collapse may be needed to ensure public safety;

(2) Significant structural design analysis tools and computer models need upgrades to account for the potential of such catastrophic destruction;

(3) major revisions to building codes for high-rise steel-frame buildings are critically needed (Bement, 2002).

Our goals here are to fully document the available peer-reviewed literature on this important question, and to promote more open and in-depth research by a broader community of scholars ... continues >>

"The only way that there can be a total collapse of a building is if the foundation is completely destroyed. There can be no total collapse if one of the upper stories has been hit; only localized damage.
Second thing is: fire burns in an upward direction and can only burn downwards if the flame is being jetted downwards.
Third thing: airplane fuel cannot burn steel beams and trusses; because if such was the case, how would our gas stoves with steel grilles that are subjected to gas flames every day remain intact?

Conclusion: it could not have happened as the government said.


"As an ironworker with many years in the trade, I find it hard to believe that two identical quarter-mile-high structural steel buildings, one hit in the top centre and the other hit [asymmetrically] in the top corner taking out support columns, would both fall through the vertical axis to pavement level in exactly the same manner at free fall acceleration, with absolutely no deceleration in either case."

Last edited by marc on Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:09 am; edited 1 time in total
Sat May 04, 2013 7:26 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Suckered, simply because of a poor grasp of high school physics?
What will future generations say about our naive credulity?
"I can calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies but not the madness of people" - Isaac Newton

From the comments section: "The bottom line is a natural fall through heat-weakened buckling columns would have been slow and the collapse would have easily arrested after one story. However, even giving the actual kinetic energy of the fall (no matter what the reason) using the actual fall velocity and actual mass, the fall should have been arrested in one to two stories if it was a natural event."

Once the left and anti-war crowd bought into the official tall story, it was game over. Propaganda trumped science and democracy's watchdog media rolled over.

No deceleration during rapid, global pulverisation of three steel skyscrapers (7 to 14 seconds) in Manhattan, circa 2001. No need to take anyone else's word for it. View video and measure for yourself.

What would Newton say?

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." ~ Mark Twain

"Truth is ever to be found in simplicity and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things" - Isaac Newton

Last edited by marc on Thu Nov 28, 2013 8:00 am; edited 2 times in total
Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:12 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

"For the record, few in the scientific community doubt that it's theoretically possible for a building to experience [some] failure if it is subjected to devastating heat for a sufficient period of time. And additional factors like ... insufficient steel to "bleed off" heat or inferior construction greatly increase the possibility. However, what is "doubted" (or more accurately; considered downright impossible) is that such a failure would resemble anything like what was witnessed on 9/11. ...

"Gradual, isolated, asymmetrical failures spread out over time; perhaps.

"Sudden, simultaneous disintegration of all load-bearing columns (leaving a pile of neatly folded rubble a few stories high), no way. "

What A Gravity-Led Demolition Looks Like

- physics teacher David Chandler demonstrates in this short YouTube video

Last edited by marc on Wed Dec 18, 2013 11:29 pm; edited 2 times in total
Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:20 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Foreign Policy Journal / CSI Forensics

Comment from Prof S. E. Jones:
"[Thanks Kevin]. You are correct that while we have done repeated experiments and tests (following scientific methodology) and then published in peer-reviewed journals, the "debunkers" have not followed suit. Your essay challenges debunkers (or alternative theorists) to do actual experiments of their own - and to publish peer-reviewed papers regarding their claims."
Wed Dec 18, 2013 5:30 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
   printer friendly