9/11 Redux – Studies pointing to the Controlled Demolition Theory
« on: 2016-09-23 10:47:51 »
Hello again to all at the CoV.
Just recently physicists and engineers have published another 9/11 Study. In it they claim that all three buildings were, at least hypothetically, destroyed by “Controlled Demolition.” This, as I understand it, has been a popular conspiracy theory for many years now surrounding the severity of this terrible event in our history.
It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11. Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities.
How do we rationally account for all this? Were the conspiracy theorists advocating controlled demolition correct all along in spite of being written off as crackpots – as was mentioned in one of the articles placed here in the Debunking 9/11 thread (second post) back in 2009?
Or, has this all just been a complicated case of attributing conditions to villainy which simply, and instead, resulted from stupidity (Hanlon’s razor)? This seems to be the case according to Edward Snowden and here in the Unravelling the Lies: We Couldn't Have Guessed 911 Was Coming thread, but how then do we account for the evidence suggesting controlled demolition?
Re:9/11 Redux – Studies pointing to the Controlled Demolition Theory
« Reply #1 on: 2016-09-24 15:33:06 »
Geeze I didn't see this coming ...Cough .... takes off 'Tin Foil Hat', sets 'Blue Pill' aside. Seems some solid engineering is going on here. Good to see.
Two peer reviewed published papers, published in the Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics the first one in July 2015, the second in February 2016.
Canadian Civil Engineering Researchers Disprove Official Explanation of WTC 7’s Destruction
Noting the many shortcomings in Bažant's analysis, which have been studied and criticized extensively since 2001, Korol and his colleagues set out to apply a much more rigorous methodology for analyzing WTC 7, which, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), collapsed from normal office fires.
Korol and his colleagues set out to apply a much more rigorous methodology for analyzing WTC 7.
Dr. Robert Korol, professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, and a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, has led a team of academic researchers in preparing two peer-reviewed scientific papers on the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7. Both papers were published in the Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics — the first one in July 2015, the second in February 2016.
Prior to publishing these papers, the team of researchers carefully reviewed the work of Zdeněk Bažant, a professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science at Northwestern University, who had published a paper shortly after 9/11 focusing on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. Entitled “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis,” Bažant’s paper presented “a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001.”
Noting the many shortcomings in Bažant's analysis, which have been studied and criticized extensively since 2001, Korol and his colleagues set out to apply a much more rigorous methodology for analyzing WTC 7, which, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), collapsed from normal office fires. As Korol explains, “WTC 7 is a particularly useful example, because there isn't the concern about trying to predict the amount of heat generated by spewing jet fuel and having it ignited within a building. It's the materials within the building that generate the heat release.”
The greater certainty about the material properties involved would allow the team to evaluate whether WTC 7 could have collapsed as a result of burning materials being ejected from WTC 1 and igniting fires on the 12th and 13th floors. The team’s analysis eventually led them to conclude that even with very high estimates for the amount of combustible materials present in office buildings — using the maximum amounts allowed in the building codes — and making many other generous assumptions, such as having two floors “totally ablaze with raging inferno fires,” WTC 7 still would not collapse.
NIST could not have been correct in claiming that such a failure mechanism could have resulted in the collapse.
Korol’s July 2015 paper, “Performance-based fire protection of office buildings: A case study based on the collapse of WTC 7,” used accepted equations associated with thermodynamics and heat transfer to determine how much heat could be generated from office fires. Studying the type of fire that would occur in a typical office arrangement with cubicle partitions, he and his fellow researchers derived the temperature that would have been reached based on the heat release rate of combustible materials identified by NIST and others.
Given that high burn rates do not generally last longer than about 30 minutes and that fires in office buildings do not occur over entire floors simultaneously, Korol says that the assumption of having the entire area of the 12th and 13th floors ablaze was “a ridiculously conservative estimate for the purposes of determining the consequences to the building.” Even then, the researchers showed the temperatures to be insufficient to push a girder off its seat near Column 79, thus disproving NIST’s claim that such a failure mechanism initiated the collapse of the building.
In the subsequent February 2016 paper, “The collapse of WTC 7: A re-examination of the “simple analysis” approach,” Korol considered the “virtually impossible circumstance” that the building experienced an inferno on two adjacent stories simultaneously. Noting that collapses do not occur instantaneously, Korol explains that even if two-thirds of the columns in a building are somehow “wiped out by virtue of the high heat, then the remaining one-third would still be sufficient to prevent collapse.”
According to Korol, Bažant assumed that any possible collapse would only be localized in the form of a plastic hinge; however, Korol’s team went further in terms of assessing the capacity of the columns. “Whereas Bažant assumed that there was only bending energy, we say these columns were resisting load axially — and Bažant ignored that.”
Robert Korol 2Dr. Korol has done extensive research on the axial loading properties of steel columns and beams. He appeared in the documentary “9/11 in the Academic Community,” and is seen here in his laboratory in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Korol’s team painstakingly analyzed what would happen if WTC 7 experienced fire-induced failures of more than two-thirds of the columns on both floors 12 and 13. The researchers performed lab tests to determine the amount of resistance for the upper block of WTC 7 to come down to the floor level of story 13. Assuming that the floor slabs of floors 12 and 13 were so hot that the concrete was pulverized without any applied load (an unrealistically generous assumption), the only energy associated with the structure in those two stories would have been that of the 26 columns that had not yet failed. Accounting for the remaining amount of resistance in the building, Korol et al. found that while the 11th story would collapse, there was still enough remaining energy in the building that the structure would not fail below that point.
Korol and his colleagues also undertook tests at McMaster University with regard to pulverization of concrete that is typically specified for floors incorporating ductile steel to restrain lateral motion. He explains, “Crushing is not an effective way of transforming brittle material into pulverized material. When you combine that with the 82 columns, there is no way the building is going to come down.”
Dr. Korol and his team are not yet done with their work. They are now conducting a study of the potential for fire-induced collapse of steel-framed office buildings in general, using a 50-story building as an example. The study will examine eight different fire scenarios, four of which will consider 4 adjacent stories experiencing raging fires as might be conceived from airplane strikes at various height locations. This work builds on the research described in the two papers discussed here — and none of the scenarios being studied has resulted in a complete building collapse.
The question that remains to be answered is whether Korol’s peers in their engineering community will begin to pay attention — or if they will, instead, continue to accept on blind faith NIST’s fantastical explanation for the destruction of WTC 7. - by Mike Bondi, P.Eng.
Re:9/11 Redux – Studies pointing to the Controlled Demolition Theory
« Reply #2 on: 2016-09-25 10:51:55 »
Hey Fritz,
I suppose, now that you’ve comfortably removed your tin foil hat (though I won’t inquire on the “blue pill” you mentioned, and will just assume that you meant the one from the Matrix and not the one that ‘starts with a V and ends with a smile’ - to quote the title of a particular thread here), I might ask how much weight you yourself put behind the Controlled Demolition theory, as well as all Virians here? The two studies you posted by Dr. Korol and his team certainly offer supportive and persuasive weight to the paper I quoted in the European Scientific Journal (and of which Dr. Korol was a part of), and there is certainly much to consider given the body of evidence and reports available to us. Excluding some of the more well-known incentives for wanting to (help) create a situation where profiting (politically or economically) from such a tragic event could take place, like garnering public support for war, acting as both a false-flag operation and pretext for invading both Iraq and Afghanistan; geopolitical gain; opening up Iraq's oil supply to foreign investment – primarily through US-based companies who still profit from such deals and which essentially translates into trillions of dollars in profits for a very small minority of multi-billionaires; the beginning, and later expanding, of the NSA's domestic spying program which allowed the agency to act with impunity and without warrant or justifiable reason, and this is all to say nothing of Bush and his personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein, another I didn’t include above but which is certainly of interest here is 9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money.
I consider the Controlled Demolition theory to be certainly plausible, but not strictly conclusive. Can all of this possibly be explained by other rational means, or has the idea of Controlled Demolition gone beyond being a mere ‘conspiracy theory,’ and rather is now just awaiting definitive confirmation similar to that of John Snow being the Son of a Targaryen (to give a fantastical example and for those familiar with the show, “A Game of Thrones.”)? From a reasonable perspective, this certainly now seems to be the case.
Re:9/11 Redux – Studies pointing to the Controlled Demolition Theory
« Reply #3 on: 2016-09-26 14:02:43 »
While this still doesn’t offer full or definitive confirmation of the Bush administrations guilt and role in a 9/11 false-flag operation against their own country, which I can only put down to serving as a nation-wide psychological operation (SyOp) in order to vastly manipulate public opinion and emotionally groom their own citizens for war, the complacency of former US defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, here is inauspicious at best and downright sinister at worst.
In a newly-released tape of a 2006 neocon luncheon meeting featuring former War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, attended by ex-military “message force multiplier” propaganda shills Lt. General Michael DeLong, David L. Grange, Donald W. Sheppard, James Marks, Rick Francona, Wayne Downing, Robert H. Scales and others, Rumsfeld declared that the American people lack “the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the ‘threats’” — and need another 9/11.
When DeLong complained about a “lack of sympathetic ears” in Congress, and a lack of interest among the general American public, Rumsfeld responded, “What’s to be done? The correction for that, I suppose, is another attack.”
This videotape clip is part of a one-hour tape declassified by the Department of Defense in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The entire clip, and analysis of this damning new revelation, can be found here: “The Correction for that . . . is another attack” (Jason Linkins, Huffington Post, 5/13/08)
In the seven years since the day, exhaustive and still growing evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the US government, spearheaded by the Bush administration, planned, orchestrated and executed the 9/11 false flag operation. As openly advocated by wide swaths of elites, from the People for the New American Century (PNAC), of which Rumsfeld has been a member, to the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski (in his The Grand Chessboard), only an attack “on the order of Pearl Harbor” would, in Brzezinski’s words, cause the American people to support an “imperial mobilization,” and a world war.
Sept. 11, and its resulting “war on terrorism” (in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, etc.), remains the Bush administration’s endless gift from hell, in large part courtesy of Rumsfeld.
Placing the new evidence against previously revealed 9/11-related acts on the part of Rumsfeld, his guilt is overt and obvious. Recall that it was Rumsfeld who enthusiastically penned the "Go Massive memo", gleefully declaring the Bush administration finally had the green light to kill: “Not only UBL (Usama bin Laden). Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”
As the Bush administration’s war ensued in earnest, Rumsfeld gloated to the New York Times that 9/11 provided “the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world.”
It is not for nothing that Donald Rumsfeld was described by legendary war criminal Henry Kissinger as “the most ruthless man I’ve ever known.”
I would not find it hard to believe it was a false flag, but to date there is nothing substantive with the exception of the WTC building 7 analysis we've posted.
As my partner keeps pointing out to me; "A false flag would require a level of competence yet unseen by the Western World in any of it's Political endeavours " ;-)
Re:9/11 Redux – Studies pointing to the Controlled Demolition Theory
« Reply #5 on: 2016-09-28 11:11:55 »
I agree, the building collapse studies do seem like some of the most substantive (though not conclusive) evidence we have to date, however what about the other half of this puzzle? The evidence for explosives. After looking into it a bit further, and while there certainly seem s to be a lot of disagreement out there, the sol-gel nano-thermite theory looks as though it is the most plausible – but how strong is the evidence for it?
What is the likelihood here of deliberate 9/11 disinformation floating around on the internet under the guise of “academic research”? There seem to be more than a few caveats, and even more reasons to be skeptical, but the nano-thermite theories and study seem, to me at least, equally as plausible/valid here as the building collapse studies. One of the best sources I came across, and well worth a look, was this one which seems to further substantiate the use of nano-thermites at ground zero: 9/11 Truth: How to Debunk WTC Thermite at Ground Zero.
Re:9/11 Redux – Studies pointing to the Controlled Demolition Theory
« Reply #7 on: 2016-11-30 06:07:15 »
Thank-you Fritz for this addition. I have actually seen the video myself a while back, I had forgotten it relevance here. Quite thought-provoking indeed. Though what kind of jury we would need or require to seek justice on this, should it eventually and ultimately prove to be true, I'm not quite sure. Perhaps hard and irrefutable evidence for all this is one of the things that Edward Snowden or Wikileaks haven't revealed yet, and probably for good reason if it would (even possibly) happen to start or ignite a bloody revolution - something I'm sure we would all ultimately lose against any competent and brutish government, armed to the teeth.
Having said that though, perhaps they could just be waiting for the right time and moment to release such information, a time which would be advantageous to any mass public revolt against the government and it's elite masters. But of course, I'm not holding my breath - despite as wonderful as doing away with the current world order sounds right now. At this point, this is all merely curiousity with a healthy dose of scepticism.
Re:9/11 Redux – Studies pointing to the Controlled Demolition Theory
« Reply #8 on: 2017-04-14 15:51:02 »
Well Now ... a node to Hermit from a FB post. Keep those tinfoil hats handy because it just got real again. These are not a bunch of, dare I say it, fake news nut bars; thousands of material subject experts have weighted in on this:
Cheers Fritz
It’s Official: European Scientific Journal Concludes 9/11 was a Controlled Demolition Source: reflection of mind Author: European Scientific Journal 47/4 Date: 2016
15-years after the attacks on September 11th, the European Scientific Journal, a publication of theEuropean Scientific Institute (ESI), published an article titled “15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses,” in which they analyze the collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings. The results of their findings continue to indicate that the WTC towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, and the fact that this controversial topic was covered by a publication that boasts aneditorial committee from reputable colleges and universities around the world (despite the article’s disclaimer), can be considered yet another small victory for 9/11 Truthers.
It’s Official: European Scientific Journal Concludes 9/11 was a Controlled Demolition John Peterson | October 15, 2016 | Activism, News
15-years after the attacks on September 11th, the European Scientific Journal, a publication of theEuropean Scientific Institute (ESI), published an article titled “15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses,” in which they analyze the collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings. The results of their findings continue to indicate that the WTC towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, and the fact that this controversial topic was covered by a publication that boasts aneditorial committee from reputable colleges and universities around the world (despite the article’s disclaimer), can be considered yet another small victory for 9/11 Truthers.
The study was written in collaboration by Steven Jones of Brigham Young University (now retired), Robert Korol of McMaster University – a Mechanical Design Engineer in the aerospace industry, Anthony Szamboti, and Ted Walter of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The highly-sourced study breaks down the scientific evidence while revealing the discrepancies in NIST’s official report, and we suggest our readers – especially the skeptics – read it in its entirety.
One of the most important testimonies on the collapse of the World Trade Towers that was brought to attention in the study comes from the head structural engineer of the towers, John Skilling. It is apparently not enough for skeptics to take the findings of thousands of architects and engineersseriously, but should a skeptic choose not to at least consider the expertise of one of the men who built the WTC towers, then they are purposefully remaining blind.
Every sort of catastrophe that can happen to a high-rise building has to be taken into consideration during the design and construction processes, including the impact of an airplane. According to a 1993report from The Seattle Times, the Trade Towers were analyzed years ago, after concern was raised over a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building. It was concluded at the time that the Trade Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
It’s Official: European Scientific Journal Concludes 9/11 was a Controlled Demolition John Peterson | October 15, 2016 | Activism, News
15-years after the attacks on September 11th, the European Scientific Journal, a publication of theEuropean Scientific Institute (ESI), published an article titled “15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses,” in which they analyze the collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings. The results of their findings continue to indicate that the WTC towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, and the fact that this controversial topic was covered by a publication that boasts aneditorial committee from reputable colleges and universities around the world (despite the article’s disclaimer), can be considered yet another small victory for 9/11 Truthers.
The study was written in collaboration by Steven Jones of Brigham Young University (now retired), Robert Korol of McMaster University – a Mechanical Design Engineer in the aerospace industry, Anthony Szamboti, and Ted Walter of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The highly-sourced study breaks down the scientific evidence while revealing the discrepancies in NIST’s official report, and we suggest our readers – especially the skeptics – read it in its entirety.
One of the most important testimonies on the collapse of the World Trade Towers that was brought to attention in the study comes from the head structural engineer of the towers, John Skilling. It is apparently not enough for skeptics to take the findings of thousands of architects and engineersseriously, but should a skeptic choose not to at least consider the expertise of one of the men who built the WTC towers, then they are purposefully remaining blind.
Every sort of catastrophe that can happen to a high-rise building has to be taken into consideration during the design and construction processes, including the impact of an airplane. According to a 1993report from The Seattle Times, the Trade Towers were analyzed years ago, after concern was raised over a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building. It was concluded at the time that the Trade Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
In a statement made to The Seattle Times by Skilling:
“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side, however back in those days people didn’t think about terrorists very much.” He continues, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane)would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. The building structure would still be there. However, I’m not saying that properly applied explosives – shaped explosives – of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage. I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.”
As stated in the study: “In other words, Skilling believed the only mechanism that could bring down the Twin Towers was controlled demolition.” It should be pointed out, as well, that a steel-framed high-rise building has never completely collapsed from fire. And yet on September 11, 2001, three buildings supposedly collapsed in this manner, one of which wasn’t even hit by a plane.
It was on this latter point that the authors concluded their study. They state:
“It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11. Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists.”
This article (European Scientific Journal Concludes 9/11 was a Controlled Demolition) is a free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and AnonHQ.com.
Author
Logged
