"Truther scientists" get article published in EuroPhysics News magazine

Myron Proudfoot said:

That journal's impact factor ranges from .23 to .28. That's PATHETIC. It's ranked 219 out of 248 journals listed under "Physics and Astronomy (miscellaneous)" in the SJR (an international ranking of scholarly journals). It's near the bottom of the lowest of 4 levels. Basically its articles are rarely ever cited by articles in other journals. It's where you go to publish if every good journal refused your article.

Click to expand...

Not really, no. It would be more accurate to say that it's not intended for the publication of new results at all. As far as I can see, it's more akin to "Physics World," the equivalent magazine for members of the Institute of Physics (which is also near the bottom, for the same reason). It isn't a peer reviewed journal in the sense truthers would like to think, i.e. one where new results are passed on to a couple of anonymous experts in the field who then decide whether the results should be published as written, published with amendments, or rejected. It's a members' interest magazine, in which overview articles covering recent work in a particular subject area are submitted to the editors who accept or reject them directly. Clearly in this case even that was the cause of some unease, as shown by the disclaimer. It remains, then, that the Harrit paper is the only set of results openly arguing in favour of controlled demolition to have been published in what passes for a peer-reviewed journal, and we know that they only managed that by subverting the peer-review process and cutting the editor out of the loop - over which the editor subsequently resigned. So, in effect, they only achieve what looks like an actual paper by cheating.

Dave

Tony?

WilliamSeger said:

As entertaining as this discussion is... Since it seems that Tony Szamboti is still reading this forum, I wonder if he would volunteer to put the thread back on topic by commenting on the OP article. I have many, many questions, but let's start with this paragraph:

The case of WTC 7
The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the signature features of an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its descent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dismembered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds

Click to expand...

My first question is, why do "truther scientists" insist on ignoring the various events that occurred in the 6 or 7 seconds that preceded the highlighted claim, including a "transition from stasis" for the exterior shell that was 1.25 second (Chandler) to 1.75 seconds (NIST)? Specifically, why can you not include those events as "signature features of an implosion?"

Click to expand...

Dave Rogers said:

Not really, no. It would be more accurate to say that it's not intended for the publication of new results at all. As far as I can see, it's more akin to "Physics World," the equivalent magazine for members of the Institute of Physics (which is also near the bottom, for the same reason). It isn't a peer reviewed journal in the sense truthers would like to think, i.e. one where new results are passed on to a couple of anonymous experts in the field who then decide whether the results should be published as written, published with amendments, or rejected. It's a members' interest magazine, in which overview articles covering recent work in a particular subject area are submitted to the editors who accept or reject them directly. Clearly in this case even that was the cause of some unease, as shown by the disclaimer. It remains, then, that the Harrit paper is the only set of results openly arguing in favour of controlled demolition to have been published in what passes for a peer-reviewed journal, and we know that they only managed that by subverting the peer-review process and cutting the editor out of the loop - over which the editor subsequently resigned. So, in effect, they only achieve what looks like an actual paper by cheating.

Dave

Click to expand...

OK, fair enough.

WilliamSeger said:

Tony?

Click to expand...

Well, this :

Its steel frame was almost entirely dismembered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles.

Click to expand...

Is wrong, and obviously so. Pictures of the collapsed WTC7 show a recognizable facade laying to the south.
AND
Of course this

Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds

Click to expand...

is wrong in that collapse was obviously occurring when the EPH fell into the building. Collapse took in total over 16 and possibly as long as 20 seconds.(Since something had to happen BEFORE the EPH fell, in order to cause the EPH to fall)

I was also going to ask Tony if concrete is pulverized into tiny particles in a controlled demolition because of the explosives or because of gravity, but it looks like he doesn't want to talk about the article. That's a shame, since I had a couple of questions about the next paragraph, too:

Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires.

Click to expand...

But first, we'll need a CD hypothesis to seriously consider that actually accounts for what we see and don't see, hear and don't hear. Rational people can quickly reject the ones that have been offered so far for lack of evidence, which should be abundant.

And, why do you try to poison the well by falsely claiming that NIST "began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires?" I remember at the time, the structural damage was thought to be the most significant factor. The plausible hypothesis that the fire was worse than a normal office fire because it was fed by generator fuel was also examined and rejected. And regardless of how "predetermined" the conclusion was, no one (especially including yourself and cadre) has given any plausible cause other than fire. Again, instead of just pissing on NIST, what hypothesis do you wish us to consider that can't be immediately rejected by what we already know?

jaydeehess said:

(Since something had to happen BEFORE the EPH fell, in order to cause the EPH to fall)

Click to expand...

It still astonishes me how many people miss those "bleedingly obvious" STARTING points.

And - even more specific for THIS situation - ONE of the things that had to fail was Col 79 because it was under the EPH.

And - taking it a step further EITHER Col 79 was causal to EPH falling OR EPH falling caused Col 79 to fail. HOW???

Did anyone notice heavy weights being put in place on EPH to make it too heavy for Col 79 to support?

I thought not.

WilliamSeger said:

I was also going to ask Tony if concrete is pulverized into tiny particles in a controlled demolition because of the explosives or because of gravity, but it looks like he doesn't want to talk about the article. That's a shame, since I had a couple of questions about the next paragraph, too:

But first, we'll need a CD hypothesis to seriously consider that actually accounts for what we see and don't see, hear and don't hear. Rational people can quickly reject the ones that have been offered so far for lack of evidence, which should be abundant.

And, why do you try to poison the well by falsely claiming that NIST "began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires?" I remember at the time, the structural damage was thought to be the most significant factor. The plausible hypothesis that the fire was worse than a normal office fire because it was fed by generator fuel was also examined and rejected. And regardless of how "predetermined" the conclusion was, no one (especially including yourself and cadre) has given any plausible cause other than fire. Again, instead of just pissing on NIST, what hypothesis do you wish us to consider that can't be immediately rejected by what we already know?

Click to expand...

NIST actually researched CD and dismissed it, correctly, due lack of audio loud enough to signify evidence of demolition-level explosives.

LSSBB said:

NIST actually researched CD and dismissed it, correctly, due lack of audio loud enough to signify evidence of demolition-level explosives.

Click to expand...

And that is only one of the arguments fatal to CD.

...even allowing begging the question that there never was, never has been a viable claim favouring CD.

The anti fire as the root driver of the structural failures guys will look for all manner of ways to show that steel won't fail in fires. And then demand a new investigation to PROVE that steel frames are exploded apart in controlled demolitions.... the only way to totally demolish a high rise.

Ignored is the fact that in all controlled demolitions it gravity which is employed to do the VAST amount of work in the demolition... it breaks steel connections, pulverizes the concrete and causes most of the building collapse onto itself... the actual mechanism of gravity destroying the structure.

The anti fire guys are junk scientists in the tradition of creation science... It's pretty striking to observe.

JSanderO said:

The anti fire as the root driver of the structural failures guys will look for all manner of ways to show that steel won't fail in fires. And then demand a new investigation to PROVE that steel frames are exploded apart in controlled demolitions.... the only way to totally demolish a high rise.

Ignored is the fact that in all controlled demolitions it gravity which is employed to do the VAST amount of work in the demolition... it breaks steel connections, pulverizes the concrete and causes most of the building collapse onto itself... the actual mechanism of gravity destroying the structure.

The anti fire guys are junk scientists in the tradition of creation science... It's pretty striking to observe.

Click to expand...

It is pure Huckstering for celebrity amount the stupid.

Josko Daimonie's response on the article:

http://blog.daimonie.com/2016/09/europhysics-truther-rebuke.html?m=1

One nugget:

The authors have quite clearly been shown to misrepresent and cherry pick the NIST report fragments they present, in order to cling to a preordained conclusion even after it has been considered and subsequently demonstrated to be unpalatable. Amusingly, this is exactly what the accuse the NIST of.

Click to expand...

9/11 truth believers, void of logic, zero reality based reading comprehension skills

LSSBB said:

Josko Daimonie's response on the article:

http://blog.daimonie.com/2016/09/europhysics-truther-rebuke.html?m=1

One nugget:

Click to expand...

The author seems to be a physicist/scientist (I did not investigate further), his critique is based on simple logic and reading comprehension. Skills and tools 9/11 truth believers are not using.

beachnut said:

The author seems to be a physicist/scientist (I did not investigate further), his critique is based on simple logic and reading comprehension. Skills and tools 9/11 truth believers are not using.

Click to expand...

He claims to be a physicist, an FAQ on his web site states he is a master student, not sure if that means post-grad. The FAQ may be out of date.

LSSBB said:

He claims to be a physicist, an FAQ on his web site states he is a master student, not sure if that means post-grad. The FAQ may be out of date.

Click to expand...

After I posted I read his blog. He is going work on his PhD in physics next; money. I am working on a PhD in laundry, and recycling paper.

LSSBB said:

He claims to be a physicist, an FAQ on his web site states he is a master student, not sure if that means post-grad. The FAQ may be out of date.

Click to expand...

I think he means Masters student - it says on the blog he's studying for an M.Sc. That would mean he's a post-grad.

I like the article; it's very clear and sensible. The only thing I would take issue with is his suggestion that the authors haven't read the NIST report. I'm quite sure Tony has read it, and is simply happy to be party to a lie by putting his name to a magazine article that claims the initial phase of WTC7's collapse was a drop at freefall acceleration. He knows that's not true, and we all know he knows it's not true. But that's from personal experience; apart from that, he's skewered the paper and its authors very comprehensively.

I wonder whether Off-Guardian would be interested in a reprint?

Dave

There are a few typos, but it is logically set out and very clearly written. It would be worthwhile putting up against the article that appeared in Europhysics Magazine.

Good find.

Hi there, apologies to re-open this older thread

New here, having a debate on a different forum regarding WTC 7 - the below is a specific part of the Europhysics article - I volunteered to put it to any experts or engineers

NIST acknowledge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report. Yet NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have had “no structural components below it” for eight stories. Instead, NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoining girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor failures, which, combined with the failure of two other girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns then allegedly buckled over a two-second period and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3]. NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omitting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably impossible

Click to expand...

Question to any experts here. Is the bolded part a correct assertion or not. If yes/no, please explain why, thanks

(I put the question to a couple of engineering forums but there weren't many responses)

dohnjoe said:

Hi there, apologies to re-open this older thread

NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omitting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably impossible.

Click to expand...

Question to any experts here. Is the bolded part a correct assertion or not. If yes/no, please explain why, thanks

Click to expand...

ASSERTION #1 is false. It is one of the foundation false assumptions underpinning false claims - those claims mainly led by T Szamboti and AE911 as part of their long term strategy of focusing debate on WTC7. If we set aside the engineering details the tactical reason for the focus on WTC7 is to drag out debate extending R Gage's income stream and ego tripping because like most (and I think all) truther claims they do not make affirmative arguments rather bare assertion claims and the Reversed Burden of DISproof demand that "we" i.e. debunkers prove the claims wrong. Other members will no doubt give you more information about the technical details.

ASSERTION #2 is also false. It misrepresents the status of NIST's explanation as being final, and the sole authoritative explanation. Taint so. And again other members I am sure will fill in the engineering details.

dohnjoe said:

NIST acknowledge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report. Yet NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have had “no structural components below it” for eight stories.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That's a misleading claim. NIST did explain that WTC 7 columns provided "negligible support" during a phase of the collapse:


(NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 2 p.602, PDF p.264)

In contrast, no "truther" has yet explained how is it possible that the progression of the acceleration of the façade from zero to that of gravity was smooth instead of immediate. In addition, they haven't accepted that it exceeded the acceleration of gravity for a few moments, because it's fatal to their claims, but the most accurate measurements show that to be the case, proving that there were forces other than gravity that caused that acceleration, therefore it is not "free fall".

dohnjoe said:

NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omitting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably impossible

Click to expand...

Question to any experts here. Is the bolded part a correct assertion or not. If yes/no, please explain why, thanks

Click to expand...

That's been the subject of large disputes. That assertion is again misleading, as it seems to imply that NIST did that on purpose in order to obtain a certain result, but there's no evidence of such. NIST simplified their models in order to get the simulations to converge, and in doing so they omitted several features that they considered irrelevant. The computing power is different nowadays from what it was in 2005.

Some other people have analysed the result of including these features, and arrived to conclusions different to NIST's. In most cases, wrongly so, therefore the claim as stated is false. Most notably the word "indisputably".

pgimeno said:

...the claim as stated is false. Most notably the word "indisputably".

Click to expand...

a

A general remark: The use of the word "indisputable" in any publication that purports to be scientific ought to ring a shrill alarm bell: It often implies that the author is most painfully aware how strongly his claim is disputed, and that he has not found a way to address the dispute. Therefore, he decides to ignore the dispute.

It's a weasle word similar in effect to words such as

• "obviously" (often meaning "it seems true to me, but I can's show you where it actually is in the data")
• "trivially" (often meaning "I privately hold this as axiomatic, but don't have a reference" or "I can't remember which steps of logical argument got me to that conclusion, but you can believe me")
• "as is commonly known" (often meaning "I have met people here and there who share my idiosyncratic opinion about what may be the facts here, but it's far from consensus")

etc.

One other remark:

AE911T lobbyists said:

...renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably impossible...

Click to expand...

The modelling that the AE911T "researchers" have done so far is far from sufficient to render such an absolute verdict. However, let's suppose they are right, and the NIST scenario is in fact not the one that initiated the rapid collapse. It is then a large leap to posit - but AE911T does go there! - that the more global claim "WTC7 collapsed due to fire" is false, or even just in serious doubt. It isn't.

Notice that NIST themselves stated clearly right from the day they published their Draft Report that they had trouble getting a handle on WTC7 due to paucity of data, and that they consider the scenario they published as "the most probable" one - meaning they tell the world this result should not be taken as 100% certain.

Other serious research teams have undertaken studies and found other locations within the fire-affected floors and other failure modes that may well have coused a global collapse.

The take-away is that, since observations of the fire-affected parts of the structures are so few and so poor, we can't be certain and where and how fire caused the collapse, but there is no doubt among serious researchers that fire DID cause it.

Furthermore, for the same reason, there is no real hope to pinpoint the exact location and failure mode with certainty.


In light of these fact, it can be debated whether or not "a new investigation" is "necessary". AE911T however does not advocate just "a new investigation", they specifically advocate "a new investigation which looks into the possible use of explosives" - and they will only accept an investigation that tells them ahead of time that they will conclude that explosives did it.

Hence the current, and currently overdue, study by Alaskan civil engineering professor Leroy Hulsey. Bought and paid for (>US$ 300,000) by AE911Truth. Hulsey already announced 3 years ago what he will find, but hasn't published anything of worth yet, nor has he finished his study.

Oystein said:

A general remark: The use of the word "indisputable" in any publication that purports to be scientific ought to ring a shrill alarm bell: .

Click to expand...

It is also a form of "global claim" - a sub-set of false generalisation.

Which are all risky absolutes - absolute as to "sole possible conclusion" and the inference "can never be falsified"...

...and ignores the foundation premises of scientific method.

ozeco41 said:

It is also a form of "global claim" - a sub-set of false generalisation.

Which are all risky absolutes - absolute as to "sole possible conclusion" and the inference "can never be falsified"...

...and ignores the foundation premises of scientific method.

Click to expand...

And then truthers seem to take the so called "official story" as being a complete blow by blow account. Then they will assert some inconsistency or conflict or something THEY don't understand as undermining the entire "official story" as one huge lie and deception.

There are no proofs and there is nothing to prove about 911. Truthers certainly don't prove anything about the events of that day.