• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

9/11 Paper Accepted to Major Conference

Jaytje46

Muse
J
Joined
Dec 19, 2015
Messages
507
Location
Usa
So it seems that they need cash for a German mathematician to show his paper to the engineering world in New York.

http://action.ae911truth.org/o/50694/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1402270

German mathematician Ansgar Schneider was pleased to learn last month that his new paper, “The Structural Dynamics of the World Trade Center Catastrophe” — which refutes the official theory of the Twin Towers’ total destruction — was accepted to one of the most prestigious engineering conferences in the world: the annual congress of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE), being held in New York City.

This hugely positive development has created a major problem for Ansgar — a “good problem,” that is. If he doesn’t attend this conference in person, he cannot present his findings and won’t be included in the congress journal. The conference is little more than a month away, and the cost of attending is simply too much for this young academic.
Click to expand...

The article has several links going to the donation page, but not a single link to the site of the Conference. I wonder why... Also no link to the paper.

I did find some other papers which he wrote.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.06207
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.06183

He is not one of the speakers.

http://www.iabse2019.com/showcontent.aspx?MenuID=9140

He is also not an engineer, else AE9/11 would have called him that, so he also wont be speaking at the Young engineers program.

http://www.iabse2019.com/showcontent.aspx?MenuID=7915

So not sure when they are going to let him speak tbh..

https://venuewest-my.sharepoint.com...m/Documents/Public/IABSE/P@G July 10,2019.pdf

And how can a paper be accepted to a congress btw? Or am I missing something?
 
Last edited:
Jaytje46 said:
And how can a paper be accepted to a congress btw? Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...



Most of the papers presented at conferences are submitted by the attendees. I'm not sure what criteria they used for accepting papers. From their website, they also have a "poster session", and if history is any guide, I'd bet good money that he's actually just presenting a poster. These have very little vetting, in my experience. They're like training wheels for science publications, they give new scientists low-cost and low-risk places to present some simple work.

I don't imagine this will go as well for them as they think, though. From the conference invitation pdf, there's a Pre-Congress Workshop on Structural Failures – "Investigations, Causes, Lessons Learned and Used to Mitigate Failures".

So there will be actual experts in the house to talk to this fellow. I suspect it will be like a live-action post from JayUtah or Nick Terry.
 
Jaytje46 said:
So it seems that they need cash for a German mathematician to show his paper to the engineering world in New York.

http://action.ae911truth.org/o/50694/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1402270
Click to expand...
I'll see if I can google anything on him from German sites.

Jaytje46 said:
The article has several links going to the donation page, but not a single link to the site of the Conference. I wonder why...
Click to expand...
Uhm - now it has one, to http://www.iabse2019.com/

Jaytje46 said:
Also no link to the paper.
Click to expand...
I think the point of a conference presentation is to have a paper first presented, then published with the conference procedings ;)

Jaytje46 said:
I did find some other papers which he wrote.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.06207
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.06183
Click to expand...
Taking a brief look at the first of the two, I find two "problems" already:
1. He apparently sets out to debunk Bazant & Verdure (2007) - the "crush-down-then-crush-up" paper. Well, It has already been debunked - GIGO-style: The model that B&V look at does not actually describe the observed collapse mechanisms.* edited to add footnote2. Ansgar Schneider believes that "the underlying Newtonian equation of motions" play a role in the model - that would be a foolish approach if it really were so.

I'll read it completely later, also the other ... uhm ... write-up.

Jaytje46 said:
He is not one of the speakers.

http://www.iabse2019.com/showcontent.aspx?MenuID=9140
Click to expand...
He is not one of the keynote speakers - that's the page you link to. Keynote speakers are individuals with estreemed prestige, sometimes outside the field (e.g. journalsists, politicians, ...), invited by the Congress organizers to set the tone, invite vision, broaden the scope. These are separate from any technical and academic presentation.

Jaytje46 said:
He is also not an engineer, else AE9/11 would have called him that, so he also wont be speaking at the Young engineers program.

http://www.iabse2019.com/showcontent.aspx?MenuID=7915
Click to expand...
Could be true.

Jaytje46 said:
So not sure when they are going to let him speak tbh..
Click to expand...
Try the Program? http://www.iabse2019.com/showcontent.aspx?MenuID=9151
"The IABSE NY team is working hard to provide you with an exciting program!

Take a look at our draft program here and stay tuned for more updates."​

Jaytje46 said:
https://venuewest-my.sharepoint.com...m/Documents/Public/IABSE/P@G July 10,2019.pdf
Click to expand...
Ah - you found it :D
Details are yet to be filled in.

Jaytje46 said:
And how can a paper be accepted to a congress btw? Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Horatius already explained ;)



* footnote added on edit: Here is what's wrong with Bazant & Verdure (2007), and why subsequently Schneider's debunking of it is irrelevant, even if valid: B&V consider that columns buckle all across the buildings, top-down. Page 4-5 of Schneider's first "paper": "In [Bazant and Zhou, 2002] and [Bazant et al. 2008] a maximal possible value of W = 500 MJ is mentioned, which is based on computations for a three-hinge buckling scenario. Yet meanwhile Korol and Sivakumaran have made empirical studies of buckling columns, which indicate that this value should be about 3 to 4 times bigger [Korol and Sivakumaran, 2014]." However, it is pretty obvious from looking at the debris on the ground and also the extant videos of the collapses that hardly any columns developed any, let alone 3, buckling hinges. This is not what happened, so arguing the correct numerical magnitude of energy dissipation is purely academic and irrelevant to the actual, historic collapses.
 
Last edited:
AE911T claims that this is "one of the most prestigious engineering conferences in the world".

AE are always quick with unqualified superlatives. Is this claim true?

The IABSE was founded in 1929 in Switzerland, and still has its international headquarters at the Swiss Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zürich, Switzerland. It has 3900 members world-wide, ca. 500 of which in Switzerland. The English Wikipedia is pretty short, with only 4 paragraphs, for a body or event labeled "one of the most prestigious in the world". The German Wiki has a bit more meat (that's where I got the 3900 figure from) - but there doesn't even exist a French or Spanish, let alone Russian, Japanese or Chinese Wiki version, only EN, DE, IT and Tamil. How prestigeous can something be "in the world" that doesn't even have a Wiki article in one of the major native languages of the counbtry where it is centered?


Soooo ... any engineers in the room who have heard of the IABSE before?
 
By the way, from the IABSE2019 homepage:
IABSE said:
Key Dates

June 1, 2018|Deadline for Congress contributions
June 15, 2018|Call for abstracts
November 1, 2018 | Deadline for abstract submissions
November 20, 2018|NEW deadline for abstract submissions
February 1, 2019|Notify authors of abstract acceptance
May 1, 2019|Submittal deadline for full papers
June 24, 2019|Notification of acceptance of full papers and announcement of presentation types
July 15, 2019|Registration deadline for all presenting authors
July 15, 2019|Deadline for early-bird registration
September 2–3, 2019|IABSE Annual Meetings
September 4–6, 2019|Congress
Click to expand...

So the "Registration deadline for all presenting authors" is already 10 days past - has Schneider registered? The AE aticle sounds as if not...
 
Oystein said:
By the way, from the IABSE2019 homepage:
[/TABLE]

So the "Registration deadline for all presenting authors" is already 10 days past - has Schneider registered? The AE aticle sounds as if not...
Click to expand...

I note an abstract deadline extension there. That is usually a symptom of them not receiving enough submissions, which doesn't sound like the kind of problem that "one of the most prestigious conferences in the world" would have.
 
Oystein said:
So the "Registration deadline for all presenting authors" is already 10 days past - has Schneider registered? The AE aticle sounds as if not...
Click to expand...
My take is that he has.

On one hand, there's this:
Cancellation Policy:

* Cancellation until August 1st, 2019: full refund less a $ 100 administrative fee.

* No cancellation possible after August 1st, 2019.
Click to expand...
http://www.iabse2019.com/showcontent.aspx?MenuID=7891

On the other hand, I'm sure that AE911T has more than enough money to cover the expenses, from membership fees if nothing else. They are just trying to monetize on this. I don't recall AE911T ever saying "The goal has been reached, you can stop sending money".

And yeah, the bigger they make it sound, the more motivated will the donors be, no matter if it's a lie.
 
Scanning the two former papers by Schneider, they reek of a mathematician using his tools with competence, albeit on a problem he doesn't have sufficient understanding of. Being good at math doesn't automatically mean you are good at physics, and even less that you are good at forensic engineering.
 
And here it is, being accepted.

mdBNyJE.jpg
 
Fonebone said:
Ansgar Schneider In his own words .............

Structural Dynamics of the World Trade Center Catastrophe
https://noliesradio.org/archives/166761


Listen to his analysis of the physics of the three tower collapses clearly explained with mathematics and expertise.
Click to expand...

I'd rather hear what you took away from it. What impressed you and why. I'll let the mathematicians sort out the maths.
 
Oystein said:
Scanning the two former papers by Schneider, they reek of a mathematician using his tools with competence, albeit on a problem he doesn't have sufficient understanding of. Being good at math doesn't automatically mean you are good at physics, and even less that you are good at forensic engineering.
Click to expand...


Did you fail to even look up his CV or did you believe that nobody else would care to check? Sounds like he is a physicist first and mathematician on top, which seems to run a bit against your non-credentialed "assessment" (just run auto-translate people, I'm not going to bother):

his publisher said:
Ansgar Schneider studierte Physik und schloß sein Studium mit einer Diplomarbeit im Bereich der Quantenfeldtheorie, der Vereinigung von Relativitätstheorie und Quantenmechanik, ab. In seiner Promotion in Mathematik befaßte er sich mit einem Thema im Grenzgebiet von Analysis, Topologie und Stringtheorie. Seine anschließenden Tätigkeiten in Lehre und Forschung führten ihn an verschiedene Universitäten und außeruniversitäre Forschungseinrichtungen im In- und Ausland.

Er publizierte wegweisende physikalische Arbeiten über die Zerstörung des World Trade Centers, in denen er die bekannten mathematischen Einsturzmodelle zum Kollaps des Nordturms des World Trade Centers verbesserte und durch bislang unberücksichtigte empirische Daten zeigte, daß die Struktur der Türme prinzipiell stabil genug war, um einem fortlaufenden Kollaps standzuhalten, selbst als dieser schon weit fortgeschritten war.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Nolies radio, home of the execrable Kevin Barrett and his "Truth Jihad" show.


ETA - string theory and quantum mechanics are probably not the right skillset for analyzing a building collapse.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Did you fail to even look up his CV...
Click to expand...

Wait a second - you pretend to link his CV, but instead you link the homepage of the self-styled "Verlag für die wissenschaftliche Untersuchung der Terroranschläge des 11. September" ("Publishing House for the scientific Investigation of the Terror Attacks of 9/11", hence just another woo site).

I googled him, could not find a current CV, only hints that years ago he worked as a scientific employee (post-doc?) at a Max-Planck-institute for mathematics in Bonn. He seems much more of a mathematician than physicist in real life.

Childlike Empress said:
...or did you believe that nobody else would care to check? Sounds like he is a physicist first and mathematician on top, which seems to run a bit against your non-credentialed "assessment" (just run auto-translate people, I'm not going to bother):
Click to expand...
How does anything listed in his CV qualify him to understand the engineering mechanics of a collapsing building?
His works on 9/11 show he does not understand those things. He lapped up what other Truthers before him wrote about Bazant's various papers, and dove head-first into the mathermatics of them - without bothering to check whether the models that those math formulas describe have anything to do with the real world.

Quick reminder, if you ever understood:
Bazant's first paper, drafted on day 2 after the attacks and published in 2002 along with Zhou, presents a limiting case of collapse progression: Suppose ALL of the already falling building ran fully into the undamaged columns below, even then the columns could not dissipate the kinetic energy of the falling mass, AND the falling mass would pick up more energy per height unit than the columns would dissipate in buckling.
This is a limiting case, because the columns are the strongest element of the structure, i.e. the part of the assembly that can dissipate the most energy in buckling. He called it "the best case for building survival".

Now the "best case" is not necessarily the "real case". In reality, the columns below were mostly bypassed. Right, CE?

Bazant&Zhou 2002 validly presented a best case enveloping szenario to answer the binary question "could the structure below have arrested the fall of the top once the top had fallen through at least one story?"

The follow-up papers by Bazant and collaborators elaborated further this "all columns are subjected to full stress and experience 3-hinge buckling as collapse progresses" model - which is NOT what actually happened. Thus, all he wrote after 2002 became progressively irrelevant to describing the actual collapses.

In addition, it seems that his numbers in the original 2002 paper need revision, and that after revision, the answer "collapse inevitable?" might no longer be an inambiguous "yes" - for that limiting "let's buckle all columns at once on every story" case.

The response to this finding is, of course, a big, yawning "So what?", for we know that the first major collapse progression mechanism was "pancaking", where only the floor truss seats provided structural resistance, dissipating far less energy than the columns would.


Now finally, what mathematician/quantum physicist Schneider doesn't understand is this:

Bazant is not the official story!

Nothing in his study "der Quantenfeldtheorie, der Vereinigung von Relativitätstheorie und Quantenmechanik" ever prepared him for understanding this simple bit of trivia.

And thus, he is out of his league.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RKOwens4
New 9/11 paper about the sole survivor from the South Tower: "The South Cocoon"
Replies
17
Views
4K
Dog Town
D

Back
Top Bottom