ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 1st September 2015, 12:23 AM   #1
Hammer
New Blood
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 10
Interview with Professor Asif Usmani

Dear All,

we've just published a new interview with Professor Asif Usmani of the University of Edinburgh about why the WTC collapsed.

He did not go into the details but his explanation is very interesting anyway. Here it is:

undicisettembre.blogspot.it/2015/09/why-world-trade-center-collapsed.html

Bye
Hammer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2015, 01:06 AM   #2
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by Hammer View Post
Dear All,

we've just published a new interview with Professor Asif Usmani of the University of Edinburgh about why the WTC collapsed.

He did not go into the details but his explanation is very interesting anyway. Here it is:

undicisettembre.blogspot.it/2015/09/why-world-trade-center-collapsed.html

Bye
Greetings Hammer and thanks for the link to the transcript of the interview.

Sadly the interview adds nothing to debate of the WTC collapses. It reveals that Prof Usmani - in common with many academics - has no or little understanding of the mechanisms of collapse which occurred at WTC on 9/11.

Reality is that the above average person involved in Internet debate of the collapses - whether truther or debunker "side" - has more understanding, more knowledge, of the actual WTC 9/11 collapse events than most academics who publish commentary.

The problem is that the academics go for generic explanations and models and avoid WTC specifics. And they miss the actual event. We have both "debunkers" and alleged "truthers" posting here who have far better understanding of the actual 9/11 WTC collapses than the prominent publishers of academic papers on the topic

Bazant is most prominent and the classic example of error from the moment he left his initial "limit case" claims in B&Z 2001/2 and started making false analogies. Bazant stayed with 1D approximations and it is simple fact that the Twin Towers collapses cannot be legitimately approximated in 1D. The initiation stage was 3D and cannot be explained legitimately in either 1D or 2D. The progression stage needs 2D to explain it.

And Prof Usmani is more generic than Bazant.

Sure I'm pressing the buttons for those who cannot abandon their thinking based on the wrong application of the Bazant "model" - mostly the errors of Bazant as promulgated by T Szamboti. Such is life.

The one comment of interest for me in the Usmani interview was this one:

Quote:
Asif Usmani: As mentioned earlier there is no consensus in the scientific community, being humans even the scientific community has its biases. The best one can say is that most people believe that fires caused the collapse. Some people think that the damage caused by the aircraft in combination with the fire caused the collapse. I am inclined towards the view that if there was no fire there would have not been a collapse; and the corollary to that is, had there been no aircraft impact and the WTC1 or WTC2 structures was subjected to a large accidental fire, they could have collapsed. This is the really scary part as it begs the question, how many other such buildings may be out there.
I agree with the blue bit but I'm not persuaded by the red bit - despite the "cop out" escape provided by the use of "could". Without the plane crash some of the incidental effects of the crash - e.g. removal of SFRM - would not occur and the sub-mechanisms of cascade failure would (probably IMNSHO) not have progressed. Prof Usmani's ignorance of the WTC specifics may be leading him into error.

Last edited by ozeco41; 1st September 2015 at 01:35 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2015, 03:05 AM   #3
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,867
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Greetings Hammer and thanks for the link to the transcript of the interview.

Sadly the interview adds nothing to debate of the WTC collapses. It reveals that Prof Usmani - in common with many academics - has no or little understanding of the mechanisms of collapse which occurred at WTC on 9/11.

Reality is that the above average person involved in Internet debate of the collapses - whether truther or debunker "side" - has more understanding, more knowledge, of the actual WTC 9/11 collapse events than most academics who publish commentary.

The problem is that the academics go for generic explanations and models and avoid WTC specifics. And they miss the actual event. We have both "debunkers" and alleged "truthers" posting here who have far better understanding of the actual 9/11 WTC collapses than the prominent publishers of academic papers on the topic

Bazant is most prominent and the classic example of error from the moment he left his initial "limit case" claims in B&Z 2001/2 and started making false analogies. Bazant stayed with 1D approximations and it is simple fact that the Twin Towers collapses cannot be legitimately approximated in 1D. The initiation stage was 3D and cannot be explained legitimately in either 1D or 2D. The progression stage needs 2D to explain it.

And Prof Usmani is more generic than Bazant.

Sure I'm pressing the buttons for those who cannot abandon their thinking based on the wrong application of the Bazant "model" - mostly the errors of Bazant as promulgated by T Szamboti. Such is life.

The one comment of interest for me in the Usmani interview was this one:

I agree with the blue bit but I'm not persuaded by the red bit - despite the "cop out" escape provided by the use of "could". Without the plane crash some of the incidental effects of the crash - e.g. removal of SFRM - would not occur and the sub-mechanisms of cascade failure would (probably IMNSHO) not have progressed. Prof Usmani's ignorance of the WTC specifics may be leading him into error.
Ozzie,
Your post is spot on and a very sad commentary on academics and professionals who ignore the details and the specific attributes of the buildings and the events of the day. I suppose because it was very complex and actually had lots of chaos, it is hard to find the important emergent aspects and easy to simplify it.... and pass it off as rigorous science.

++++

There are some interesting discussions to be had about the fire's contribution to the collapse. I agree that without fire there would have been no collapse and we would have been left with a severely damaged but still standing and perhaps unsafe building. The truth is that the buildings DID survive the plane impacts.

The fire contribution has can be understood by looking at what high temps would do the the building's structural materials... we know the flammables were consumed and created the fire. The effect of heat on materials aside from combustion... is to expand in some cases... some materials like heat shrink will contract... and most materials lose strength in heat. Chemical bonds also break down in heat... concrete will not do well as trapped water can expand to gas and fracture the concrete.

My own suspicion is that the main and catastrophic impact from the heat was that the steel expanded, warped the frame, sheared bolted connections, failing them, and expansion warped the frame enough to cause loss of bearing area on the column end to end connections.

The column connections were un restrained and merely has splice plates bolted to them with shim plates in some cases to align the plates because the two joining columns had different profiles. These splice connections were designed to simply keep the ends aligned with adequate bearing area.

The columns being 3 stories has 3 levels of lateral bracing and if the bracing were heated and expanded it would push against the two columns it braced. NB that the bracing was not a single beam but was made from 3 sections... a short beam stub attached to each column and a beam attached to each beam stub. All these connections where bolted with splice plates. It seems to me that there HAD to be some space between these for fabrication purposes... and this would also allow the beam to expand when heated and "fill the gap". But in so doing it probably would shear the connecting bolts.

If the expanding assembly of the 2 beam stubs and the beam had less restraint on one end... the assembly would tend to move that column laterally in the direction of the expanding assembly. This could occur IF the a column lost bracing (plane strike damage) or if a column was lost from plane strike damage... complete loss of lateral restraint for the member framed into that column.

It's less likely that the heat weaken columns to the point of failure. It seems more likely that the heat AND the damage and the construction details facilitated the frame warping laterally so much that more column to column bearing was lessened and compromised. This essentially was how the columns likely lost "capacity".

The process would have slowly progressed eroding capacity in the aggregate in the core... more dramatically in some locations, less so in others. But eventually with the effect of heat persisting the frame lost enough capacity that it was below the service loads and the tops collapsed. The collapse would obviously favor the weakest area of the structure... in 2wtc it was the SE portion of the core... in 1wtc it was almost dead center but the fire location would have determined the weakest area where most warping and loss of end to end bearing took place.

When you see how small the cross sectional area of each column is... a displacement (mis alignment) of 3/4" would destroy 90% of the bearing area! And a 3/4" expansion for a 30' long beam doesn't seem that unreasonable.

I am not a material scientist, don't know how much heat was actually present and where it was.. and for how long. I don't know the nature of the actual connections either. But this is why I think the construction details are important and find it curious that we didn't see them.

We saw heat tests on half scale trusses... but not on a full scale bracing beam assembly... and no investigation of how heat could have affected the core.

And no one seems to be pursuing this line in examining how the tops came "free" and collapsed.

But this "academic" seems out to lunch to me... probably in some ivory tower.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2015, 04:37 AM   #4
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,647
I'm not opposed to thinking that, if there had been impact by large aircraft flying at high speed but no fire, the buildings might have stayed standing or that, if there had been a huge fire but no aircraft impact, the buildings might have stayed standing.

However, . . . .

__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2015, 07:34 AM   #5
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,288
Link: http://undicisettembre.blogspot.it/2...collapsed.html


Another interesting bit is Usmani's perception on the effect of 9/11 on building codes:
Quote:
Undicisettembre: How did the tragedy changed our understanding of fire safety measures for tall buildings, and the relative regulations?

Asif Usmani: So far nothing much has changed. I have proposed very simple engineering checks (reported in some of the papers above) but this is yet to be accepted. More research needs to be done and more people need to be saying the same thing before regulations change to enforce these sort of checks.
He seems to be closer to those truthers who argue that there's a lack of significant code changes, and further argue that this somehow disproves the engineering community at large takes much stock in the NIST findings.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2015, 08:03 AM   #6
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,867
His comments are not bad... he certainly does not support truther beliefs and he mentions that the more likely location for the failure of 7wtc is in the transfer structures. He doesn't get into HOW the fire caused the collapse. But he sees no evidence for CD.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2015, 08:09 AM   #7
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
He seems to be closer to those truthers who argue that there's a lack of significant code changes, and further argue that this somehow disproves the engineering community at large takes much stock in the NIST findings.
Yes. It is another example of his remoteness from real details and how he relies on generalities.

Plus - true academic - plugs his own papers without showing how they are relevant or "better".

I give little credence to generalised NIST bashing where there is no specific identification or justification of alleged errors by NIST.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2015, 08:50 AM   #8
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,867
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Yes. It is another example of his remoteness from real details and how he relies on generalities.

Plus - true academic - plugs his own papers without showing how they are relevant or "better".

I give little credence to generalised NIST bashing where there is no specific identification or justification of alleged errors by NIST.
The problem is that no one will come up with another detailed... supported by "evidence" collapse initiation scenario... because... they DON'T HAVE the evidence... and have to rely on what's in the public record and make a lot of assumptions and that becomes make believe... and people like you claim... (rightfully)... who cares... it collapsed and the evidence for CD is not there so it doesn't matter exactly how.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2015, 08:51 AM   #9
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,288
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Yes. It is another example of his remoteness from real details and how he relies on generalities.
It's not yet been an area of interest for me, but I can't say I have seen convincing presentations on the code changes that resulted from anyone's analysis of the WTC failures. Could well be my ignorance, of course.

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Plus - true academic - plugs his own papers without showing how they are relevant or "better".
At least he knows of his biases and mentions them even twice.

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
I give little credence to generalised NIST bashing where there is no specific identification or justification of alleged errors by NIST.
Who is bashing NIST here?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2015, 08:53 AM   #10
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,288
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
The problem is that no one will come up with another detailed... supported by "evidence" collapse initiation scenario... because... they DON'T HAVE the evidence...
Yep. Too bad.
Originally Posted by Usmani
The failure of transfer structures could have occurred because of potential oil fires but there is not sufficient evidence for that...
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2015, 09:08 AM   #11
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Who is bashing NIST here?
Sander is probably the most common example of persistent but unfocused - non specific - criticism of NIST. He has some reasoned objections to certain NIST findings. His own are plausible but he persists in denigrating or dismissing the NIST versions without demonstrating what is wrong with NIST or why his plausible alternates should be adopted - or why alleged errors by NIST are of any significance. One common example is his support for "transfer truss failure" as initiation for WTC7 collapse.

My own position it that I try to remain agnostic on NIST for reasons I have explained many times. I would rather discuss the events which happened than be distracted by whether or not NIST explained it correctly. I usually insert a reference to "Santa's Custard" at this point*...



* Anyone who isn't familiar with my often used bit of parody explanation - search my posts or ask.

Last edited by ozeco41; 1st September 2015 at 09:09 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2015, 09:31 AM   #12
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
The problem is that no one will come up with another detailed... supported by "evidence" collapse initiation scenario... because...make a lot of assumptions and that becomes make believe... and they DON'T HAVE the evidence... and have to rely on what's in the public record and people like you claim... (rightfully)... who cares... it collapsed and the evidence for CD is not there so it doesn't matter exactly how.
I do wish you would desist from these false global claims.

"The problem is that no one will come up with another detailed... supported by "evidence" collapse initiation scenario..." On THIS forum I have posted extensive explanations of the initiation mechanism. By all means disagree with them. But if posting on this forum AND in response to me the global denial "no one will come up with..." when you are aware that I have done it you should at least recognise it. I care not if you say "no one other then ozeco on this forum has..." You could even say "and ozeco's work is a load of crap..." (But be ready to prove it )

THEN your statement:

"... and they DON'T HAVE the evidence... and have to rely on what's in the public record .."
For the umpteenth time - there is more than enough evidence in the public record to allow explanation of the collapse initiation AND progression.

AND this continuing gross misrepresentation:
"people like you claim... (rightfully)... who cares... it collapsed and the evidence for CD is not there so it doesn't matter exactly how."
I have lost track of the many times I have corrected that and many similar misrepresentations of my position by use of false generalisations

Last edited by ozeco41; 1st September 2015 at 09:53 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2015, 09:34 AM   #13
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,288
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Sander is probably the most common example of persistent but unfocused - non specific - criticism of NIST. ...
Ah ok, I missed that (I usually skip of JSO's posts or just scan them )
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2015, 10:02 AM   #14
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Ah ok, I missed that (I usually skip of JSO's posts or just scan them )
I've engaged in many lengthy discussions here and else where.

However I tend to get frustrated when I have explained in detail the difference between apples and bananas and the responses is "but they are both fruit".
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2015, 11:20 AM   #15
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,867
[quote=ozeco41;10849997]Sander is probably the most common example of persistent but unfocused - non specific - criticism of NIST. He has some reasoned objections to certain NIST findings. His own are plausible but he persists in denigrating or dismissing the NIST versions without demonstrating what is wrong with NIST or why his plausible alternates should be adopted - or why alleged errors by NIST are of any significance. One common example is his support for "transfer truss failure" as initiation for WTC7 collapse.


Well yes and no. I have given a few specific problems I have with the NIST report. I have not and will not read it in detail and parse every little objection I have.

I am not the only person who sensed the transfer structures and not column 79 floor 13 was the initiation of the "global collapse". Usmani seems to have the same "unfocused" view of this. So do several top world class engineers among them Guy Nordonsen (who I happen to know) feel the transfer structures are more the likely location of the initiation.

I have explained why I believe this to be the case and how it could possibly happen. I have no "evidence" to support this "theory" and NIST's evidence is a slew of assumptions with a series of engineering calcs which may or may not be correct. Frankly I don't care!

I started a thread here about whether a single column can lead to a global collapse of a high rise and what would the conditions be and if it can fail and not lead to global collapse... what would those circumstances be. We know that the failure stated somewhere below the EPH and that could be... and in my unfocused opinion was in those load transfer structures.

I don't have to convince anyone what happened. NIST may have that mission. I don't have to convince anyone that NIST was flawed in their theories. It's a discussion and people can take away what they want. It hardly matters because it most likely does not make anyone else responsible or negligent for the collapses. The design decisions MAY have been whacky/risky.. bold...innovative, but the engineering was not incompetent. It's not likely that professional misconduct or similar could be brought against the designers or developers... for their bold...innovative engineering.

Not to many people seem interested in drilling deeply into the mechanisms of the collapses. Even ROOSD is a gross not micro description of the collapse phase of the twins... and Oystein seems to think that pancakes were a fallen as part of ROOSD... YIKES!

Can you image 100,000 tons of floor "material" fall neatly onto some wtc slab and it breaks free and drops like a pancake on to the slab below... severing every slab to frame connection at once? ROOSD was not a uniform floor collapse!

Oy.. I skim many of your posts as well...

Last edited by JSanderO; 1st September 2015 at 11:22 AM.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2015, 01:36 PM   #16
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,288
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
...
Not to many people seem interested in drilling deeply into the mechanisms of the collapses. Even ROOSD is a gross not micro description of the collapse phase of the twins... and Oystein seems to think that pancakes were a fallen as part of ROOSD... YIKES!

Can you image 100,000 tons of floor "material" fall neatly onto some wtc slab and it breaks free and drops like a pancake on to the slab below... severing every slab to frame connection at once? ROOSD was not a uniform floor collapse!
I highlighted a veritable squad of strawmen.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2015, 01:51 PM   #17
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,867
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I highlighted a veritable squad of strawmen.
whatever...
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.