Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jeroen

(1,061 posts)
28. Thanks
Tue Nov 3, 2015, 06:39 AM
Nov 2015

Thanks for the list. Here are some peer-reviewed journal papers that suggest controlled demolition and/or support alternative theories on 9/11

April 2009 | Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Journal: The Open Journal of Chemical Physics
Authors: Dr. Niels H. Harrit (University of Copenhagen) et al
Link: http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

August 2008 | Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
Journal: The Environmentalist (2009) 29: 56-63
Authors: Kevin Ryan et al
Link: http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/
Download Paper (PDF): The Environmentalist – Environmental Anomalies at the WTC Evidence for Energetic Materials

2006 | Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001
Journal: The Journal of Business (by the University of Chicago)
Author: Dr. Allen M. Poteshman (University of Illinois)
Download Paper (PDF): A. Poteshman – Journal of Business 2006 – Unusual Option Market Activity and the 9-11 Attacks

2006 | “What Accounts for the Molten Metal Observed on 9/11/2001?”
Journal: Journal of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, 83:252, 2006.
Author: Dr. Steven E. Jones (Brigham Young University)
Link: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/

June 2013 | Some Misunderstanding Related to WTC Collapse Analysis
Journal: International Journal of Protective Structures (Vol. 4, No. 2 / June 2013)
Authors: Dr. Gregory Szuladzinski  (PhD, Structural Mechanics), Tony Szamboti (ME), and Richard Johns.
Link: http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/bl60385h25254748/
Download Preview (PDF): Preview – Some Misunderstandings of WTC Collapse Analysis


Most of the studies you've listed concern the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.
Further, these are all theories, some very speculative, and as such subject of debate among scientists.

For example 'Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis'
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Crockett Grabbe 1
1 Research Scientist, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City, IA
52242 and SeaLane Consulting, Iowa City, IA 52245-3314. E-mail: sealane@mchsi.com
http://scientistsfor911truth.com/docs/Seffen_Grabbe.pdf


Some you've listed are generic studies which have nothing to do with the collapse of the towers itself, such as:

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002)95-800.

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187


I’ve read many studies about the collapses and some of these contradict the official theory on 9/11.
Such as this studie that you provided:

Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events
Cherepanov, G.P. 2008 Materials Science 44 (4), pp. 489-499

Below is from the abstract:
The critical floors where collapses started from are estimated using the well-established fact of the free-fall time of all WTC collapses. To this end, the most comprehensive “hybrid” analysis is advanced taking into account that collapses could start on several floors simultaneously, not on one floor as suggested before. According to this “hybrid” model, at the first stage, several floors collapsed simultaneously as a result of fracture waves causing a dust cloud and, at the second stage, the lower part of tower being intact in the first stage collapsed in the regime of progressive failure. Five different collapse types are studied, including the fastest and slowest collapses, and then the hybrid mode is examined with initial collapse of several floors followed by the “domino-effect” of the remaining floors. It is established that the floors where the WTC collapses started from were located significantly lower than the floors hit by the terrorists and subjected to fire. This conclusion confirms the same former result obtained by using the simple official theory of pure progressive collapse.


Finally, it’s important to note that in all relevant studies you’ve listed, it is assumed that no explosive were active during the collapses.

Zero! William Seger Mar 2015 #1
you wished! wildbilln864 Mar 2015 #3
growing library of peer-reviewed technical papers Jeroen Nov 2015 #26
Sure William Seger Nov 2015 #27
Thanks Jeroen Nov 2015 #28
"no explosives were active during the collapses" William Seger Nov 2015 #29
Classic, controlled demolition Jeroen Nov 2015 #30
I don't have any problem with people who "question the official narrative" William Seger Nov 2015 #31
Numbers are fun! zappaman Mar 2015 #2
? OBenario Oct 2015 #6
now 2354. and climbing. n/t wildbilln864 May 2015 #4
Holy crap! zappaman May 2015 #5
Do you imagine there'ssome significance to the percentage? wildbilln864 Oct 2015 #7
I'm so glad you asked, here's some homework so you might answer your own questions honestly. greyl Oct 2015 #8
wasn't asking you but perhaps you could answer in your own words? wildbilln864 Oct 2015 #9
Wrong, false, and untrue. You did ask, "What do you account for the percentage...yada yada" greyl Oct 2015 #11
2366? Up 12 in the last 6 months? William Seger Oct 2015 #10
up yes. wildbilln864 Oct 2015 #12
You ignore attrition. Many former "truthers" have discovered they were lied to William Seger Oct 2015 #13
your post has so many false assertions William. But you know that. n/t wildbilln864 Oct 2015 #14
No, I don't know that, and apparently neither do you William Seger Oct 2015 #18
you assert that no one could have... wildbilln864 Oct 2015 #19
24/7!? No... wildbilln864 Oct 2015 #15
yep! wildbilln864 Oct 2015 #16
Oh, the magical delayed remote action bombs? William Seger Oct 2015 #17
yeah there you go making up shit again. wildbilln864 Oct 2015 #22
Give it up wildbilln864, GGJohn Oct 2015 #20
yea well I'll be here to remind them... wildbilln864 Oct 2015 #21
Here? On a chat board? GGJohn Oct 2015 #23
doesn't seem to slow you down any. wildbilln864 Oct 2015 #24
Spread the word where ever you go? GGJohn Oct 2015 #25
+1000 nt Logical Nov 2015 #32
C'mon now... zappaman Nov 2015 #33
2,374 n/t wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #34
2409! wildbilln864 Dec 2015 #35
Weird argument whitefordmd Dec 2015 #36
not an argument wildbilln864 Dec 2015 #37
So your posting a fact, but not trying to make a point? Very sensible. eom whitefordmd Dec 2015 #38
I actually take some small comfort William Seger Dec 2015 #39
I used to work with a Structural Engineer that was neck deep into all sorts of woo. whitefordmd Dec 2015 #40
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»2335! update: 2416, upda...»Reply #28