[Micele]

Leer er mee leven (ik ook), hierzie een voorlopige +11-jarige analyse van de 9/11 literatuur enkel betreft de "vernielde" 3 WTC torens:
(opsomming van september 2001 tem december 2012 zie tabel 2 uit link)
Enkele feiten zijn zeer opmerkelijk...

http://www.journalof911studies.com/r...leVol37Apr.pdf

Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 37, April 2013

WTC Destruction: An Analysis of Peer Reviewed Technical Literature 2001 — 2012

Timothy E. Eastman, Ph.D. (Geophysics), and Jonathan H. Cole, P.E.

Abstract

The importance of understanding the mechanisms of collapse for the three World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001 cannot be over-stimated, for these unusual collapses and their disputed causes raise questions regarding all future steel-frame building design. A literature review was conducted to identify the evolving trend in research results in this area, which have become increasingly diverse over time. Recommendations for further research are presented.

[...]

Summary of Analysis Results

In summary, important insights emerge from this literature search and analysis:

(1) Within the first ten years after “9/11” (namely September 11, 2001 through September 11, 2011), the mainstream peer-reviewed literature, worldwide, contained no paper on WTC 7 that concludes with the Progressive Collapse (PC) hypothesis (Note: Two such PC papers appear in the short-lived Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories); Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 37, April 2013 6

(2) Within the first ten years, there are 31 distinct CD papers (i.e., arguing for the Controlled Demolition hypothesis, including 14 that address WTC 7) versus 19 distinct PC papers (i.e., arguing for Progressive Collapse, including only 2 as noted immediately above that address WTC 7);

(3) Overall, from 9/11/01 through 12/31/2012, there are 34 distinct CD papers versus 25 PC papers; among these, 15 of the CD papers address WTC 7 whereas only 4 PC papers do so, again indicating overall the importance of the CD hypothesis;

(4) Although most CD papers (and one PC paper) derive from the Journal of 9/11 Studies, six qualified and distinct CD papers appear in mainstream journals.

Conclusions

• What is most striking about our results is the fact that there is serious disagreement as to how the WTC structures fell on September 11, 2001. While precise sequences of every building component failure cannot be determined, the overall basic mechanism of destruction (i.e. some type of fire-induced natural gravitational collapse (PC), or some type of planned demolition CD) is clearly in dispute. There is no consensus. At this point, almost 12 years later, there should not be any significant disagreement about such a fundamental issue as to how three buildings were destroyed so completely given the magnitude of the event, the implications of the event, and repercussions for existing and future structural design.

• We note that in the early years, from 2001 to 2005, essentially all published papers supported the official narrative of some type of progressive collapse mechanism. Subsequent years, however, have generated numerous papers challenging the official narrative, and a substantial number of peer-reviewed papers were published concluding that the failures were due to demolition.

• The vast majority of independent investigations about other catastrophes narrow down and converge on the solution as more and better information is obtained. Theories that do not, or cannot, explain the additional information are discarded, resulting in a theory that earns general scientific consensus.
Precisely the opposite has happened over the past decade with the study of how the WTC structures fell. That is, the more information that has been unearthed, the more unanswered questions have arisen with the official hypothesis, with more people questioning the initial theory. Thus, the demolition hypothesis is strengthened, and the hypothesis of fire-induced collapse is further weakened.
Therefore, rather than converging on an answer, the study of 9/11 diverges over time as the scientific rift has grown and the early consensus for the official story is undermined.

• If it is true that steel-frame buildings can collapse from fire alone, it is crucial for owners of existing structures and insurers to understand the risk of a sudden fire-induced collapse so that structural repairs and risk adjustments can be factored in. Given the official story, it is remarkable how little insurance premiums, or even design parameters and building construction codes,6 have been modified (if at all) to address the possibility of catastrophic fire-induced progressive collapse. The fact that they have not been modified indicates that insurance companies do not accept the PC hypothesis.

• Given the fact that before September 11, 2001 no high-rise steel-frame building has ever collapsed from fire alone (Taylor, 2011), extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The NIST Reports did not address the total collapse of the Twin Towers, truncating their study at “collapse initiation.” Overall, our peer-reviewed literature results collectively yield a very strong prima facie argument for CD.

• Other than two papers appearing in the Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, the only papers that address WTC 7 and argue for PC are brief summaries by McAllister et al. (2012) of the non-peer-reviewed NIST report on WTC 7 (NIST, 2008). McAllister, it should be noted, was herself one of the co-project leaders for the NIST report. Thorough critiques of this paper and associated results of the NIST report are given in Legge (2009) and Brookman (2012).

• When applying the scientific method, independent confirmation of an unexpected result is a very strong form of support. Such independent confirmation occurred twice with regard to 9/11 dust contamination. First, Harrit et al. (2009) published detailed evidence for active thermitic material in relevant dust samples, thus supporting explosive demolition. This paper also appears to be one of the most extensively researched and professionally written of all 84 papers appearing in Table 2. Entirely independent of Harrit’s work, Wu et al. (2010) published a case report of lung disease in WTC responders. They reported an “unexpected” discovery of extremely fine carbon (nanotube) structures in responder lung tissue, which are associated with dust, thus independently confirming Harrit et al., who found the same such structures in 9/11 dust samples.

• Well-qualified scientists, including physicists, have pointed out inconsistencies and violations of basic physics contained in many PC papers. For example, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, Applied Physics Ph.D. from Caltech, has raised many such critical problems (see Grabbe, 2007, 2010, 2012). Physics teacher David Chandler and co-author Jonathan Cole also document many basic physics issues at their Website 911SpeakOut.org. And Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (www.ae911truth.org), as of April, 2013, is comprised of 1,877 certified professionals who reject the PC hypothesis and jointly call for a new, independent investigation.

• The integrity of science itself is compromised when an argument that proceeds from authority alone is given precedence over the presentation of relevant, demonstrable facts (e.g., more than a hundred documented reports of explosions (MacQueen, 2012)), or even basic laws of physics (e.g., violations of conservation of energy and momentum, see Grabbe (2012)).

• Compiling all relevant peer-reviewed publications on this focused topic, as done here, enables a systematic, integrated analysis to address our key question in a way analogous to how Paul Thompson’s 9/11 Timeline has served so effectively to help integrate a large range of 9/11-related issues (Thompson, 2004). 7

• The first submitted draft paper on the mechanism of collapse is that by Bazant, submitted September 13, 2001 (see first entry of Table 2, including its footnote). It is our professional opinion that, by any measure, a responsible, professional research paper on this complex event that was not begun until September 11 could not have been completed and submitted by September 13.

Recommendations

• Greater recognition is needed for the importance of evidence-based scholarly analyses (e.g., MacQueen’s detailed analysis of eye-witness accounts of explosions), in addition to more in-depth technical analyses and scholarly works that reveal the broader context of 9/11 events;

• We stress the importance of scientific, technical and scholarly research on these questions, followed up with peer-reviewed publications; lacking this, the discussion tends to be dominated by essays driven mostly by advocacy-based thinking. In contrast, the best of science is evidence-based with systematic testing of alternative hypotheses, falsification, and model-making (where appropriate);

• In contrast to current conditions that have suppressed research and dialogue on these worldchanging collapses, achieving improved understanding of these critical questions requires transparency, avoidance of cognitive bias (especially confirmation bias), peer-review, checks and balances, and efforts to reduce research misconduct.8

[...]
Table 2. Peer-reviewed Publications Focused on
Mechanism of Collapse for WTC 1, 2, and 7

Collapse Date Mech.9 (mm/yy) Title Author(s) Publication Vol/Issue
[....]

( uit: http://www.journalof911studies.com/ )

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pokerman

Ik heb gemerkt dat ook hier, net zoals op andere forums, het niet makkelijk is om op een constructieve manier over 9/11 te discussiëren.
Beide zijden maken zich schuldig aan verwijten en uitlachen van de andere kant.
Maar wat mij een beetje stoort aan de kant van diegenen die niet geloven in een conspiracy, is dat velen onder hen tot op vandaag de truthers behandelen als een stelletje idioten en hen op dezelfde plaats zetten als mensen die zeggen dat Elvis nog leeft, de maanlanding niet heeft plaats gevonden, ed.

Bedenk toch even dit: De verschillende Truth organisations.
Meer dan 2000 architecten, meer dan 1000 brandweerlui, ik weet niet hoeveel piloten, universiteitsprofessoren, high ranking militairen, mensen uit de entertainment sector, enz.. enz...
Dat zijn allemaal personen die spreken vanuit hun eigen specifieke domeinkennis. En na al die jaren blijven zij tot op vandaag ijveren voor een nieuw onderzoek.
Je kan toch moeilijk blijven beweren dat dat allemaal stuk voor stuk hersenloze idioten zijn?

En toch gaan hier enkele forummers blijven beweren dat al die mensen van die Truth org. .... jeweetwel-nuts... zijn, ondanks alle wetenschappelijke literatuur die er al verschenen is. Ze begrijpen zelfs het woord (samenzwerings)theorie niet.