37 FACTS that contradict the "official" BS story

Unfortunately for you, you are firing on about 2 and a half. Please do provide data as to what the fires were doing on the floors above the 76th. Every single "fact" on this list has been completely refuted, long ago. Please do enlighten us all to the physics of the day. And explain how all of these scientific papers were published if they are all wrong....


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

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

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

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards
Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072

High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures
Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671

Collapses of the world trade center towers
[No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (, pp. 11-16

Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report
[No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15

Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures
Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058

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

Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse
Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85

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

Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses
Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370

World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment
Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory
Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533

Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center
Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks
Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

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):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

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

So I raise your anomolies and innuendo, what ifs, and the gubmint did it, all your cartoon fizickz, science and math. case closed. end thread. educate yourself instead of watching yuuuuuutooooooooobe.

 

yawn

same goes for ANY area. LMAO

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

John P. A. Ioannidis

Author information ► Copyright and License information ►

See "Minimizing Mistakes and Embracing Uncertainty" , e272.
See "Truth, Probability, and Frameworks" , e361.
See "Power, Reliability, and Heterogeneous Results" , e386.
See "The Clinical Interpretation of Research" , e395.
See "Author's Reply" , e398.
See "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Problems in the Analysis" in volume 4, e168.
See "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Author's Reply to Goodman and Greenland" in volume 4, e215.
See "Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science" in volume 5, e201.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.


Go to:
Abstract

Summary

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.



Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies [1–3] to the most modern molecular research [4,5]. There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims [6–8]. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false. Here I will examine the key factors that influence this problem and some corollaries thereof.

Go to:
Modeling the Framework for False Positive Findings

Several methodologists have pointed out [9–11] that the high rate of nonreplication (lack of confirmation) of research discoveries is a consequence of the convenient, yet ill-founded strategy of claiming conclusive research findings solely on the basis of a single study assessed by formal statistical significance, typically for a p-value less than 0.05. Research is not most appropriately represented and summarized by p-values, but, unfortunately, there is a widespread notion that medical research articles should be interpreted based only on p-values. Research findings are defined here as any relationship reaching formal statistical significance, e.g., effective interventions, informative predictors, risk factors, or associations. “Negative” research is also very useful. “Negative” is actually a misnomer, and the misinterpretation is widespread. However, here we will target relationships that investigators claim exist, rather than null findings.

It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false




​

 

Yeah, but we still need some proof that this writer's conclusions are correct, don't we?

Not that it has anything at all to do with the matters at hand.

 

well the way I see it, anyone with balls big enough to come into a debate board should already have those ground level basics down pat. admission of ignorance does you no favors.

 

A Commercial jet....ESPECIALLY a Boeing....such as a 747 or 757....are very large and very powerful aircraft which are extremely well designed.

Since the engines on such aircraft are extremely high output....the aircraft wings are designed to withstand massive amounts of exerted force upon them as such engines are attached to the wings.

Any AA Missile incoming would strike the engines without hardly doing any damage to the wings at all.

AboveAlpha

 

I'd have to think even if that were the case,the engine coming apart would likely severly damage the wing

 

The engines and wings upon such aircraft are designed that the wings will survive even a violent engine explosion.

AboveAlpha

 

MASSIVE?

OMG tell me it isnt so!

Im sure you have a citation for that nonsense

- - - Updated - - -

Violence is a crime.

 

we have the invasion of the killer drama queens!
that would make a great movie.

 

Are you attempting to inform people of something you might know or are you simply stuck in a specific ideology that regardless of facts you will fight to the death every time?

AboveAlpha

 

dont confuse me with trougher SOP.

I asked for a citation to that nonsense you posted. drama notwithstanding

 

A Citation?

If you knew ANYTHING about Physics then you would know that if I were able to move a Plastic Wiffle Ball Bat fast enough I could cut a Steel Pole in Half.

F=MA.

AboveAlpha

 

if you knew anything about fizicz you would know that you cant. LMAO

 

OK....so just to be clear....you are saying that it is impossible for a Plastic Bat if moving fast enough to chop down a steel pole like the one we are talking about?

AboveAlpha

 

No a plastic bat made from 1 layer of saran wrap cannot be made to go fast enough to even dent the pole.

Otherwise its irrelevant trash talk and does not apply.

 

OK....so now you are saying that because the Plastic Bat cannot be made to move fast enough that this is the reason you are saying such a bat could not chop down a steel pole? LOL!!!

You should take the time to Google Tornado...before and after pictures as there is one picture of a Wiffle Ball Bat that was sent through a Concrete Wall and then through the side of a Tractor Trailer and the only reason it did not shoot through the other steel trailer wall is because it was found buried half way into a few cases of Aluminum Foil which was being hauled by the truck.

Do yourself a favor and try not to talk about things you really don't know about.

AboveAlpha

 

more meaningless trivia bull(*)(*)(*)(*), but hey thanks for the tornado lesson.

so what are you going to do for your next show?

 

It will probably be a Documentary about people who lack in science and math.

AboveAlpha

 

guess that leaves me out.

is there a point to your foolishness

 

I have to say I am curious why you have so blatantly disregarded something as obvious and well known to most as the greater the velocity or acceleration of an object of mass....the greater the force or kinetic state it will obtain.

Something as small and light as a tiny grain of dust impacting the Space Shuttle at Hyper Velocity will blow a hole through the craft like a 30 06 round through tissue paper.

AboveAlpha

 

you simply do not get it.

IT DOES NOT APPLY HERE.

Whats your problem anyway?

That you insist on pounding square pegs in round holes?

 

I have no problem.

You are making a statement and I am telling you that you do not have evidence to support your claims.

If you believe you do then by all means provide such evidence but trying to say a commercial aircraft's wing traveling at several hundred miles per hour could not cut down a metal pole...well that is ridiculous.

AboveAlpha

 

Now thats what you said I said now isnt it.

Anything else you want to claim I said that I did not?

 

Well....if you think I have read you wrong...perhaps you can clarify the issue and your statements.

AboveAlpha

 

Again there is nothing unclear about my statements, I think you will find your answers if look more closely at your reading and comprehension skills.