9/11: Is this photo consistent with a progressive collapse?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The plane flew into the building, leaving a roughly plane-shaped hole.

Honestly, what would it benefit anyone to deliberately create a false simulation that could be shown to be false by looking at some photos?

You are complaining about something that the simulation was never claimed to be. Look at the pattern of the broken columns, that is very different too. It's a simulation. It matches reality WITHIN A RANGE OF ERROR.

The plane did not bounce off the building, or flatten against it, or pass though unharmed, or chop the building cleanly in two. It flew into the building, and left a big hole. The simulation shows that.

Now you just look stupid.

Btw. Did you know that the building was clad in aluminium? - presumably, given that your are always keen to point out that aluminium is stronger than steel, don't you think that would have stopped the aircraft in its tracks before it got to the much weaker steel bits? Give me strength
 
I stand by what I said. If you'd like to explain where it's wrong, then feel free.

Aluminum is not stronger than steel. Aircraft grade aluminum alloy is stronger than most construction grade steel.
 
If you apply enough force in a limited enough area over a short enough time then something "weak" can cause the failure of something "strong" - bird strikes on aircraft are an obvious example.
 
The column you query appears to have been struck by a pretty large segment of wing that is disconnected from the rest of the plane. The wing has broken several exterior columns, but still seems to be intact (indeed, it kind of has to be, if the columns broke, then the wing did not).


That right? No. Let's try to be 'scientifically accurate', shall we? Let's count the columns. In the visualization the port wing has broken all the columns (that's ALL), meaning eighteen. Here's a picture to remind you





Meanwhile, in reality, the actual number of broken columns is ten (that's 10). Eight of the columns did not break. Here's something to remind you; they come from Nist NCSTAR 1-5A






And you say what? The wing has broken several exterior columns, but still seems to be intact (indeed, it kind of has to be, if the columns broke, then the wing did not).

So if the wing broke then the columns did not? Right? How could it still have enough momentum and mass to sever a core column? Where did this part of the wing go? I can't see any embedded in the building - can you?

You'll cry: But it's a simulation

Yes and it claims to be high fidelity, which means what?






fi·del·i·ty (f-dl-t, f-)n. pl. fi·del·i·ties 1. Faithfulness to obligations, duties, or observances.
2. Exact correspondence with fact or with a given quality, condition, or event; accuracy
3. adherence to truth; accuracy in reporting detail


Which bit of this 'evidence' fulfills those criteria?




 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you apply enough force in a limited enough area over a short enough time then something "weak" can cause the failure of something "strong" - bird strikes on aircraft are an obvious example.

Yes, and the price of eggs is very high, don't you think?
 
So what are we talking about here? Instead of ten tons of stronger-than-steel aluminum alloy travelling at 550MPH, we have five tons travelling at 300MPH?

It's not like it has turned to dust and stopped at this point.


So, what are we talking about here? Instead of ten tons of 'stronger-than-steel' aluminum alloy travelling at 550MPH we have in that area under discussion exactly no tons of anything because it didn't go through the perimeter.

You seem to be conveniently forgetting that the steel and the aluminium had certain proportions, maybe you don't know the aluminium skin on an aircraft is very thin and the steel perimeter of the wtc towers was quite thick. Are you trying to say that this thin skin is more robust than the steel it struck? Really, you should desist from trying to frame your argument in such terms. It's absurd.
 
I think the simulation results seem very reasonable. The results are within the ranges of other simulations, and the visible portions closely match what was observed, and the the end results (the entry hole in particular).

Really. Sure you don't want to re-think this one?

I say that it does not accurately reflect the event it claims to depict, despite all its 'high fidelity' assertions.

But according to you, the 'visible portions [of the simulation] closely match what was observed....the entry hole in particular' do they? I'd say that the reality is clearly opposed to your version.
 
So you argument hinges on the use of the words "high fidelity" in the title of the YouTube video? You choose to ignore the the actual paper where they discuss exactly what they did, and the range of errors?

https://www.metabunk.org/files/WTC-1_EP.pdf

It's just not accurate enough for you? This image:



Not close enough to this one?



Yes, the port wingtip does not seem to have made it through intact, but it did in the simulation, so that's what they showed.

Would you prefer they just keep tweaking the parameters until it matches exactly?

Not that it will really change anything, but I think "high fidelity" refers to the visual fidelity of the rendering, not the precise correlation of the end results of the simulation with history.

And yes, I consider the two images above to be a reasonable match.
 
Last edited:
So, what are we talking about here? Instead of ten tons of 'stronger-than-steel' aluminum alloy travelling at 550MPH we have in that area under discussion exactly no tons of anything because it didn't go through the perimeter.

You seem to be conveniently forgetting that the steel and the aluminium had certain proportions, maybe you don't know the aluminium skin on an aircraft is very thin and the steel perimeter of the wtc towers was quite thick. Are you trying to say that this thin skin is more robust than the steel it struck? Really, you should desist from trying to frame your argument in such terms. It's absurd.

You know perfectly well the that wing consists of far more than just a thin skin of aluminum. It IS several tons of stronger-than-steel aluminum alloy:



Are you claiming the actual impact seen on video was suspicious looking?
 
Last edited:
Here's a 2002 paper discussing the impact, with particular reference to the wing and the exterior columns:

https://www.metabunk.org/files/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf

They also discuss quite candidly the range of uncertainty involved.

The diameter of the plane is, in fact, largerthan the length between floors, but different interactions will take place based on the
orientation of the aircraft floors and wings with respect to the major axis of the external
columns of each Tower. The calculation used to determine plane E in this analysis takes these
two uncertainties into consideration and attempts to make up for this error contribution by
carefully superposing the energy dissipated through each step of the plane fragmentation and
fracture. The calculations are completed taking both deformable and rigid body mechanics
into account. Obvious rigid components, like the engines, weren’t considered deformable in
any part of the calculation. In the end, the lower bound on the energy expanded to distressing
the aircraft was found to be 962MJ plane E = .

The energy to be dissipated by the core structure is the difference between the total
energy introduced into the Towers kinetic E and the energies lost on damaging the exterior
columns, floors, and the aircraft itself. From Eq.(1) this energy was found to be
1630MJ core E = for the South Tower and 141MJ core E = for the North Tower. There are a lot
of uncertainties as to what happened to the core structure under such high energy input. One
could envisage partial damage (bending) of many columns or complete damage (severance) of
fewer columns. By the time the pile of debris from the airplane and floors the load on core
column would probably be much more distributed favoring severe bending rather than of core
columns cutting. It is estimated that 7 to 20 core columns were destroyed or severely bent in
the South Tower while only 4 to 12 core columns were ruptured in the North Tower.
Content from External Source
3.1 Modeling philosophy
In this engineering analysis, one must attempt to uncouple the problem of rigid vs. deformable
body mechanics with respect to the airplane impact. The impact process is obviously a definite
interaction between a very large stationary building and a small but fast moving airplane, both
of which undergo considerable deformation. In order to make this problem mathematically
tractable, some simplifying assumptions must be made. These assumptions essentially
uncouple the impact interactions and then superpose them analytically. First, the building is
treated as a rigid barrier and the airplane is considered deformable. Then the aircraft is treated
as a rigid flying object, but the impacted structure is deformable.
The interaction between the impacting and impacted components is considered by
monitoring the contact force and comparing the magnitudes of the forces required to
instantaneously deform one or the other. The body that requires less force to collapse is
treated as deformable, while the other is treated as rigid. This method was successfully used in
the analysis of a collision between two ships [18]. The aircraft impact problem occurs at a
much higher speed.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
So you argument hinges on the use of the words "high fidelity" in the title of the YouTube video?

You don't surprise me one bit.

Do you actually bother to read anything before you post what you feel you need to?

No, my argument hinges on the fact that Purdue got the fuel in the wrong places in the aircraft; that Purdue couldn't even get the number of the aircraft correct in their report - not once but twice with different incorrect numbers; that Purdue claim 'scientific accuracy' 'high quality' and 'high fidelity' when they are all demonstrably false; that Purdue rendered twelve (12) columns being damaged by the exit of the a/c debris in the North Tower when Nist says it was three (3) columns; that Purdue rendered in their supposedly 'high fidelity' (that means accurate, truthful, resembling reality) visualization of the event, eighteen (18) perimeter columns severed by the port wing, when it was ten (10) columns; that Purdue showed a part of that port wing destroying (1) core column when that part of the port wing was clearly obliterated by the impact with the perimeter.

You don't appear to have a very good track record of actually reading what your contributors actually say. But that's not the point, is it?
 
This 2008 paper by Ryan Mackey address many of the recent claims by Griffin. You might find it interesting, as Griffin's arguments resemble yours:

https://www.metabunk.org/files/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

Examples:

Dr. Griffin begins the section by asking the following: “How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings
have ever before or since completely collapsed due to fires?” [22] He then paraphrases
the NIST Report, noting that (as NIST correctly states) there are no previous incidents of
structures suffering a comparable aircraft impact followed by fires. While Dr. Griffin
agrees with this sentiment, he observes that this alone is not sufficient to explain how the
collapses took place.

While there may be no examples of high-rise office buildings completely collapsing due
to fire, it bears pointing out that there have been many steel-frame structure collapses due
solely to fires. The McCormick Place exhibition hall is one such example, which
collapsed in 1967 only 30 minutes after a small fire was accidentally started [23].
Another prominent example is the Mumbai High North Oil Platform [24], constructed of
steel and seven stories high, which completely collapsed after burning for two hours
following a shipping accident that ruptured oil lines. A third example, occurring after Dr.
Griffin’s manuscript was finalized, is the collapse of the Interstate 580 overpass in the
MacArthur Maze [25] near San Francisco. This overpass, supported only by steel beams,
suffered no impact but collapsed due to the heat of an 8,600 gallon gasoline fire, burning
in the open below, after nineteen minutes.

Because of incidents like these, the risk of collapse due to fire is well understood by the
construction industry. Richard Schulte in the International Code Council editorial
column Fire Protection made the argument, prior to the NIST investigation, that the fires
in the World Trade Center were vastly beyond any reasonable design criterion:
Content from External Source
Dr. Griffin’s examination of the wings individually is specious, for reasons that should be
obvious. He states without proof that the wings alone could not sever any core columns –
a point which was examined by NIST [33], and found to be true only if the wings were
first shattered and their fuel contents dispersed by the perimeter columns. In Finding 13
of NCSTAR1-2, NIST writes a similar finding regarding the perimeter columns,
demonstrating the difference between an empty wing section and a fuel-filled one:
Finding 13: Impact of an empty wing segment from approximately mid-span of the wing normal
to the exterior wall produced significant damage to the exterior columns but not complete failure.
Impact of the same wing section, but filled with fuel, resulted in extensive damage to the external
panels of the tower, including complete failure of the exterior columns.

Because the wings “could not destroy the core columns,” Dr. Griffin supposes they had
no effect at all, and dismisses them. He goes on to conclude that only a single core
column should have been severed, that being the one hit by the port engine. This is
clearly not the case. All of the parts of the aircraft, including the fuselage which he has
completely neglected, contribute to damage inflicted on the core. His argument is akin to
stating that because a single sheet of paper dropped on one’s head will not hurt, it is
impossible for a truckload of paper to inflict any damage. In point of fact, since from the
above we know that fuel itself is responsible for much of the impact damage, it is
perfectly reasonable to expect all the tiny fragments of airplane, broken up by the
perimeter columns, to contribute to one massive aggregate impact, and this impact as we
saw previously has enough energy to destroy all of the core columns. The only reason it
doesn’t is because the impact is not 100% efficient, and does not only impact the core.


We can demonstrate the actual impact effect by considering another building impact,
namely that at the Pentagon. Study of the American 77 impact into the Pentagon
confirms that the majority of damage to interior columns is not caused by large
fragments, but rather by a blast phenomenon made up of the fast-moving, heterogeneous
cloud of aircraft pieces, fuel, and parts of the building exterior. While the Pentagon was
constructed quite differently from the WTC Towers, it was hit by a similar aircraft at a
similar speed. More importantly, the Pentagon did not totally collapse, and unlike the
WTC Towers, nearly all of the columns and floor slabs that were hit could be found and
examined afterwards to determine how they failed. Thus we know what happened at the
point of impact directly, rather than relying upon simulation.
Content from External Source
And again we have an honest discussion about the range of uncertainties in modeling and simulation.

Finally, we examine the variation in NIST’s impact cases. For both WTC 1 and WTC 2, NIST ran three different impact cases – a baseline, a less severe case, and a more severe
case. However, this was not done, as Dr. Griffin claims, to fudge the results. This is
because the inputs to the model are imprecisely known. Tables 7-3 and 7-8 in
NCSTAR1-2 show the model inputs, including the speed and angle of the aircraft, and
the material strength of the aircraft and the building interior. Aircraft data values are
derived from analysis of videos, since both Flight Data Recorders were completely
destroyed, and this method is subject to significant uncertainty. In like fashion, the
building contents and aircraft materials all vary in composition, and there is some
uncertainty in estimating an average factor for all of the materials. NIST ran three cases
because it needed to see how sensitive its models were to the input conditions. It is
important to note that at this stage of the investigation, all of these inputs are completely
reasonable – the “more severe” case is effectively the one-sigma upper bound, while the
“less severe” case is the one-sigma lower bound, meaning these inputs are all within the
accuracy of measurements.

NIST did not, as Dr. Griffin states, select the “more severe” cases because those and only
those led to collapse. This is totally false. Each simulation produced a number of
outputs, some of which – like the damage to core columns – could not be estimated from
photographs and videos of the event, but others could be compared to additional evidence
directly. NIST describes its selection criteria in brief in NCSTAR1-2, page lxxiii:

The less severe damage case did not meet two key observables: (1) no aircraft debris was
calculated to exit the side opposite to impact and most of the debris was stopped prior to reaching
that side, in contradiction to what was observed in photographs and videos of the impact event and
(2) The subsequent structural response analyses of the damaged towers indicated that the towers
would not have collapsed had the less severe damage results been used.

Dr. Griffin is fixating on the second criterion, but completely ignores the first. He also
ignores the more detailed selection criteria presented on pages 267-291 of NCSTAR1-2:

The observable evidence available to help validate the global impact analyses included the following:
 Damage to the building exterior documented by photographic evidence
 Floor damage visible from the building exterior documented by photographic evidence
 Aircraft debris external to the towers as documented by photographic evidence
 Eyewitness accounts from survivors who were inside portions of the building.

Another observable was that each tower remained standing after sustaining the impact-induced
structural damage. Analyses of the structural response of the damaged towers immediately after
impact, presented in NIST NCSTAR1-6, showed that this observable was met for both towers.
In short, Dr. Griffin’s claim, that NIST selected the most severe case solely in order to
guarantee a collapse, is wrong. The base case also would have led to a collapse.
Furthermore, while we do not have photographic or eyewitness evidence of the state of
the core columns for either impact, we have a litany of other evidence that was found to
best match the “more severe” cases.


Additionally, it is not entirely clear that, even had the less severe impact conditions
applied, the structures would have survived. NIST did a preliminary assessment that
reached this conclusion, as remarked above, but a competing analysis by Dr. Usmani et
al. at the University of Edinburgh [35], suggests that even if the impact damage was
negligible, the fires would have destroyed the Towers
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
Oh, and let's not forget that Purdue got their money from the Dept of Homeland Security for delivering the goods - and that the head of the Uni was given a seat on the board of SAIC, a military contractor with strong ties to NIST. But you don't want to talk about that, do you? It's all so cosy, ain't it?

What were the floors in the towers made with?
 
You don't surprise me one bit.

Do you actually bother to read anything before you post what you feel you need to?

No, my argument hinges on the fact that Purdue got the fuel in the wrong places in the aircraft; that Purdue couldn't even get the number of the aircraft correct in their report - not once but twice with different incorrect numbers; that Purdue claim 'scientific accuracy' 'high quality' and 'high fidelity' when they are all demonstrably false; that Purdue rendered twelve (12) columns being damaged by the exit of the a/c debris in the North Tower when Nist says it was three (3) columns; that Purdue rendered in their supposedly 'high fidelity' (that means accurate, truthful, resembling reality) visualization of the event, eighteen (18) perimeter columns severed by the port wing, when it was ten (10) columns; that Purdue showed a part of that port wing destroying (1) core column when that part of the port wing was clearly obliterated by the impact with the perimeter.

You don't appear to have a very good track record of actually reading what your contributors actually say. But that's not the point, is it?

Of course I read what you say. I just disagree with your conclusions.

You note several inaccuracies in the simulation. You then claim that the entire things is a fake, a forgery.

I respond that simulations have a range of uncertainty, and that this has been quite honestly discussed by everyone involved. This does not indicates the simulation is a forgery, it indicates the simulation should be expected to NOT exactly match the observable results.

You take the word "fidelity" and claim this means they are claiming the simulation represents exactly what happened. This is clearly and blatantly wrong, as they go to great lengths to describe the range of uncertainty. So really your argument IS hinged upon this word.
 
Oh, and let's not forget that Purdue got their money from the Dept of Homeland Security for delivering the goods - and that the head of the Uni was given a seat on the board of SAIC, a military contractor with strong ties to NIST. But you don't want to talk about that,do you? It's all so cosy, ain't it?

Let's talk about that then. You imply the simulation is part of some kind of deliberate cover-up. That it contains deliberate falsifications. That would mean that the following real people would be part of this conspiracy:



Is that your suggestion? If not, then what? Did someone tweak the results, and the above people simply not notice it?

And I'm still a little bamboozled as to WHAT you think is being covered up? What do you think an "accurate" simulation would show? Fewer exterior columns broken? Is that the cover up?
 
And this? Yes I've read it. I think it's a very reasonable account of what happened that day. And I thought you were dedicated to the truth! So, to clarify, is it ok to continue to name at least six guys (named in the report) as the perpetrators when it has been shown they are still alive?

So where exactly in the Nist report did it refer to the hi-jackers?

Then this from another contributor:

Mick: "Yes I've read it. I think it's a very reasonable account of what happened that day."

I must say that I'm pretty disappointed to read a statement like this here. You think it's a reasonable account even though we know they didn't consider building 7, that some of the testimony was obtained using torture, that Bush wouldn't testify alone or under oath, that some of the testimony was destroyed, that numerous commission members including the Senior Council have concluded that their own report is based on government lies? That the largest crime scene in American history was immediately cleaned-up instead of roped off and guarded so they could perform a thorough investigation? The examples of cover-up are many, which begs the question: what exactly are they covering up and why? I have my personal suspicions, but I don't know exactly what happened. All I know is there is a cover-up on some level and we have not been told the complete truth. Whether that truth shows that "9/11 was an inside job" or that our government was simply completely inept, in the end the truth needs to come out.
Clearly relating to the 911 Commission Report

and:
...you don't mind that evidence was garnered from torture; that senior members of the Report you said was a fair reflection of what happened, say it was based on govt lies; that Bush (or Cheney) refused to testify under oath or separately; you don't mind that the crime scene was destroyed. Presumably too, you don't mind that the perpetrators were named and found guilty without a proper investigation and within hours of the attacks taking place?
And again

And here you are on Newton's ('irrelevant', according to you - except when you feel like it might help your argument, yes?) third law of motion:

Originally Posted by lee h oswald

...what would happen if the building was moving forward at 1mph and it struck the static plane? Which item would have more force acting upon it?

Mick:
Impact forces are symmetrical, action and reaction. Newton's third law.

And here's another...

Let's not forget that this is the same Mick who says of the 9/11 Commission Report that it is 'A very reasonable account of what happened'

So, do you know how Purdue spent the Homeland Security Institute grant they received after producing this fiction? Or don't you want to talk about that?

And Le Mick's response to that was:

I don't want to talk about it

And then:
Remembering that this thread is titled 9-11 an Inside Job? And given that you are on the record here as saying that the 9/11 Commission report is a fair account of what happened that day (indicating that you agree with the regime's version of events) then perhaps you might show me the evidence for that position
and the very next post from Le Mick:
My evidence for it is the lack of evidence against it.

The report contains what appears to be a physically accurate description of what happened

Ooh la la!


And:
Building 7 wtc wasn't even mentioned in the Commission report - so how can you say that it's a reasonable account of what happened?

Again and again...Le Mick then says:
I mean that the things that the commission report says are reasonable. The NIST reports give more details, and includes WTC 7 in considerable depth.

I could go on for hours demonstrating that you are a....what exactly? There are loads more examples of references to the 911 Commission Report and loads more references to you responding on them in that authoritative way you like to project. This compilation shows that you are full of hot air. All you need to do is look at this fabrication:

in post no. 486 in this very thread -
So to be very clear, when I said:

Originally Posted by Mick
Yes I've read it. I think it's a very reasonable account of what happened that day.



I was referring to the NIST report. NCSTAR1. I have not read the 9/11 commission report. I do not know how well it reflects the truth of what happened

and compare it to the rest of the correspondence. What can be concluded from this?

1) You are mistaken

2) You don't read what you reply to (tenuous, that one)

3) You are a liar

Which is it, mate?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You take the word "fidelity" and claim this means they are claiming the simulation represents exactly what happened. This is clearly and blatantly wrong, as they go to great lengths to describe the range of uncertainty. So really your argument IS hinged upon this word.


And your argument is based upon weasel words and misrepresentations and it is clearly and blatantly wrong. You can't even tell the truth about what you have and haven't read. Don't lecture me from such a position - you're dangling pal.
 
I was mistaken. I confused the NIST report, which I had read, with the 9/11 commission report, which I had not read, but I was aware that it described the events of the day. During my conversation with you I've obviously continued to confuse them. But I think we've sorted that out now?


And I'm sorry I've not been able to communicate the applicability of Newton's laws very well. But it's a complex topic that is easy to oversimplify. I'd be happy to continue to try to explain, but I sense you are not really interested.
 
You seem to be conveniently forgetting that the steel and the aluminium had certain proportions, maybe you don't know the aluminium skin on an aircraft is very thin and the steel perimeter of the wtc towers was quite thick. Are you trying to say that this thin skin is more robust than the steel it struck? Really, you should desist from trying to frame your argument in such terms. It's absurd.

For interest, I'll change your quote to read....
You seem to be conveniently forgetting that the airplane skin and a bird's body had certain proportions, maybe you don't know the bird's body is very soft and the plane's aluminum skin of the plane is quite robust. Are you trying to say that the bird's flesh is more robust than the plane it struck? Really, you should desist from trying to frame your argument in such terms. It's absurd.

....yet birds do poke holes in aircraft.
 
And your agument is based upon weasel words and misrepresentations and it is clearly and blatantly wrong. You can't even tell the truth about what you have and haven't read. Don't lecture me from such a position - you're dangling pal.

I'm attempting to be entirely honest, and to communicate clearly. I'm sorry that I have not always succeeded.

I genuinely think that Purdue simulation is a good faith attempt, and comes quite close to reflecting the observed results. I genuinely think your objections are essentially ones of semantics. Nobody disputes any of the discrepancies you pointed out. You are asserting that this means the simulation is fake, but since it's all within an expected range of errors, and it's all been openly discussed, then what is fake? The use of the word "fidelity" or "accuracy" being misleading? Misleading from WHAT? What is being covered up? What would a "real" simulation show?
 
And I'm sorry I've not been able to communicate the applicability of Newton's laws very well. But it's a complex topic that is easy to oversimplify. I'd be happy to continue to try to explain, but I sense you are not really interested.

That you think I require an explanation of Newton's laws from you is beyond belief. I am fully up to speed with all that....if only you knew. Quit with this false integrity nonsense, it's quite painful.
 
What were the floors in the towers made with?

Was there something left unsaid in our long discussion on this topic? I though we resolved they were lightweight concrete with a steel reinforcing mesh, laid over corrugated steel, on the steel trusses.
 
That you think I require an explanation of Newton's laws from you is beyond belief. I am fully up to speed with all that....if only you knew. Quit with this false integrity nonsense, it's quite painful.

It's not false. This is who I am.

The problem with Newton's laws was that you said they had been violated. I explained, quoting Wikipedia, that Newton's laws applied to point masses, and not to describing the interaction of complex articulated rigid and deformable bodies. What you describe as a violation (presumably the lack of visible deceleration and deformation of the plane) was NOT a violation, because the law still works at the point-mass scale - and in the abstract sense in the total sum of forces in the system - but what happened, in reality and in the simulation, did not break any laws.

I'd be happy to hear more about your experience with Newtons laws, as it would aid communication.
 
And what happens when a bird hits a steel and concrete structure at 500mph? I would just stfu if I was you

I think you understand my analogy..."bird soft/aluminum hard"....."aluminum soft/steel hard"......both poke through.


(edited recently)....(aluminum (or composite) corrugated panel in this case.....even stronger than just plain Al skin.)
 





And you say what? The wing has broken several exterior columns, but still seems to be intact (indeed, it kind of has to be, if the columns broke, then the wing did not).

So if the wing broke then the columns did not? Right? How could it still have enough momentum and mass to sever a core column? Where did this part of the wing go? I can't see any embedded in the building - can you?


What happened to this section of the wing?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And what happens when a bird hits a steel and concrete structure at 500mph? I would just stfu if I was you

Or more relevantly, what happens when a hundred tons of a material that is stronger than steel, backed by several tons of fuel and cargo, hits that structure at 500 mph.

Really, what do you think would happen? Do you think the exterior columns would not break? Would the plane slow down more? Do you think there would be some visible crinkling of the skin of the plane outside the building? What's the discrepancy? You keep saying it's wrong, so what would be right?
 
What happened to this section of the wing?

Hard to say, but there were no reports of it falling to the ground, so presumably it ended up inside the building. Either it was segmented by the columns and ended up in chunks, or it bent around and was pulled in with the rest of the plane. Or a combination. The displacement of column coverings to the right seems to suggest some movement of the wing in that direction, which makes sense.

Obviously it did not act as in the simulation, so it would not have severed a core column in the manner shown. The fragments probably caused some damage though.
 
Was there something left unsaid in our long discussion on this topic? I though we resolved they were lightweight concrete with a steel reinforcing mesh, laid over corrugated steel, on the steel trusses.

The point was that you were labouring under the false assumption, for eleven years presumably, that the floors were not RC. What other false assumptions are you labouring under? And do you even give a shit if they're false or not? It appears that you do not. It wouldn't matter if you thought the towers were made of jelly. You're sticking to the mantra.

It's pretty clear that there are a lot of questions surrounding the events of 911 that have not been adequately answered. You, however, have a belief. And yes, it is akin to a religious belief because it is based on faith and not on verifiable information. That your belief happens to coincide with almost all the official versions of the event is apparent. Couple to that your outright refusal to take into account the wider aspects (political, strategic etc.) and you have a recipe for self-delusion. I hope that one day you will overcome this impediment and allow the whole into your view. I doubt that will happen as you appear deeply entrenched, but one can only hope. If it happens, then I hope that it is not so much of a shock to your belief system that you suffer too much as a result.
 
And what happens when a bird hits a steel and concrete structure at 500mph? I would just stfu if I was you

If the bird was 270,000 pounds traveling at 500 mph with it's blood as fuel.....it would do a lot of damage.
But these are secondary assumptions....and not provable....nor known or testable.
Enjoy your discussion.
:)
 
The point was that you were labouring under the false assumption, for eleven years presumably, that the floors were not RC. What other false assumptions are you labouring under? And do you even give a shit if they're false or not? It appears that you do not. It wouldn't matter if you thought the towers were made of jelly. You're sticking to the mantra.

No, I deeply care about getting things right. I was a bit annoyed that the floor were reinforced, but I don't think it makes much difference to the end results.

I try to stick to facts, not mantra. The NIST report seems factually very reasonably to me. You've brought up some issues, but I don't think you've demonstrated that the official story is wrong, or even improbable. Indeed the story of impact plus fires then collapse seems to match the observable evidence very well, and you offer no real argument that it does not, and you offer no alternative explanation.

It's pretty clear that there are a lot of questions surrounding the events of 911 that have not been adequately answered. You, however, have a belief. And yes, it is akin to a religious belief because it is based on faith and not on verifiable information. That your belief happens to coincide with almost all the official versions of the event is apparent. Couple to that your outright refusal to take into account the wider aspects (political, strategic etc.) and you have a recipe for self-delusion. I hope that one day you will overcome this impediment and allow the whole into your view. I doubt that will happen as you appear deeply entrenched, but one can only hope. If it happens, then I hope that it is not so much of a shock to your belief system that you suffer too much as a result.

I focus on the actual events because they are tangible things that can be observed and modeled. You are claiming there are problems, I attempt to demonstrate if you are right or wrong.

I'm quite willing to look at the bigger picture, but in this case it does not really help. There is NO EVIDENCE of controlled demolition. So what would looking at the big picture tell us? You are arguing that the plane and fires would not have brought down the building. I'm arguing that it's quite plausible that it did. That's all.
 
No.

But thank you for agreeing with my point.

I am confused about why you then contradict yourself with this silly argument about whether or not aluminium can break steel??

Point?

I am confused about why you then contradict yourself with this silly argument about whether or not aluminium can break steel??

Yet another straw man from you - do you have any other method of argument? Explain what is confusing. Where have I contradicted myself? What 'silly argument about whether or not aluminium can break steel'? Please elucidate.

Why don't we go through this one step at a time and try to clarify? I'm all ears.
 
No, I deeply care about getting things right. I was a bit annoyed that the floor were reinforced, but I don't think it makes much difference to the end results.

I try to stick to facts, not mantra. The NIST report seems factually very reasonably to me. You've brought up some issues, but I don't think you've demonstrated that the official story is wrong, or even improbable. Indeed the story of impact plus fires then collapse seems to match the observable evidence very well, and you offer no real argument that it does not, and you offer no alternative explanation.

I focus on the actual events because they are tangible things that can be observed and modeled. You are claiming there are problems, I attempt to demonstrate if you are right or wrong.

I'm quite willing to look at the bigger picture, but in this case it does not really help. There is NO EVIDENCE of controlled demolition. So what would looking at the big picture tell us? You are arguing that the plane and fires would not have brought down the building. I'm arguing that it's quite plausible that it did. That's all.

You were 'a bit annoyed' that the floors were RC? Well, I'm sorry about that.

What other false assumptions are you not aware of?

The NIST report is incomplete as they will not release the input data because, allegedly, it might 'jeopardize public safety'. It cannot be described as reasonable in those circumstances - the physical circumstances of its incomplete physical nature. The argument you offer is based, in large part, to comparisons of videos of controlled demolitions, but you see no problem there.


You focus on the acual events? Apart from the ones you ignore or attempt to re-frame to suit your argument, eg. hundreds of eyewitnesses reporting explosions, including Ray Downey, a senior firefighter and one reknowned as the foremost explosives expert on the NYFD at the time - and he was there. You say: No evidence, the mantra of the closed mind.

You say NO EVIDENCE (you even give it capital letters) when tests for explosives should obviously have been made as a routine part of the investigation given the context of 'terrorist attack' and three huge buildings demolished. Stick to the mantra. You're not arguing that 'it's quite plausible', you're denying any other hypothesis and refusing to take into account real physical evidence. Mantra.

There are many examples within these pages which show you are not - explicitly - willing to discuss all aspects, including 'actual events' like torturing confessions out of detainees. The list is long and getting longer.

You claim expert knowledge without having any. The very fact that you don't understand how the buildings were constructed tells anyone who reads this stuff that is indeed true. You're just another entrenched Faither who won't even look at critical evidence. Indeed, not only will you not look at it or discuss it - you deny it has any relevance. These are not the methods of someone interested in the truth; you've got your version and you're sticking with it. And it bears striking resemblance to the mantra that was begun within just a few hours of the attacks. Yes, this is a mantra, not a genuine attempt at the truth. QED
 
As another example of your method:

Throughout this exercise you present yourself as authoritative, knowledgeable; 'do the math', 'the basic physics'; and always willing to explore new information, to be proved wrong even. You claim the role of a true sceptic. But for about thirty five pages' worth of reference by me (maybe twenty times) to the tonnage of steel r/c in each tower; you never once challenged that; you never once bothered to go away and check if it was true or not; you never once did the calculation to show the differential between steel rc and just plain old concrete; you never bothered to check if it might make a difference, but you still claim it wouldn't. Is that even scientific?
 
You focus on the acual events? Apart from the ones you ignore or attempt to re-frame to suit your argument, eg. hundreds of eyewitnesses reporting explosions, including Ray Downey, a senior firefighter and one reknowned as the foremost explosives expert on the NYFD at the time - and he was there. You say: No evidence, the mantra of the closed mind.

The "sounds of explosions" issue IS something we've discussed. I even put together this video showing what actual controlled demolition explosions sound like - sound which do not appear on ANY of the videos of the collapse:



Here's audio of the collapse, no explosions:



And there are many things that would sound like explosions when close up - falling debris, exploding cars. But there was nothing recorded that sounded anything like an actual demolition with explosives. Just the sound of the building collapsing on itself, like verinage.

Downey did not report hearing explosions. That just comes from second hand testimony from a priest (John Delendick) who was with him:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110230.PDF

We heard a rumbling noise, and itappeared that that first tower, the south tower,
had exploded, the top of it. That's what I saw,
what a lot of us saw. We ran down underneath the
Financial Center.

Q. The garages behind you?
A. The garages.
We were followed by that cloud, that
dark black cloud. It was very difficult to
breathe, very difficult to see.
I stopped running or I stopped going
down when it leveled off. There was like a ramp
that went down, and I stopped at the bottom ramp
where it leveled off. Bill Feehan was next to
me. Ray Downey was over there too, because they
both started talking -- I knew it was them
because they were talking, so I knew.
I remember asking Ray Downey was it the
jet fuel that blew up. He said at that point he
thought there were bombs up there because it was
too even. As we've since learned, it was the jet
fuel that was dropping down that caused all this.
But he said it was too even.

Q. Symmetrical?
A. So his original thought was that he
thought it was a bomb up there as well.
Content from External Source
So his initial impression was that it was "too even", so must have been "a bomb". Delendick also said the tower "exploded". This is just people who saw the initiation of collapse from below, and then immediately ran to take cover. They saw LESS than we see now on the videos. The videos show a verinage style collapse, and the audio shows no explosions.
 
As another example of your method:

Throughout this exercise you present yourself as authoritative, knowledgeable; 'do the math', 'the basic physics'; and always willing to explore new information, to be proved wrong even. You claim the role of a true sceptic. But for about thirty five pages' worth of reference by me (maybe twenty times) to the tonnage of steel r/c in each tower; you never once challenged that; you never once bothered to go away and check if it was true or not; you never once did the calculation to show the differential between steel rc and just plain old concrete; you never bothered to check if it might make a difference, but you still claim it wouldn't. Is that even scientific?

You are talking about the thin (4 inches) concrete floors, which were on top of the trusses. The NIST study of those floors showed that when the trusses were heated to the point of failure, the floors sagged. NIST did their tests with the steel reinforcement in the concrete.

Of course it will "make a difference" to the calculations. But the basic point is that the floors still sag, they still pull the exterior columns inwards, transferring load to the damaged core, which collapses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top