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

[Leifer]

It is also worthy of note that the bolt connections of steels have a higher tensile strength than the steels themselves.

You are correct, but not in this case.
Explained...
The bolt connections were engineered to certain directional stresses....to hold up a building of many floors of downward pressure, and environmental stresses (wind, etc). They were not designed to withstand extreme horizontal forces....like an impact of an aircraft.

 

[Leifer]

I build a table of wood, with flimsy legs.
If subjected the table to heavy stress, yes, the joints will usually hold, but the wood legs will break mid-way......depends on the angle of stress.
Sometimes the legs will hold, and the joints will break. This is less common, but it will happen depending on the stress twist (holding power of a fibrous beam vs holding power of a joint)

 

[lee h oswald]

I build a table of wood, with flimsy legs.
If subjected the table to heavy stress, yes, the joints will usually hold, but the wood legs will break mid-way......depends on the angle of stress.
Sometimes the legs will hold, and the joints will break. This is less common, but it will happen depending on the stress twist (holding power of a fibrous beam vs holding power of a joint)

shhh...

 

[lee h oswald]

You are correct, but not in this case.
Explained...
The bolt connections were engineered to certain directional stresses....to hold up a building of many floors of downward pressure, and environmental stresses (wind, etc). They were not designed to withstand extreme horizontal forces....like an impact of an aircraft.

What's your source? Or, what's your sauce?

 

[lee h oswald]

can't you ban him just for being stupid? is that in the rules?

 

[lee h oswald]

What's your source? Or, what's your sauce?

what you think is bolognese might be milanese - all it takes is a mushroom - who would know? Cooking can be confusing though

 

[MikeC]

this is a fallacy. You need to think about how a column might be given a problem - where it is close to a junction with other steels which are tied to it via welding and bolts, you need to consider the amount of leverage a blow to that section might impart to the welds and the bolts and when you look at this in detail, you'll find that a blow to the centre of the column/beam would impart more energy on those couplings. It is also worthy of note that the bolt connections of steels have a higher tensile strength than the steels themselves. This is all easy to research.

That depends upon the bolts and the steel - there is no universal rule that it must be the case.

Even with stronger materials bolts have a much small cross sectional area than the items they are holding together - so are almost invariably weaker. and of course the holes in the substantive structure are weak points from which failure is more likely to arise than the main structure itself.

 

[Mick West]

No it isn't. Not after colliding with the perimeter. After that it is significantly reduced in mass - or into much smaller masses - by then it is also travelling at a slower speed due to the inconvenience of the perimeter columns.

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.

this is a fallacy. You need to think about how a column might be given a problem - where it is close to a junction with other steels which are tied to it via welding and bolts, you need to consider the amount of leverage a blow to that section might impart to the welds and the bolts and when you look at this in detail, you'll find that a blow to the centre of the column/beam would impart more energy on those couplings. It is also worthy of note that the bolt connections of steels have a higher tensile strength than the steels themselves. This is all easy to research.

I was thinking specifically of the shear force. What you describe sounds more like the bending moment. What was the actual connection at that junction?

One thing that struck me when looking at photos of the debris pile was just how clean the ends of the girders were, like they had just been popped apart like lego. Especially the exterior beams. But then you see a lot of bolt plates just ripped apart.

I agree that intuition is not necessarily the best metric here - but it is a useful one. I presume that you do not see the Purdue visualization as falsified? How would you sum up what I have so far shown?

You make a good point with the center fuel tank. But I don't think that would greatly change the overall picture. But the rest seems mostly to be niggling with the visual representation. I think you've got a bit of a hang-up on how the plane seems to sink into the building - like you seem to think there is something else going on - either a super plane, or something? But the simulation pretty much matches the videos.

 

[Leifer]

Devil's advocate....
The animation was created to match the videos.

 

[lee h oswald]

That depends upon the bolts and the steel - there is no universal rule that it must be the case.

Even with stronger materials bolts have a much small cross sectional area than the items they are holding together - so are almost invariably weaker. and of course the holes in the substantive structure are weak points from which failure is more likely to arise than the main structure itself.

That depends upon the bolts and the steel - there is no universal rule that it must be the case.

I think you know full well that the tensile strength of the bolts always exceeds the steels. How about inside engines? What about the tensile strength there?

Even with stronger materials bolts have a much small cross sectional area than the items they are holding together - so are almost invariably weaker.

that is not right. Those dimensions are much shorter and squatter than the elements they tie together - proportion/ratio of length to breadth is critical here, tensile strength also

and of course the holes in the substantive structure are weak points from which failure is more likely to arise than the main structure itself

here you have a point

 

[lee h oswald]

That depends upon the bolts and the steel - there is no universal rule that it must be the case.

Even with stronger materials bolts have a much small cross sectional area than the items they are holding together - so are almost invariably weaker. and of course the holes in the substantive structure are weak points from which failure is more likely to arise than the main structure itself.

Do you defend this visualization as scientifically accurate? High quality? High fidelity?

 

[Leifer]

Speaking for me.....I defend it as the most plausible explanation. I trust the hundreds of thousands of agreed engineers.
I go with the hundreds of thousands....and not the few critics.

If hundreds of thousands said you had a disease...but a few didn't agree.....who would you believe ?

I hope you would not want to agree with the few, just because it was what you wanted to hear.

 

[Mick West]

For the exterior columns, the mode of failure at the top/bottom of a column seems to have frequently been the bolts.


The design is mostly about vertical support, with relatively little lateral loading anticipating. You see here the bolts simply stretched and snapped, probably as the section above was pushed sideways by the falling weight from above. A relatively clean break.

But there were numerous modes of failure. The large box girders seem to often have cleanly broken away from the welded plates.

 

[lee h oswald]

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.



One thing that struck me when looking at photos of the debris pile was just how clean the ends of the girders were, like they had just been popped apart like lego. Especially the exterior beams. But then you see a lot of bolt plates just ripped apart.




You make a good point with the center fuel tank. But I don't think that would greatly change the overall picture. But the rest seems mostly to be niggling with the visual representation. I think you've got a bit of a hang-up on how the plane seems to sink into the building - like you seem to think there is something else going on - either a super plane, or something? But the simulation pretty much matches the videos.

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.

Dust? Not quite, but almost. Like I always said: after the a/c was split by the perimeter, how did it still have the mass required to do the significant damage to the core that is insinuated?

One thing that struck me when looking at photos of the debris pile was just how clean the ends of the girders were, like they had just been popped apart like lego. Especially the exterior beams. But then you see a lot of bolt plates just ripped apart.

Yes. Me too. Think about the violence required.

You make a good point with the center fuel tank. But I don't think that would greatly change the overall picture. But the rest seems mostly to be niggling with the visual representation. I think you've got a bit of a hang-up on how the plane seems to sink into the building - like you seem to think there is something else going on - either a super plane, or something? But the simulation pretty much matches the videos.

The visualization of the fuel is wrong. But ok, you think the rest is 'niggling' etc. I appeal to your intelligence one last time and ask, don't you feel there is something wrong?

I'm going to get to the meat of it shortly, but are you aware that the Purdue visualization, in its written report, refers to flight AA71 striking the North Tower? And later saying that AA77 struck the North Tower? Are you also aware that Purdue, in its report, states that 52 core columns were damaged where there are only 47? Are you aware that Purdue say that 12 perimeter columns were taken out of the south face of the North tower by the exiting a/c debris, when NIST says it was 3 columns?

 

[lee h oswald]

Speaking for me.....I defend it as the most plausible explanation. I trust the hundreds of thousands of agreed engineers.
I go with the hundreds of thousands....and not the few critics.

If hundreds of thousands said you had a disease...but a few didn't agree.....who would you believe ?

I hope you would not want to agree with the few, just because it was what you wanted to hear.

Fallacy. There are not hundreds of thousands of engineers speaking up for the official version - the vast majority of engineers, and everyone else, have not bothered to look at the evidence yet.

 

[Leifer]

Bolts and beams.....different metal ?
Or was it because there was "holes" where they met ?
(welds can make other areas more brittle)

 

[Leifer]

After 11 years....they have not bothered to look at the data ?
....so you blame it on "laziness" ?

 

[Leifer]

There are not hundreds of thousands of engineers speaking up for the official version - the vast majority of engineers, and everyone else, have not bothered to look at the evidence yet.

Here's what I think, you think.....
Just after 911, engineers decided to not look at the data, even though it could lead to more education.

It was a "pink elephant" in the room, and they did not want to embarrass themselves by investigating it.

....so everyone shut their mouths and ideas, for fear of a truth.
...so in our future, possibly every engineer of tall buildings, public facilities or want-to-be hardened structures will leave out anything from the 911 lesson.....because they have not examined it closely and because they were "afraid" to do so......

...really ?

 

[Mick West]

Dust? Not quite, but almost. Like I always said: after the a/c was split by the perimeter, how did it still have the mass required to do the significant damage to the core that is insinuated?

The mass of the plane does not change. So I think you are suggesting that it will be broken into individual pieces, which individually will have less mass each, but together weigh the same as the original plane.

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).

So it's still several tons of metal, and still travelling at several hundred mph.

Yes. Me too. Think about the violence required.

Yes, and I don't see how that violence could have been achieved with a series of small explosions. Controlled demolition uses shaped charges to cut the columns. It does seem perfectly in keeping with a Verinage type collapse.

The visualization of the fuel is wrong. But ok, you think the rest is 'niggling' etc. I appeal to your intelligence one last time and ask, don't you feel there is something wrong?

I'm going to get to the meat of it shortly, but are you aware that the Purdue visualization, in its written report, refers to flight AA71 striking the North Tower? And later saying that AA77 struck the North Tower? Are you also aware that Purdue, in its report, states that 52 core columns were damaged where there are only 47? Are you aware that Purdue say that 12 perimeter columns were taken out of the south face of the North tower by the exiting a/c debris, when NIST says it was 3 columns?

Yes, I've read Kevin Ryan's letter. It's idiotic. Claiming that getting the flight numbers wrong somehow indicates gross negligence - and somehow has some bearing on the numerical results. Then the claim that Purdue says that 52 columns were damaged is just .... Well, look at what Purdue actually says:

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

Damage to WTC-I core structural elements

There were forty-seven columns arranged in six column lines in the core structure of WTC-I.
Figure 6 shows the core columns as well as the perimeter columns on a typical floor plan. Figure
7 shows a perspective view of the columns and floor slab of the 95th story.
Because there is no observational information on the state of core structure after the aircraft
impact, computer simulations are used to estimate the damage sustained by the structural
elements in WTC-I core.
Table 1 lists the estimated number of heavily damaged core columns according to our final
simulation. However, it must be added that during the series of simulations performed, we found
the estimates to be very sensitive to model parameters such as failure strain of materials, to the
extent that in the heavily damaged stories 95 through 97, the number of damaged columns could
be as few as half the numbers listed in Table 1. This observation was not surprising given the
fact that simulation results reported by other researchers (see for example, NIST 2005 and
Omika et al. 2005) with regards to damage to the core columns are scattered over a wide range.
Table 2 lists the estimates for maximum number of destroyed core columns as reported by
various research groups.
From the results obtained at Purdue and elsewhere, it is evident that to determine by calculation
the exact number of columns damaged by the impact is beyond the technology currently
available to us. However, in our simulations, we observed that the heavy damage to the core
columns concentrated consistently at stories 95 through 97. This too should not be considered
surprising given the fact that the aircraft impacted the WTC-I tower at or very close to floor level
96 and that the airplane had the greatest concentration of mass close to its centerline.
Figure 8 shows the core columns in story 95 estimated to be heavily damaged or destroyed by
direct aircraft impact or airborne debris. Several beams in the region with heavy column damage
were estimated to be destroyed. However, in our simulations, no standing column was found to
have lost all of the beams attached to it. Core columns in story 95 were studied further to
estimate their behavior under thermal loads that ensued after the aircraft impact.

Content from External Source

That's 19. Not 52, and they note it could have been much less than 19, and that the simulation is sensitive to model parameter.

 

[lee h oswald]

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).

So it's still several tons of metal, and still travelling at several hundred mph.



...getting the flight numbers wrong somehow indicates gross negligence - and somehow has some bearing on the numerical results.


...the simulation is sensitive to model parameter.

So my last appeal to your intelligence is rejected with a digging in of your position...

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).

So it's still several tons of metal, and still travelling at several hundred mph.

Are you sure about that?

...getting the flight numbers wrong somehow indicates gross negligence - and somehow has some bearing on the numerical results.

Well, if they couldn't get those numbers right...

...the simulation is sensitive to model parameter.

Yes it is. And who input the parameters?

 

[Mick West]

Of course they could have fudged the numbers. But where's the evidence that they did? You think they made stupid mistakes to cover up their evil plan? Or are you suggesting they were just wrong?

Their numbers are in the ballpark with the other studies they cite, including NIST.

Perhaps time to take a step back, and look at what you seem to be implying. Dick Cheney can explain how it's all supposed to work. Relevant parts in bold.

...

WOLFOWITZ: Okay, fine. And what do we do with these hijackers?

CHENEY: We sit idly by while they plot to hijack a series of passenger jet planes and crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House.

WOLFOWITZ: And how do we get them to do that?

CHENEY: We just do. You see, we worked with these people back in the old mujahideen days in Afghanistan. So naturally we’re still thick as thieves with them.

FEITH: Oh, of course. So we get them to fly into these buildings. And the impact from the planes will bring down the World Trade Center.

CHENEY: No, Doug, dammit, you’re not following me. The impact from the planes most certainly won’t be sufficient to knock down the towers. We know this because we’ve privately conducted studies that show that the towers will easily be able to withstand impact by two jets loaded to the gills with jet fuel. That said, the jets will likely cause skyscraper fires hot enough to kill everyone above the point of impact; we’re going to have to assume, of course, that the exits from the higher floors to the lower floors will be mostly blocked after the collisions. So assuming we crash the planes about two-thirds of the way up each of the towers early on a business day, we’re looking at trapping and killing a good three, four, maybe even five thousand people on the upper floors.

FEITH: Fantastic. I love killing people in the finance industry. It’s too bad the people on the lower floors will get to escape.

CHENEY: It is too bad—especially since we’re going to blow up the rest of the building complex anyway.

FEITH: We are?

CHENEY: Yes. You see, the way I see it, our best course of action is to first crash planes into each of the towers, trapping and killing those thousands on the upper floors of each building. After the impact, of course, the people on the lower floors will find their way out of the building and onto the street, where they will achieve relative safety—at which point we’ll finally detonate the massive network of explosive charges we’ve secretly hidden in the buildings in the weeks and months prior to the attacks.

FEITH: Wait, why did we do that again?

CHENEY: Because the buildings wouldn’t have fallen down unless we did.

WOLFOWITZ: But why do we need the buildings to fall down?

CHENEY: Because the events of the day will be insufficiently horrifying and impactful without the building collapses.

FEITH: So why don’t we detonate the charges earlier, so that we can kill the people on the lower floors, too?

CHENEY: That’s a good question. At some point we have to sacrifice effect for believability. You see, if the planes crash into the buildings and the buildings collapse immediately, everyone will be suspicious and they’ll be onto the presence of the explosives. So what we have to do is let the planes crash into the building, give the jet fuel time to start fires that will “soften” the building core, and then we detonate the charges. Afterward, we’ll be able to argue that the fires coupled with the impact actually caused the buildings to collapse.

FEITH: Why will we be able to argue that? Didn’t our studies show that impact and fire alone wouldn’t have caused the buildings to collapse?

CHENEY: Those were our secret, far-more-advanced studies, done with secret, far-more-advanced military technology. The vast majority of the world’s civilian structural engineers, however, can be counted on after the incident to conclude that the buildings collapsed due to a combination of fire, impact, and the knocking off of fireproofing from the building beams.

FEITH: Why can they be counted on to conclude that?

CHENEY: Because that’s what our secret research shows their not-secret research will show! Jesus Christ, work with me on this, will you?

WOLFOWITZ: I think I get it. We crash the planes, kill everyone above the impact of the planes, let the people underneath the impact out to safety, then collapse the buildings about an hour or so later using the explosives that we pointlessly incurred months’ and weeks’ worth of career-and life-threatening risk to covertly plant in a building complex visited by hundreds of thousands of people every week.

CHENEY: Exactly! The actual deaths will mostly be caused by the planes. But we’ll incur the massive additional risk simply to destroy the building for effect, because it will look cool and scary on television.

FEITH: I’m still confused about the our-studies and their-studies thing.

CHENEY (sighing): What’s the matter, Doug?

FEITH: If we know the planes won’t collapse the buildings, isn’t it possible that other people after the accident will figure out that the planes didn’t collapse the buildings?

CHENEY: Yes. But those other people will be a tiny minority of mostly nonscientists who’ll deduce the whole plan by researching the matter on the Internet. But we can count on their groundbreaking, visionary research being ignored by the mainstream scientific community, which will continue to insist the planes caused the collapses.

FEITH: Why can we count on that?

CHENEY: Because the mainstream science community, like the whole of the corporate media, the Congress, the Democratic Party, even the mainstream leftist political opposition, will naturally be in either conscious or unconscious assent with our plan. Most scientists, you know, depend in some form or another on government funding. So they’ll be highly motivated to sign off on our dastardly mass-murder plot, since they know their salaries—some of these people make almost a hundred thousand a year, you know—ultimately depend on our ability to secure fifty billion additional barrels of oil per day by 2010 by fooling the population into invading Saddam Hussein’s secular Iraq by faking a terrorist attack against the World Trade Center at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals loyal to the Afghan-supported terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.

WOLFOWITZ: No, I get it, I really do. It all makes sense.


Taibbi, Matt (2008-05-06). The Great Derangement: A Terrifying True Story of War, Politics, and Religion at the Twilight of the American Empire (Kindle Locations 3459-3460). Spiegel & Grau. Kindle Edition.

Content from External Source

 

[lee h oswald]

That's 19. Not 52, and they note it could have been much less than 19, and that the simulation is sensitive to model parameter.

They got the fuel tanks wrong, they got the flight numbers wrong, they got the damage wrong....how many more wrongs do you need? Add up the numbers 1+1+16+14+17+3 and it's 52 - were they trying to present something in a particular way? And what of the other complaints about, say, Are you aware that Purdue say that 12 perimeter columns were taken out of the south face of the North tower by the exiting a/c debris, when NIST says it was 3 columns?

 

[lee h oswald]

Of course they could have fudged the numbers. But where's the evidence that they did? You think they made stupid mistakes to cover up their evil plan? Or are you suggesting they were just wrong?

Their numbers are in the ballpark with the other studies they cite, including NIST.

Perhaps time to take a step back, and look at what you seem to be implying. Dick Cheney can explain how it's all supposed to work. Relevant parts in bold.

...

WOLFOWITZ: Okay, fine. And what do we do with these hijackers?

CHENEY: We sit idly by while they plot to hijack a series of passenger jet planes and crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House.

WOLFOWITZ: And how do we get them to do that?

CHENEY: We just do. You see, we worked with these people back in the old mujahideen days in Afghanistan. So naturally we’re still thick as thieves with them.

FEITH: Oh, of course. So we get them to fly into these buildings. And the impact from the planes will bring down the World Trade Center.

CHENEY: No, Doug, dammit, you’re not following me. The impact from the planes most certainly won’t be sufficient to knock down the towers. We know this because we’ve privately conducted studies that show that the towers will easily be able to withstand impact by two jets loaded to the gills with jet fuel. That said, the jets will likely cause skyscraper fires hot enough to kill everyone above the point of impact; we’re going to have to assume, of course, that the exits from the higher floors to the lower floors will be mostly blocked after the collisions. So assuming we crash the planes about two-thirds of the way up each of the towers early on a business day, we’re looking at trapping and killing a good three, four, maybe even five thousand people on the upper floors.

FEITH: Fantastic. I love killing people in the finance industry. It’s too bad the people on the lower floors will get to escape.

CHENEY: It is too bad—especially since we’re going to blow up the rest of the building complex anyway.

FEITH: We are?

CHENEY: Yes. You see, the way I see it, our best course of action is to first crash planes into each of the towers, trapping and killing those thousands on the upper floors of each building. After the impact, of course, the people on the lower floors will find their way out of the building and onto the street, where they will achieve relative safety—at which point we’ll finally detonate the massive network of explosive charges we’ve secretly hidden in the buildings in the weeks and months prior to the attacks.

FEITH: Wait, why did we do that again?

CHENEY: Because the buildings wouldn’t have fallen down unless we did.

WOLFOWITZ: But why do we need the buildings to fall down?

CHENEY: Because the events of the day will be insufficiently horrifying and impactful without the building collapses.

FEITH: So why don’t we detonate the charges earlier, so that we can kill the people on the lower floors, too?

CHENEY: That’s a good question. At some point we have to sacrifice effect for believability. You see, if the planes crash into the buildings and the buildings collapse immediately, everyone will be suspicious and they’ll be onto the presence of the explosives. So what we have to do is let the planes crash into the building, give the jet fuel time to start fires that will “soften” the building core, and then we detonate the charges. Afterward, we’ll be able to argue that the fires coupled with the impact actually caused the buildings to collapse.

FEITH: Why will we be able to argue that? Didn’t our studies show that impact and fire alone wouldn’t have caused the buildings to collapse?

CHENEY: Those were our secret, far-more-advanced studies, done with secret, far-more-advanced military technology. The vast majority of the world’s civilian structural engineers, however, can be counted on after the incident to conclude that the buildings collapsed due to a combination of fire, impact, and the knocking off of fireproofing from the building beams.

FEITH: Why can they be counted on to conclude that?

CHENEY: Because that’s what our secret research shows their not-secret research will show! Jesus Christ, work with me on this, will you?

WOLFOWITZ: I think I get it. We crash the planes, kill everyone above the impact of the planes, let the people underneath the impact out to safety, then collapse the buildings about an hour or so later using the explosives that we pointlessly incurred months’ and weeks’ worth of career-and life-threatening risk to covertly plant in a building complex visited by hundreds of thousands of people every week.

CHENEY: Exactly! The actual deaths will mostly be caused by the planes. But we’ll incur the massive additional risk simply to destroy the building for effect, because it will look cool and scary on television.

FEITH: I’m still confused about the our-studies and their-studies thing.

CHENEY (sighing): What’s the matter, Doug?

FEITH: If we know the planes won’t collapse the buildings, isn’t it possible that other people after the accident will figure out that the planes didn’t collapse the buildings?

CHENEY: Yes. But those other people will be a tiny minority of mostly nonscientists who’ll deduce the whole plan by researching the matter on the Internet. But we can count on their groundbreaking, visionary research being ignored by the mainstream scientific community, which will continue to insist the planes caused the collapses.

FEITH: Why can we count on that?

CHENEY: Because the mainstream science community, like the whole of the corporate media, the Congress, the Democratic Party, even the mainstream leftist political opposition, will naturally be in either conscious or unconscious assent with our plan. Most scientists, you know, depend in some form or another on government funding. So they’ll be highly motivated to sign off on our dastardly mass-murder plot, since they know their salaries—some of these people make almost a hundred thousand a year, you know—ultimately depend on our ability to secure fifty billion additional barrels of oil per day by 2010 by fooling the population into invading Saddam Hussein’s secular Iraq by faking a terrorist attack against the World Trade Center at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals loyal to the Afghan-supported terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.

WOLFOWITZ: No, I get it, I really do. It all makes sense.


Taibbi, Matt (2008-05-06). The Great Derangement: A Terrifying True Story of War, Politics, and Religion at the Twilight of the American Empire (Kindle Locations 3459-3460). Spiegel & Grau. Kindle Edition.

Content from External Source

You've posted this before - it was rubbish then. And it's not Gonzo, even though it might like to think of itself...

 

[lee h oswald]

Here's the HD damage overlaid over the LD (low definition) image, so you can match the columns:



I think the damage beyond the 18th column is there in the LD version as well, there is some lighter grey material behind that shows through, but it's somewhat visible in this image:

ok. you've got about fifteen hours to work it out. bedtime

 

[Mick West]

They got the fuel tanks wrong, they got the flight numbers wrong, they got the damage wrong....how many more wrongs do you need? Add up the numbers 1+1+16+14+17+3 and it's 52 - were they trying to present something in a particular way? And what of the other complaints about, say, Are you aware that Purdue say that 12 perimeter columns were taken out of the south face of the North tower by the exiting a/c debris, when NIST says it was 3 columns?

I believe this was a good faith attempt at an accurate simulation. Are you saying they were BOTH incompetent fools and sophisticated forgers?

No, I don't think they were trying to present something in a particular way. I think that Kevin Ryan was though, very much so. Read his letter. It strains credulity to see it as anything other than pure spin. Now read the Purdue paper. It sounds like a reasoned discussion of the simulation, and the range of errors.

Can you quote this 12 vs. 3 problem? I can't seem to find it? Here's the simulation result:



Here's the best photo I could find of the South Face of WTC1



Hard to see how much damage there is. But could be quite a bit. The fires look pretty intense too.

This photo was taken a few seconds earlier, and by combining both photos you can see the true extent of the fires.

 

[Mick West]

ok. you've got about fifteen hours to work it out. bedtime

Work what out? If you can't just tell me what is wrong, I'm certainly not going to stare at an image and hope it comes to me what you might be thinking.

 

[lee h oswald]

Over the past few pages you have learned that the towers were by volume mostly reinforced concrete - something you apparently didn't know about the buildings, and a fact that I have referred to many times without you querying it. For eleven years you have gone on an incorrect assumption that they were not steel RC, while at the same time presenting yourself as some kind of authority. Does knowing that all the concrete in the towers was reinforced make any difference to your calculation of the whole? No, you don't even bat an eyelid.

When presented with a graphic shown to the world by the BBC


you initially stated that it was 'spectacularly and stupidly wrong', but then you go on to equivocate with this:

The original image comes from a rather inaccurate BBC story, obviously cobbled together just two days after the collapse. They use the term "melted" when "weakened" is really what they are talking about. BU they do describe it as a steel core with concrete covering, which is roughly accurate, but not the "reinforced concrete" the graphic artist ended up drawing.

I expect there are plenty of people who would still think this rendering accurate, given its origin. The fact is that no amount of equivocation can excuse this inaccuracy. The BBC is the largest news corporation in the world; it employs tens of thousands of people; they were presumably using all the resources at their disposal to cover what was the biggest 'story' for decades. Where was the journalistic integrity? Who provided this graphic? Who fact-checked it? Who made the decision to publish it? They had two full days and all the resources of the BBC to get this simple graphic right, and look what they put out. There are no excuses.

When it is pointed out to you that Purdue, in their visualization of the attack on the North Tower, of which they repeatedly claim 'high quality' 'high fidelity' 'scientifically accurate', got the fuel in the aircraft in the wrong places, you effectively say: So what?
The fact that they referred to AA77 and AA71 in the written report tells you it is amateurish, at best. And yes, if they can't get such basic, simple facts correct, then what doubt does that throw upon the methods and credibility of these 'experts'? If someone made those mistakes (and they weren't even subsequently picked up by fact-checking) in a report with my name on it, I would be furious. The person responsible would get short shrift. Like the BBC's effort, it is extremely unprofessional, and that is being kind. There are no excuses.

Ever since you produced this video as evidence, I have railed against it. I'd never seen it before you presented it. And the more I've looked and compared, the more I've seen it is wrong. I have tried to point this out, and the reasons why, but you have still been unable to see what is clear to anyone who would actually take the time to do a bit of cross-referencing and fact-checking.
Initially, my reaction to the video was based on knowledge of the materials involved and also intuition. A combination of knowledge and intuition can lead you to find that the makers of this fiction were awarded money by the DHS as a present for producing the goods. You can find that the head of the university at Purdue was given a seat on the board of SAIC, a military contractor with strong ties to NIST. You can find that all the claims the makers make about this film's 'fidelity' or 'high quality' or 'scientific accuracy' or being 'eloquent to the non-expert user' is just a load of words without any substance. It is quite simply not an accurate portrayal of the event it depicts.

You said this of Newton's laws on page 11 post no. 429 of this thread, and in regard to the events of 9/11

Newton's laws DO NOT APPLY HERE.

But a few months ago, in the closed thread 911 An Inside Job?, you said this in relation to this very same Purdue simulation we are discussing:

But the parameters, and the model, are all designed to be physically accurate. They are all designed to follow all of Newtons laws (and several other laws). The actual state of the building immediately after the crash will never be known. But we can create plausible models in simulation.

On your front page, you say this:

This does not mean you should avoid telling people they are wrong, simply that you be polite about it, and that you explain why they are wrong.

Well, I've tried to chivvy, lead, tell, plead and appeal to your intelligence to go and find that you are wrong about this Purdue simulation, and for all the reasons I've spoken about in many pages of discourse. I've tried to tell you why you're wrong and why it is wrong, but I have failed to get anywhere. You haven't moved your position a bit, and you probably won't.
Do you stand by Purdue's film as high quality, high fidelity, scientifically accurate?

I say it is at best grossly incompetent and/or negligent, at worst intentionally fraudulent. I say that it does not accurately reflect the event it claims to describe.

Ps - the other bit on your front page titled 'New Forum Posts' does not reflect the truth either - because none of my posts ever appear there - no matter how new. Funny that.

 

[Mick West]

The Purdue simulation is a good faith attempt at a simulation of the impact. I asked you back in October 2011 what you though was wrong with it, and you've only managed to demonstrate that the fuel distribution was inaccurate, and that the flight number was wrong.

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).

I don't think the results are any more accurate than Purdue does. They explain that there was a wide range of possible outcomes to the simulation, this visualization was just one of them. The point is not that it's an accurate record of what happened, but that it's a plausible rendering of what might possibly have happened.

Now you originally started out saying:

Further, on the structural part of the argument and that planes crashing into these buildings would have had the effect that ensued, for anyone interested in an experiment, it might be worth fashioning yourself a baseball bat from steel and concrete and a model aircraft from aluminium. You could even do this to scale if you're any good at model making. When done, hang the plane from a piece of string so it is static and at a good hitting height; now clobber the plane with the steel and concrete bat. Note the results. Now we need to repeat the experiment to see what will happen....but hang on, you say: the aircraft flew into the building, the building didn't hit the aircraft! So how can your experiment be valid? Well, thanks to Isaac Newton, we know that it doesn't matter which way around we do this experiment - the forces acting on each component in the experiment are the same - exactly the same. If you drive your car at 30mph and a bug flies at your windscreen at 40mph and the bug hits the windscreen, which exerts more force on the other component, the bug or the windscreen? The answer is neither - they are the same forces acting on both. You can change the speeds to whatever you want, even 0mph, and the answer is always the same - the force exerted on both components is the same. The question now is which item was designed to withstand that force, and the bug always loses out in this duel for it was not designed for such pressures. Going back to your repeat experiment - if you're going to need to remake one of your models after the first experiment, which one do you think is more likely to have been destroyed completely in the first - the steel and concrete bat or the aluminium plane?

and

What do think would happen if a quarter mile long, 300,000 tonne steel and concrete rectangle smacked a 13.5 tonne aluminium aircraft at 586mph? An hour later the wand would turn to dust in 15 seconds? What do you think?

Which seemed to imply that you thought that the actual collision and/or the simulated collision were not what they appeared to be, that there was something fundamentally wrong. I've repeatedly asked you to clarify what exactly you think is wrong with the simulation (or the actual impacts). But all you've come up with (finally, after several months) is that the fuel distribution was wrong (which would change the distribution of damage, but not the overall nature of it), and that there were some unfortunate typos, and you don't trust the people who did the simulation. You've also had me engage in column counting exercises and image overlays, and hinted that there was some purpose to them, but then just dropped it.

 

[Mick West]

You said this of Newton's laws on page 11 post no. 429 of this thread, and in regard to the events of 9/11

Newton's laws DO NOT APPLY HERE.

But a few months ago, in the closed thread 911 An Inside Job?, you said this in relation to this very same Purdue simulation we are discussing:

But the parameters, and the model, are all designed to be physically accurate. They are all designed to follow all of Newtons laws (and several other laws). The actual state of the building immediately after the crash will never be known. But we can create plausible models in simulation.

Newtons laws do not apply to the description of the collision of two deformable bodies, or even rigid bodies. They do apply in an abstract sense to the interaction of individual point-masses.

It originally brought this up, and explained it, with references, here:
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/3525

 

[lee h oswald]

The Purdue simulation is a good faith attempt at a simulation of the impact. I asked you back in October 2011 what you though was wrong with it, and you've only managed to demonstrate that the fuel distribution was inaccurate, and that the flight number was wrong.

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).

... The point is not that it's an accurate record of what happened, but that it's a plausible rendering of what might possibly have happened.




...seemed to imply that you thought that the actual collision and/or the simulated collision were not what they appeared to be, that there was something fundamentally wrong. I've repeatedly asked you to clarify what exactly you think is wrong with the simulation (or the actual impacts). But all you've come up with (finally, after several months) is that the fuel distribution was wrong (which would change the distribution of damage, but not the overall nature of it), and that there were some unfortunate typos, and you don't trust the people who did the simulation. You've also had me engage in column counting exercises and image overlays, and hinted that there was some purpose to them, but then just dropped it.

No, I haven't dropped it at all. You can do some more counting in a minute.

The Purdue simulation is a good faith attempt at a simulation of the impact. I asked you back in October 2011 what you though was wrong with it, and you've only managed to demonstrate that the fuel distribution was inaccurate, and that the flight number was wrong.

If anyone else on the other side of the argument produced such ragged and amateur detail in their report, you'd make a thread for it and head it with the word 'Debunked'. When Purdue make basic errors you excuse them as 'unfortunate', likewise the BBC, a question you refuse to address. I've tried to get you to find out for yourself. So you must need to be shown.

... it's a plausible rendering of what might possibly have happened.

No it is not.

...seemed to imply that you thought that the actual collision and/or the simulated collision were not what they appeared to be, that there was something fundamentally wrong.

I didn't seem to imply anything at all, saying things like: it's a preposterous load of garbage - doesn't sound like an implication to me, it sounds pretty straightforward.

 

[Mick West]

When Purdue make basic errors you excuse them as 'unfortunate',

I'm not excusing it. But getting the flight number wrong does not change the physics. Getting the fuel distribution wrong does, but not a lot.

likewise the BBC, a question you refuse to address.

What was the question? I said they were wrong, and I though it was because they did the story in a hurry.

I didn't seem to imply anything at all, saying things like: it's a preposterous load of garbage - doesn't sound like an implication to me, it sounds pretty straightforward.

I await your explanation of why it's a load of garbage. I understand your frustration, but I'm being entirely honest here. I genuinely think the simulation is a reasonable simulation, and I don't agree with your arguments about how the plane should have turned into harmless dust upon impact because of it being soft as shite, and steel being nails.

No, it's critical. Aluminium is soft as shite and steel is nails. When shite and nails collide it's not nails scattered everywhere - it's shite. The argument goes far deeper than what you are talking about. This is about the veracity of sources claiming to be neutral and scientific. This is about Principia. Isaac Newton. Laws of the physical universe. If you crashed your motor into a r/c wall at 500mph full on, what would happen to it? Would it pass through and then fall apart?

I also do not agree that there's a suspicious lack of deceleration or deformation:

I think I already said that I'm not sure. Do you agree with the things I'm saying about steel, r/c, aluminium, Newton? Do you think it's likely that a wide bodied aircraft could punch through a steel and r/c building with no deceleration or visible deformation?

I think you are on the wrong side of math and physics in this argument.

 

[lee h oswald]

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).

VS

...you thought that the actual collision and/or the simulated collision were not what they appeared to be, that there was something fundamentally wrong.

Yes

 

[lee h oswald]

I'm not excusing it. But getting the flight number wrong does not change the physics. Getting the fuel distribution wrong does, but not a lot.


What was the question? I said they were wrong, and I though it was because they did the story in a hurry.



I await your explanation of why it's a load of garbage. ... I genuinely think the simulation is a reasonable simulation, and I don't agree with your arguments about how the plane should have turned into harmless dust upon impact because of it being soft as shite, and steel being nails.


I think you are on the wrong side of math and physics in this argument.

your arguments about how the plane should have turned into harmless dust upon impact

There you go misrepresenting what I've said - again. Where did I make that argument again?

I like the 'shite and nails' - is that the best you can do out of forty odd pages?

I think you are on the wrong side of math and physics in this argument

I know you are on the wrong side of reality with yours

 

[Mick West]

your arguments about how the plane should have turned into harmless dust upon impact

There you go misrepresenting what I've said - again. Where did I make that argument again?

Sorry I misread something. You never said the plane would turn to dust. You have said though that the plane's mass would be reduced. You seem to have at least implied that that you think the majority of the kinetic energy of the plane was absorbed by the initial impact with the exterior, leaving not enough to do much damage to the core.

How much kinetic energy do you think was absorbed by the puncturing of the exterior? How much was left?

 

[lee h oswald]

Sorry I misread something. You never said the plane would turn to dust. You have said though that the plane's mass would be reduced. You seem to have at least implied that that you think the majority of the kinetic energy of the plane was absorbed by the initial impact with the exterior, leaving not enough to do much damage to the core.

How much kinetic energy do you think was absorbed by the puncturing of the exterior? How much was left?

Thank you for clarifying. Let's forget about KE for now, and look at the meat of it.

These first two images are stills from the Purdue simulation. It clearly shows the port wing has severed all the columns in its path. It then goes on, according to Purdue, to sever a core column as shown in previous stills.

Originally Posted by Mick

Here's the HD damage overlaid over the LD (low definition) image, so you can match the columns:



I think the damage beyond the 18th column is there in the LD version as well, there is some lighter grey material behind that shows through, but it's somewhat visible in this image:

The reality of what actually happened in relation to the port wing of AA11 striking the North Tower is available to anyone who cares to look at NIST's NCSTAR 1-5A
Out of the eighteen columns severed by the port wing in Purdue's simulation, in the real world, eight of those are still clearly intact.





The reality of it is clear and shocking. Purdue got it spectacularly wrong, and in the face of readily available evidence. How could that happen given the resources at Purdue's disposal? Surely they had access to NIST's report? Surely they had a computer? They cite it, so they must have.

It is clear, after a bit of cross-referencing and fact-checking that Purdue's simulation is grossly inaccurate; not a plausible rendering of what could have happened at all; not an adequate reflection of the reality of the event it claims to portray, but a disastrously flawed piece of fiction. And that is me being very polite. In short: it's a fucking disgrace.

 

[Mick West]

It's a simulation. They ran the simulation, they rendered the results that came out of one version of it. It was similar to what actually happened, but not the same.

I'm sure you would be vastly more suspicious if it EXACTLY reflected what happened. They seem instead to be perfectly honest about what is going on. They talk in their report about the range of outcomes based on different parameters. They also discuss how other researchers found a wide range of outcomes from their simulations.

However, it must be added that during the series of simulations performed, we found
the estimates to be very sensitive to model parameters such as failure strain of materials, to the
extent that in the heavily damaged stories 95 through 97, the number of damaged columns could
be as few as half the numbers listed in Table 1. This observation was not surprising given the
fact that simulation results reported by other researchers (see for example, NIST 2005 and
Omika et al. 2005) with regards to damage to the core columns are scattered over a wide range.

Content from External Source

It's a solid simulation that overall matches what happened. You are complaining that it does not EXACTLY match what happened, but nobody ever claimed such a thing.

 

[lee h oswald]

It's a simulation. They ran the simulation, they rendered the results that came out of one version of it. It was similar to what actually happened, but not the same.


It's a solid simulation that overall matches what happened. You are complaining that it does not EXACTLY match what happened, but nobody ever claimed such a thing.

What a load of tripe. I can't believe you're defending this. Who pays your wages?

A solid simulation? Bollocks. It's a fabrication and you know it.

 

[lee h oswald]

It's a solid simulation that overall matches what happened

Really? No it isn't. You claim it as physically accurate and plausible - it's not, you must have an eyesight problem. Not unless you count a 45% margin of error as scientifically accurate. 8 out of 18 columns did not break - Purdue released in their final cut that all 18 broke. It's fiction - and so are you.

 

[lee h oswald]

It's a solid simulation that overall matches what happened.

On what basis do you claim that it overall matches what happened

 

[Mick West]

On what basis do you claim that it overall matches what happened

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.