9-11 an INSIDE JOB?

[lee h oswald]

So do you believe in it?

There you go again - another question answered with a question =- show me where I said it or admit it's a fabrication.

 

[lee h oswald]

You really are losing it. The above is likely why. Entrenched position = desperate argument. Are you really trying to convince yourself that nose cones and aluminium sheeting ('skin' as it is known with regard to aircraft) can do all that damage to steels?

The biggest problem with your video is that it started at the end and worked its way backwards. It's not the way to conduct a scientific endeavour. Starting with a result and conclusion and working back over the method until you get the desired result is, categorically, bad science. It's fraud. A 767 is 80% aluminium, a lot of that is in the form of sheets, 2-3mm thick; 14% steel; 6% other, If you watch the video again, at 1 minute to 1 minute 10 seconds it shows the aircraft entering the building by cutting through the steel outer columns with no deformation or visible damage to the nose, wings, tail, engines, fuselage; nothing. The steel outer perimeter is opened up like a sardine tin with no perceptible deceleration of the aircraft, nor damage to the same. Given the length of the aircraft and the depth of the buildings, the nose, wings and fuselage would have come into contact with the central core before the entire aircraft had 'entered' the building - and still no deceleration, crumpling? Do you think that this is possible?

Do you think that this is possible?

 

[Mick West]

From one minute to one minute ten seconds - the view of the plane is from outside the building. Are you suggesting that the nose broke through the steel columns and then became damaged? As shown in this still. Let's call a spade a spade - it's rubbish.

No, obviously it was damaged at the same time. The visualization does not show that particularly well, but then agin neither does the real-life video of the plane hitting the building.

The plane IS damaged exactly as you would expect - a small fraction of a second later it's entirely reduced to shreds. The visualization of this does also seem to lag behind the building damage. But I think that's just an artifact of the visualization.

 

[Mick West]

There you go again - another question answered with a question =- show me where I said it or admit it's a fabrication.

It's an assumption based on my recollection of your previous statements, and the consistency of your position with the majority of truthers who do not believe in the progressive collapse theory.

Do you believe in it?

 

[Mick West]

Do you think that this is possible?

There's plenty of crumpling. Plenty of damage. Try going through the video one frame at a time.

I've already explained the the oddness of the visualization comes from the limitation of finite element analysis.

 

[lee h oswald]

It did not decelerate or crumple? If it did not decelerate, then the aircraft would have continued out the other side of the building at the same speed.

More apparently deliberate obtuseness. I actually said this: If you watch the video again, at 1 minute to 1 minute 10 seconds it shows the aircraft entering the building by cutting through the steel outer columns with no deformation or visible damage to the nose, wings, tail, engines, fuselage; nothing. The steel outer perimeter is opened up like a sardine tin with no perceptible deceleration of the aircraft, nor damage to the same. Given the length of the aircraft and the depth of the buildings, the nose, wings and fuselage would have come into contact with the central core before the entire aircraft had 'entered' the building - and still no deceleration, crumpling? Do you think that this is possible?

According to your belief - and what this video expects us to believe, is that the aircraft only broke up and decelerated after entering the building in its entirety. It went through the facade as if it wasn't there. Do you think that is possible?

 

[lee h oswald]

There's plenty of crumpling. Plenty of damage. Try going through the video one frame at a time.

I've already explained the the oddness of the visualization comes from the limitation of finite element analysis.

No there is not - and that is plain for anyone to see. In the opening of the video, showing the aircraft entering the building from outside, there is no deformation of the aircraft as it slices through the steel outer perimeter. Are you saying there is? Show me where, from one minute to one minute ten seconds in that video - show us the damage

 

[lee h oswald]

There you go again - another question answered with a question =- show me where I said it or admit it's a fabrication.

So it's a fabrication?

 

[lee h oswald]

It's an assumption based on my recollection of your previous statements

It's an assumption. Is that a scientific method?

 

[lee h oswald]

The plane IS damaged exactly as you would expect - a small fraction of a second later it's entirely reduced to shreds.

really? So after being so damaged - a small fraction of a second later it's entirely reduced to shreds - how did it still have the mass and force available to destroy multiple core columns?

 

[lee h oswald]

It's an assumption

Which you presented as fact

 

[Mick West]

Really you are just complaining about artifacts of finite element analyses and the limitations of rendering that with simple polygons. We know the plane hit the building. We also know it looked like it just sank into it. Maybe you need to review what actually happened

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk

Particularly the clip at 3:50



That's what actually happened.

 

[firepilot]

No there is not - and that is plain for anyone to see. In the opening of the video, showing the aircraft entering the building from outside, there is no deformation of the aircraft as it slices through the steel outer perimeter. Are you saying there is? Show me where, from one minute to one minute ten seconds in that video - show us the damage

OKay, so tell us what you really think hit the WTC, if anything?

 

[lee h oswald]

So, you admit to multiple inaccuracies in the rendering of the simulation - so many, in fact, that the film should really come with a warning about all its shortcomings, not a title proclaiming its 'high quality', 'high fidelity' qualities. And after all these admissions of its erroneous nature you say: That's what actually happened.
Can't you see the problems inherent in this?

 

[Mick West]

"That's what actually happened. " is referring to the video of what actually happened.

The simulation shows what might have happened inside the building. From the outside the simulations and the videos look fairly similar.

 

[lee h oswald]

OKay, so tell us what you really think hit the WTC, if anything?

Is that 'okay' an indication that you agree that this is not a likely scenario? (That there was no deformation of the aircraft as it slices through the steel outer perimeter)

 

[lee h oswald]

"That's what actually happened. " is referring to the video of what actually happened.

The simulation shows what might have happened inside the building. From the outside the simulations and the videos look fairly similar.

I know. So: Can't you see the problems inherent in this?

 

[Mick West]

I know. So: Can't you see the problems inherent in this?

Why don't you explain it.

 

[lee h oswald]

Is it a plausible scenario?

 

[lee h oswald]

Why don't you explain it.

You've produced a mile of equivocation for this video until its validity is now surely, even to you, seriously questionable. But it looks just like what happened - is what you're reduced to saying. What does that say to you?

 

[Mick West]

That it's fairly accurate?

Would you expect it to differ from what happened?

I stand by everything I've said about the simulation video. It's a simulation of what might have happened inside the building.

 

[lee h oswald]

That it's fairly accurate?

Would you expect it to differ from what happened?

I stand by everything I've said about the simulation video. It's a simulation of what might have happened inside the building.

and outside

 

[lee h oswald]

really? So after being so damaged - a small fraction of a second later it's entirely reduced to shreds - how did it still have the mass and force available to destroy multiple core columns?

just like the video?

 

[lee h oswald]

It's an assumption based on my recollection of your previous statements, and the consistency of your position with the majority of truthers who do not believe in the progressive collapse theory.

Do you believe in it?

Lee does not even believe in progressive collapse by gravity alone.

is a bit different. Got to keep within realistic parameters.

 

[lee h oswald]

That it's fairly accurate?

Would you expect it to differ from what happened?

I stand by everything I've said about the simulation video.

Regarding the film, it shows [what seems to be - we have agreed this edit] several central columns being severed. I think it's quite possibly(sic) that that is not an accurate representation of what happened.

 

[lee h oswald]

This argument (steel vs aluminium) is pointless. No one knows the details of exactly what happened in the seconds following the impact of the planes.
What is known is that the buildings progressively collapsed starting from the impact floor, downwards (and not from some other level).
Clearly, either the impact or the fire compromised the building structure at that level such that the weight above could no longer be supported.

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?

 

[firepilot]

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?

So tell us exactly what you think happened. If you do not think a 767 hit the WTC, then what was it?

 

[lee h oswald]

So tell us exactly what you think happened. If you do not think a 767 hit the WTC, then what was it?

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?

 

[lee h oswald]

So tell us exactly what you think happened. If you do not think a 767 hit the WTC, then what was it?

I mean, presumably you're a pilot. Even if you haven't flown a large jet (and maybe you have), I reckon you'd have a good idea of what you might expect to see in such a collision. What would you expect to see?

 

[firepilot]

I mean, presumably you're a pilot. Even if you haven't flown a large jet (and maybe you have), I reckon you'd have a good idea of what you might expect to see in such a collision. What would you expect to see?

I do my best to avoid colliding into buildings.

Come on, I am sure you can tell us what you really think. The "I dont know" and "i am just asking questions" stuff is just for milquetoast beta types who are not real men. i am sure you have formulated an idea, tell us what you think happened.

 

[lee h oswald]

You know, this film expects us to believe that the steel failed in all cases of contact with the aircraft. 100% failure rate for the steel; 0% failure rate for the aircraft. Could this be right?

 

[lee h oswald]

I do my best to avoid colliding into buildings.

Come on, I am sure you can tell us what you really think. The "I dont know" and "i am just asking questions" stuff is just for milquetoast beta types who are not real men. i am sure you have formulated an idea, tell us what you think happened.

Good idea.

I am discussing with you what I really think. why won't you say what you think about my questions? Like: 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?

 

[firepilot]

You know, this film expects us to believe that the steel failed in all cases of contact with the aircraft. 100% failure rate for the steel; 0% failure rate for the aircraft. Could this be right?

Of course, since an intact 767 just went right through the other side, and kept flying on its merry way to its destination for landing, since apparently in your world, our arguments are exactly that.

 

[firepilot]

No visible deformation? Can you actually show us where that aircraft is now?

 

[lee h oswald]

Of course, since an intact 767 just went right through the other side, and kept flying on its merry way to its destination for landing, since apparently in your world, our arguments are exactly that.

Time waster? What do you think of action = -reaction?

 

[lee h oswald]

Here's a reminder of what we're talking about;

Originally Posted by firepilot

OKay, so tell us what you really think hit the WTC, if anything?

Is that 'okay' an indication that you agree that this is not a likely scenario? (That there was no deformation of the aircraft as it slices through the steel outer perimeter)

It's just that you seem to have deviated from the point - so you think it's likely or not likely?

 

[Mick West]

Are you saying there was no deformation as the actual plane flew into the building, or just in the simulation?

 

[firepilot]

Here's a reminder of what we're talking about;



It's just that you seem to have deviated from the point - so you think it's likely or not likely?

Nope, you said 0% failure for the aircraft, so therefore you think that it was intact.

Yes I think that a large aircraft, striking a structure like that, is going to be reduced to little pieces. And no, I do not think a plane going at 500 mph or so, is going to visible crumple along its length, like pressing a beer can into a wall. Nor is it going to slow like it was an naval fighter on an aircraft carrier, nor is it going to stick out like a dart in a dart board.

I am still sure you have some kind of idea of what you think actually happened, i would find it hard to believe that you have yet to come up with something, 10 years later. What are your thoughts on the other theories, such as mini nukes, holograms, cruise missiles, death rays, rigged charges in the building, that have been put forth?

 

[lee h oswald]

Nope, you said 0% failure for the aircraft, so therefore you think that it was intact.

Yes I think that a large aircraft, striking a structure like that, is going to be reduced to little pieces. And no, I do not think a plane going at 500 mph or so, is going to visible crumple along its length, like pressing a beer can into a wall. Nor is it going to slow like it was an naval fighter on an aircraft carrier, nor is it going to stick out like a dart in a dart board.

I am still sure you have some kind of idea of what you think actually happened, i would find it hard to believe that you have yet to come up with something, 10 years later. What are your thoughts on the other theories, such as mini nukes, holograms, cruise missiles, death rays, rigged charges in the building, that have been put forth?

Yes, ofcourse you're right. I thought the plane was still intact and landed in Disneyland.

You talk about a lot of things that would not happen and just one that would. That one is: large aircraft, reduced to little pieces.

Is that it? How do you know that there wouldn't be bits sticking out? How exactly is it reduced to little pieces? And when?

 

[firepilot]

an aircraft impacting anything head on at high speed, is going to leave barely anything more than little pieces, due to the immense amount of kinetic energy.

Well do you have video of bits sticking out? i have not seen any, unless you are going to come out and state that this was not an aircraft.
So again, tell us what really happened in your opinion. I still do not believe for a second that you have yet to develop your own theory of what happened.