9-11 an INSIDE JOB?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I must admit to being on the verge of dropping this topic. I've always tried to stay away from 9/11 in the past, as it's such a black hole. For example, this thread back from 2006 went on for nearly a thousand pages:

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=0

It's a seductive topic for a debunker to get in to, because there's so much bunk in it. But it's a many headed hydra - the people who still believe the planes did not bring down the building are the ones who have evolved their thought processes and their arguments to basically become invulnerable to reason.

Lee, it would seem you arguments all boil down to "but the steel beams are so big and strong, nothing could make them fail", or other variants of the argument from personal incredulity.
 
Mick said:
If not, is there a web page that states something close to whet you actually believe happened?
Click to expand...

We're back to that 'belief' thing again. I'm telling you what I think about what we do know about what appeared to happen - the bits that aren't overly contentious; eg. that three very large buildings collapsed; two were hit by commercial airliners; the official explanation is a document for reference, as are the 'physical' photographic and eyewitness testimonial based references. I am not as sure as you appear to be about the reality of what happened. The answer to 'what do you believe happened?' for me, is: I don't know. You certainly appear to have a strong alignment with official and mainstream sources I don't share. Maybe the matter is as much personal political and psychological as it is scientific...what do you reckon?
 
Sure, we all have our cognitive biases. I do try to identify mine though, and I try to see things from all point of view. I strive for a "just the facts" approach.

But I genuinely find the official story to be scientifically plausible, and consistent with what happened. There was a significant impact (WTC2 swayed 12 inches). There was a big fire. The building collapsed. It all seems very reasonable. Your objections do not seem reasonable, seem mostly draw from personal incredulity, and in many cases seem quite ludicrous (specifically the notion that the concrete had been entirely pulverized to dust - which would require wiring all of the concrete with explosives.)
 
Mick said:
I must admit to being on the verge of dropping this topic. I've always tried to stay away from 9/11 in the past, as it's such a black hole. For example, this thread back from 2006 went on for nearly a thousand pages:

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=0

It's a seductive topic for a debunker to get in to, because there's so much bunk in it. But it's a many headed hydra - the people who still believe the planes did not bring down the building are the ones who have evolved their thought processes and their arguments to basically become invulnerable to reason.

Lee, it would seem you arguments all boil down to "but the steel beams are so big and strong, nothing could make them fail", or other variants of the argument from personal incredulity.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't blame you if you did. I agree, it is a black hole. But as usual your arguments align pretty much with the 'mainstream' and conservative view; it's a theme. You speak as if you are sure of it all. How can you be? It is a puzzling event, as partially, and probably inadvertantly, indicated by your post. It's also relevant to what is going on in the world today re: US empire - or do you think that's nonsense? There's no such thing and if there is it's an accident, not a design? You have said previously there is a de facto conspiracy by the rich to stay rich and get richer....that Fox and CNN...I think, were propaganda outlets - can you not extend that anywhere else? Is it contained to that?

the people who still believe the planes did not bring down the building are the ones who have evolved their thought processes and their arguments to basically become invulnerable to reason.

Lee, it would seem you arguments all boil down to "but the steel beams are so big and strong, nothing could make them fail", or other variants of the argument from personal incredulity...you know, your arrogance is staggering. But there you mention the 'belief' word again, another theme. It's not about beliefs - or shouldn't be - but for you it's important. You're a bit hung up on 'incredulity' for some reason. It's the first time I mentioned it. It's just a word irrelevant to the discussion.

Anyway - you appear to be avoiding the question; let me ask again (you dodging it because you know I'm right?): the film you presented as evidence is ridiculous - won't you look at it again and tell me what you think? Do you think what they presented is remotely possible taking into account Newton's laws and materials involved?
 
Mick said:
Sure, we all have our cognitive biases. I do try to identify mine though, and I try to see things from all point of view. I strive for a "just the facts" approach.

But I genuinely find the official story to be scientifically plausible, and consistent with what happened. There was a significant impact (WTC2 swayed 12 inches). There was a big fire. The building collapsed. It all seems very reasonable. Your objections do not seem reasonable, seem mostly draw from personal incredulity, and in many cases seem quite ludicrous (specifically the notion that the concrete had been entirely pulverized to dust - which would require wiring all of the concrete with explosives.)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you are looking at 'all points', eg. the socio-political and geo-political implications - next it's going to be Iran, again under false pretences. And that's just one example of many. Ofcourse the official version isn't necessarily laced with inaccuracy from a mathematical equation pov, but from a political one, well, they're often in contrast shall we say. How about a historical precedent or two? Build a picture

And this?: personal incredulity (again!), and in many cases seem quite ludicrous (specifically the notion that the concrete had been entirely pulverized to dust - which would require wiring all of the concrete with explosives. Erm, there was a lot of dust and no recognizable sections of floors intact - something like 1700 of the victims' remains were never recovered; the dust was inches deep over a large area and more went up in the air; microscopic particles of computer components, carpet, people, cabling were present along with what you'd expect to an extent with plasterboard and asbestos board and concrete too. My guess is you've no first hand experience of how concrete behaves in certain conditions - I have a lot. Reducing that quantity of concrete to very fine dust in the main, is a pretty neat trick. The pile of waste should have been massive - it was not; the bodies should have been recovered; desks, chairs, screens, computers, all of it was pulverized. My answer is I don't know what caused that - but you have a belief.
 
I use the word "incredulity" specifically because I'm referring to the logical fallacy known as argument from incredulity, that's all.

Regarding the film, it shows what seems to be several central columns being severed. I think it's quite possibly that that is not an accurate representation of what happened. The actual extent of the initial interior damage is unknown. I'm not going to rule at the possibility that one or more columns could have been severed - after all there was an immense amount of transfer of momentum - it just depends on how it impacted the various parts of the building.

I go with Occams Razor - not introducing unnecessary entities to an explanation. We've got a perfectly simple explanation for the collapse, which seems to me (and presumably millions of scientists around the world), to be scientifically valid. Then you come along an say that in addition to the plane crash there must have been explosives on every floor of the building.
 
Last edited:
and it looked like this next day...





Gutted to down to the fourth floor and right to the top
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mick said:
I use the word "incredulity" specifically because I'm referring to the logical fallacy known as argument from incredulity, that's all.

Regarding the film, it shows what seems to be several central columns being severed. I think it's quite possibly that that is not an accurate representation of what happened. The actual extent of the initial interior damage is unknown. I'm not going to rule at the possibility that one or more columns could have been severed - after all there was an immense amount of transfer of momentum - it just depends on how it impacted the various parts of the building.

I go with Occams Razor - not introducing unnecessary entities to an explanation. We've got a perfectly simple explanation for the collapse, which seems to me (and presumably millions of scientists around the world), to be scientifically valid. Then you come along an say that in addition to the plane crash there must have been explosives on every floor of the building.
Click to expand...

Occam's Razor? You?

Then you come along an say that in addition to the plane crash there must have been explosives on every floor of the building. Where did I say that?

Why do you think a bunch of structural engineers and uni people got together to make that film you presented as evidence and which you now admit is not accurate? What are you going to do about it? Write them an email?

I'm still waiting for MikeCto come back to me on that one - and I won't forget.
 
Mick said:
You keep bringing things up that we debunked years ago. And I don't even think this one was particularly relevant. Different building are different. Different fires are different. Different circumstances are different.

http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm
Click to expand...

Relevant? That so? How come you show me dodgy cartoons and controlled demolitions, but they are.......drum roll.....evidence......and when I show pictures of a steel and concrete building built in 1979 gutted from top to bottom by fire and still standing - you've already debunked it. Course you have.
 
lee h oswald said:
Then you come along an say that in addition to the plane crash there must have been explosives on every floor of the building. Where did I sa
Click to expand...

You said that the concrete had been pulverized, and that the collapse of the building could not possibly have done that. I assume you implied explosives.

So you just say that in addition to the plane crash there was some unknown events that cause all the concrete on every floor to be pulverized in sync with the collapse? Because that's even less Occam-like. You are introducing some mysterious unknown entity to explain something that would be perfectly well explained with known events.

I don't know how accurate the Purdue simulation is. I don't think it makes a significant difference to the overall theory. There was likely some damage to the core.
 
lee h oswald said:
Relevant? That so? How come you show me dodgy cartoons and controlled demolitions, but they are.......drum roll.....evidence......and when I show pictures of a steel and concrete building built in 1979 gutted from top to bottom by fire and still standing and you've already debunked it. Course you have.
Click to expand...

I didn't debunk it. Other people did, years ago.
 
Chunks??! If that's the biggest out of how much was it? about 300,000 tons? ....er....like I said, I ain't seen many chunks compared to dust
Click to expand...

Looks like an inch of dust on top of a pile of rubble to me. Do you actually think this photo necessarily indicates something other than collapse?
 
Mick said:
Looks like an inch of dust on top of a pile of rubble to me. Do you actually think this photo necessarily indicates something other than collapse?
Click to expand...

We already established that you have a belief and I don't know what happened. So what's the point? It 'looks' like an inch of dust 'to you', does it? how do you tell depth from a topview? I must have missed that class. How can you tell what's underneath? It's your best picture of 'chunks' and it's more reinforcing my point than yours at the moment.
 
You say I have a belief as if it's like a religion.

I don't find anything implausible in the NIST report. That's not a "belief", it's the result of me looking at it.

I can see this discussions is going nowhere though. Rather disheartening. Also rather disheartening is the certainty that this nonsense will carry on, probably for 100+ years. The same old points are going to be brought up, over and over again.
 
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.
 
Mick said:
You said that the concrete had been pulverized, and that the collapse of the building could not possibly have done that. I assume you implied explosives.

So you just say that in addition to the plane crash there was some unknown events that cause all the concrete on every floor to be pulverized in sync with the collapse? Because that's even less Occam-like. You are introducing some mysterious unknown entity to explain something that would be perfectly well explained with known events.

I don't know how accurate the Purdue simulation is. I don't think it makes a significant difference to the overall theory. There was likely some damage to the core.
Click to expand...

You're making up what I said - and misquoting me. I said what I said. Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups.

How accurate is your cartoon? Seriously inaccurate - some people got together and lied about the science. It's clear. If there were ever to be a legal case against them, they might find they were guilty of a conspiracy! How about that? But you won't even write an email; it's irrelevant that a piece of film you held up as evidence is shown to be rubbish and you won't accept the seriousness of that? Ofcourse you won't.
 
It's a simulation. You understand the difference between a simulation and a cartoon, right?

In a simulation, they set up a mathematical model of the structures and events. They then run it trying to get things as accurate as possible. You then create the "cartoon" from the mathematical results. In their simulation several inner columns were broken.

We don't know if they were broken or not. You probably think you know they could not have been, due to the materials and forces involved.

But the team behind the simulation went to considerable lengths to try to determine if their simulation was accurate.

http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/news/news_wtc.cfm

September 11, 2006
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. — Researchers at Purdue University have created a simulation that uses scientific principles to study in detail what likely happened when a commercial airliner crashed into the World Trade Center's North Tower on Sept. 11, 2001.
The simulation could be used to better understand which elements in the building's structural core were affected, how they responded to the initial shock of the aircraft collision, and how the tower later collapsed from the ensuing fire fed by an estimated 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, said Mete Sozen, the Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering in Purdue's School of Civil Engineering.
It took about 80 hours using a high-performance computer containing 16 processors to produce the first simulation, which depicts how the plane tore through several stories of the structure within a half-second, said Christoph M. Hoffmann, a professor of computer science and co-director of the Computing Research Institute at Purdue.
"This required a tremendous amount of detailed work," Hoffmann said. "We have finished the first part of the simulation showing what happened to the structure during the initial impact. In the coming months, we will explore how the structure reacted to the extreme heat from the blaze that led to the building's collapse, and we will refine the visual presentations of the simulation."
The researchers are analyzing how many columns were destroyed initially in the building's core, a spine of 47 heavy steel I-beams extending through the center of the structure, Sozen said.
"Current findings from the simulation have identified the destruction of 11 columns on the 94th floor, 10 columns on the 95th floor and nine columns on the 96th floor," he said. "This is a major insight. When you lose close to 25 percent of your columns at a given level, the building is significantly weakened and vulnerable to collapse."
[...]
A team consisting of many of the same Purdue researchers in 2002 created a similar simulation of the Sept. 11 attack on the Pentagon.
Experience gained during the Pentagon-related research and laboratory experiments have helped the Purdue civil engineers and computer scientists develop the new model, Sozen said.
"As a result of the Pentagon research, we have a better understanding of what happens when a tremendous mass of fluid such as fuel hits a solid object at high velocity," Sozen said. "We believe most of the structural damage from such aircraft collisions is caused by the mass of the fluid on the craft, which includes the fuel.
"Damage resulting solely from the metal fuselage, engines and other aircraft parts is not as great as that resulting from the mass of fluids on board. You could think of the aircraft as a sausage skin. Its mass is tiny compared to the plane's fluid contents."
The simulation represents the plane and its mass as a mesh of hundreds of thousands of "finite elements," or small squares containing specific physical characteristics. Like the previous Pentagon simulation, the software tool uses principles of physics to simulate how a plane's huge mass of fuel and cargo impacts a building.
"It is a virtual reality," Sozen said. "The building is reduced to a mathematical representation, the airplane is reduced to a mathematical representation, and then we see what happens on impact."
Santiago Pujol, an assistant professor of civil engineering, worked with the researchers to develop experimental data to test the accuracy of the simulation by using an "impact simulator" to shoot 8-ounce beverage cans at high velocity at steel and concrete targets at Purdue's Bowen Laboratory. These data enabled the researchers to fine tune and validate the theoretical model for the simulation.
"We created a mathematical model of the beverage can and its fluid contents the same way we modeled the airplane, and then we tested our assumptions used to formulate the model by comparing the output from the model with that from the experiment," Sozen said.
Click to expand...

I've no reason to suspect they were being anything other than honest in their simulation.

See also their project page:

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/

And the paper describing the simulation and results in detail:

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/distribution/PapersChron/WTC_I_Engineering_Perspective.pdf
 
And they explain the limitations of the simulation:

No detailed observational data on the performance of tower core elements exist. Therefore, the
Purdue research team used finite element simulations to assist in estimating the impact response
and the post-impact state of the structural elements in the core. Objective evaluations of the
simulation results indicated that identification of the number and distribution of columns
damaged immediately by the impact was quite sensitive to the input parameters. As would be
expected, the simulations did indicate consistently some damage to the core columns but credible
changes in input parameters such as flight or column properties resulted in changes in calculated
impact damage suggesting that an exact determination of the damage to the core was not
defensible. On the other hand, it was found that a simple construct, not dependent on exact
identification of the damage distribution, would explain the collapse.
Click to expand...

Meaning they can't tell exactly what happened. But it's plausible that some columns were damaged.
 
Mick said:
And they explain the limitations of the simulation:



Meaning they can't tell exactly what happened. But it's plausible that some columns were damaged.
Click to expand...

So why did they do it? Why did it show a dozen or so core columns shattering? It's taken you this long to find this, you reckon Joe Blo gonna bother looking it up? NO - he watches the video and goes: 'right, I get it' - and he gets a lie.
 
Sorry, that was a typo. I meant to say things that were debunked years ago. I've managed to stay away from 9/11 debunking until you sucked me in.
 
Mick said:
And they explain the limitations of the simulation:



Meaning they can't tell exactly what happened. But it's plausible that some columns were damaged.
Click to expand...

they entered the parameters into the program and showed it as 'what happened'. That is indefensible. Even you were taken in
 
No, they showed that it was perfectly plausible that it might have happened, they just don't know the precise positions and angles, hence they don't know exactly what happened.

The point is that it's a scenario that actually makes physical sense.

Say I was to simulate a game of pool. There's many plausible situations in which you pot the black off the break. So showing a simulation that shows that is perfectly reasonably. Showing a simulation where the balls all ended up in the same pocket is not plausible.

The point of a such a simulation is not to determine what happened - since we don't know the initial conditions, we can't simulate it accurately enough. The point is to determine what scenarios are plausible. They showed one that was plausible.
 
Mick said:
No, they showed that it was perfectly plausible that it might have happened,... it's a scenario that actually makes physical sense.

Say I was to simulate a game of pool.
The point of a such a simulation is not to determine what happened - since we don't know the initial conditions, we can't simulate it accurately enough. The point is to determine what scenarios are plausible. They showed one that was plausible.
Click to expand...

That last bit it was is known as 'waffle'. You're defending the indefensible.

No, they showed that it was perfectly plausible that it might have happened - what?! They showed no such thing. An airplane nose cone, wings and airframe broke through about a dozen of these core columns - not accurately represented in the cartoon....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So we've got on the one side (and here I paraphrase)

"Look at all these strong steel beams, there's no way a flimsy plane could break any of them!"

vs.

"Here's a simulation we spend years researching, attempting to model exactly what happened. It shows that the plane actually could break some of the columns. Here's a rendering showing how it might have happened."

This is what I'm referring to as you "argument from incredulity". You think the steel frame look strong. But the Perdue team actually calculated how strong it was, and how strong the skin and structure of the plane was, and how much pressure the tanks of fuel would exert on the beams. They even build a rig that shot coke cans at steel plates, so they could make sure their numbers were right.

And just so we are not talking at cross purposes here, can we agree that the impact speed generally quoted. 430 knots for WTC1 and, 510 knots for WTC2? Because if you disagree with that, then we can't really discuss the simulation accuracy.
 
Unregistered said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was getting to that.,..
 
where is everybody else? fallen silent? I'm surprised you've changed your position and are now defending the film again. It's a shocking piece fo fiction.

I think unregistered gave an eloquent appraisal of aspects, what do you think?
 
You remember the bit in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, where John needs a shim for this motorbike handles? Phaedrus tells him he can make one from a beer can. John is horrified that his expensive bike would be fixed by a bit of beer can, and elects to ride on with loose handle until they can find a mechanic. Phaedrus knows that a beer can is made from pure aluminum of uniform thickness, so actually makes perfect shim stock.

http://owyheemountainfiddleshop.blogspot.com/2011/05/zen-and-art-of-motorcycle-maintenance.html

A coke can is a volume of liquid wrapped in a thin aluminum container, structurally designed to keep the liquid in, while being lightweight. It's an excellent analog for the aircraft fuel tanks. If they did not have coke cans, they would have to construct something very similar to use for testing.

What they do is make predictions of how much force will be exerted by the liquid in aluminum, at the can level. They then tests this with real cans to verify their calculations. They correct as needed, and then scale the calculations appropriately. That way their final results (with the plane) are more accurate.
 
Mick said:
There you go. It "seems" unreasonable - from your point of view of incredulity. What I'm saying is that it's very reasonably if you look at the actual physics involved.

Consider this visualization of the impact, why do you think it is wrong?

​
Click to expand...


May I present your first up video presentation of the facts. You asked me a question here. I have given my answer - so am I right or wrong?
 
Aviation News
[h=1]Delta Connection Jet Hits Large Birds Over Arkansas[/h] April 3rd, 2011 • By Matt Molnar

An Atlantic Southeast Airlines Canadair CRJ-200 operating on behalf of Delta Connection flew into a flock of cranes while on approach to Little Rock, landing safely with a bird embedded in the severely damaged nose cone of the jet.

Flight 5087 was enroute to Little Rock from Atlanta carrying 49 passengers when it experienced the bird strike at around 3,700 feet and 15nm from Little Rock National Airport.
After ascending back to 4,000 feet and performing a flyover of the airport, the plane circled around landed safely about 11 minutes later.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems like a physically and mathematically sound simulation to me. Could you pinpoint the second where you think it starts to become implausible?

A nose cone is a "fairing", a mostly empty shell of aluminum designed to deflect the wind. Bird damage to a nose cone is not uncommon.

The nose cone in the simulation appears to have be destroyed the instant it hits the building. More core elements of the plane do the damage, particularly the fuel tanks, but also the fuselage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Mick West
Sean Kirkpatrick's Interview With Daniel Lavelle at The Guardian [Transcript]
Replies
26
Views
3K
MapperGuy
M
A
Debunked: Bazant papers are the only evidence for Twin Towers progressive collsose
Replies
1
Views
1K
econ41
econ41
MonkeeSage
Comments from Senator Gillibrand on HOC hearing and AARO
Replies
20
Views
2K
Mendel
Mendel
Oystein
Debunking resource: Engineers Assess the Truth in AE911Truth (Scott & Hamburger, 2021)
Replies
36
Views
8K
Jeffrey Orling
Jeffrey Orling
John J.
Is "Improved Instrumental Techniques...", Nolan, Vallee, Jiang, Lemke 2022 a useful paper?
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
Z.W. Wolf
Z.W. Wolf

Latest posts

Back
Top