9-11 an INSIDE JOB?

[MikeC]

Most of the nose cones I worked on had radar behind them, so were not made of metal at all - they were composite - "fibreglass" to most people, with a few metallic stiffeners on the outside that also aided with dispersing static electricity.

And actually aluminium makes a lousy shim anywhere it is going to be clamped tight - it is too soft and will "squeeze out" eventually - OK until you can get a decent steel (often stainless and sharp as heck at the edges!) or brass one

As for silence - I'm sick of going over the same old debunked ground tiem after time. Why dont' YOU do some proper debunking and bring some GOOD evidence instead of complaining because I (we) cant' be bothered with you rehashing junk?

 

[Mick West]

And actually aluminium makes a lousy shim anywhere it is going to be clamped tight - it is too soft and will "squeeze out" eventually - OK until you can get a decent steel (often stainless and sharp as heck at the edges!) or brass one

Darn, you've ruined a favorite childhood recollection

However a brief google shows that it is actually used for handlebar shims.

 

[lee h oswald]

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.

On reviewing the film, you've gone from the above to: I don't know how accurate the Purdue simulation is.

Then: 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.

Then: I've no reason to suspect they were being anything other than honest in their simulation. No reason? not one?

Then: Meaning they can't tell exactly what happened. But it's plausible that some columns were damaged.

Then: 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. and, finally: The point is that it's a scenario that actually makes physical sense.

Quite a volte face, that. Have you lost your sense of smell?

 

[lee h oswald]

Most of the nose cones I worked on had radar behind them, so were not made of metal at all - they were composite - "fibreglass" to most people, with a few metallic stiffeners on the outside that also aided with dispersing static electricity.

And actually aluminium makes a lousy shim anywhere it is going to be clamped tight - it is too soft and will "squeeze out" eventually - OK until you can get a decent steel (often stainless and sharp as heck at the edges!) or brass one

As for silence - I'm sick of going over the same old debunked ground tiem after time. Why dont' YOU do some proper debunking and bring some GOOD evidence instead of complaining because I (we) cant' be bothered with you rehashing junk?

Cop out!? I think so.

As for silence - I'm sick of going over the same old debunked ground tiem after time. Why dont' YOU do some proper debunking and bring some GOOD evidence instead of complaining because I (we) cant' be bothered with you rehashing junk? Right. Isaac Newton's laws of motion are.....junk?

So, what do you think of the video? I haven't forgotten. Still waiting...

 

[lee h oswald]

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.

Yeah, I remember Zen and the Art of...I was the first to reference it here. Pirsig; subjective, objective, quality, as I recall. Funny you should bring it up; ha ha. Have you got it in front of you?

 

[lee h oswald]

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.

I reckon: fire a coke can at a steel column at 500mph, the can is gonna come off worse; the steel will not be severed and subsequently fail entirely as a result. Anyway, it's a shit analogy. a can is a can, a plane is a plane - there's a few, er, differences....like you said: Different building are different. Different fires are different. Different circumstances are different....Coke cans are different to planes...

 

[Mick West]

On reviewing the film, you've gone from the above to: I don't know how accurate the Purdue simulation is.

Then: 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.

Then: I've no reason to suspect they were being anything other than honest in their simulation. No reason? not one?

Then: Meaning they can't tell exactly what happened. But it's plausible that some columns were damaged.

Then: 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. and, finally: The point is that it's a scenario that actually makes physical sense.

Quite a volte face, that. Have you lost your sense of smell?

Everything I said is entirely consistent, and I agree with everything you quoted. The columns were broken in the simulation, we don't know if that's what actually happened, but we know it's plausible, given the parameters of the simulation. Slightly different parameters give different results.

 

[Mick West]

Yeah, I remember Zen and the Art of...I was the first to reference it here. Pirsig; subjective, objective, quality, as I recall.

I remember, which is why the association lept to mind.

 

[Mick West]

I reckon: fire a coke can at a steel column at 500mph, the can is gonna come off worse; the steel will not be severed and subsequently fail entirely as a result. Anyway, it's a shit analogy. a can is a can, a plane is a plane - there's a few, er, differences....like you said: Different building are different. Different fires are different. Different circumstances are different....Coke cans are different to planes...

Okay, suppose you are going to do a simulation that involves water in an aluminum container.

You will have certain parameters you want to put into the simulation. Does it not make sense to use a scaled down representation of the object to check certain fundamental parameters?

If not, then how do you get those parameters for your simulation?

 

[Mick West]

I reckon: fire a coke can at a steel column at 500mph, the can is gonna come off worse; the steel will not be severed and subsequently fail entirely as a result. Anyway, it's a shit analogy. a can is a can, a plane is a plane - there's a few, er, differences....like you said: Different building are different. Different fires are different. Different circumstances are different....Coke cans are different to planes...

Coke can vs girder, girder wins.

But what if you had a beer barrel? At 500 miles an hour?

Consider that for a minute. Have you ever hefted around a full beer barrel? That's quite a hunk of mass. What if you shot a beer barrel at a girder, at 500 mph? You think the girder will be unscathed?

What about a fuel tank - like a beer barrel, but bigger, thicker metal, vastly more mass, also at 500 mph.

And you know how they say that if you jump from high enough, water is like concrete. Liquids are essentially incompressible. A big tank of water hitting something at 500 mph is no dissimilar (during the initial fractions of a second) to a big hunk of concrete hitting something at 500 mph.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

remember the little piece of insulation that came off the shuttle? It looked like it weighed nothing. No way could it damage the wing.
When actually tested full scale, sure enough, tore a hole right in the wing.

 

[Mick West]

That's a very good example, as the piece of foam only weighed 2 pounds, and impacted at about 525 mph.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/investigations/q0131.shtml


A small bit of foam can do significant damage at 500 mph. Imagine what a beer keg (150 pounds incompressible liquid wrapped in metal) would do. Or several fuel tanks. At 500 mph.

 

[lee h oswald]

remember the little piece of insulation that came off the shuttle? It looked like it weighed nothing. No way could it damage the wing.
When actually tested full scale, sure enough, tore a hole right in the wing.

What are you talking about? Let me see....

Mick: That's a very good example, as the piece of foam only weighed 2 pounds, and impacted at about 525 mph.

You're trying hard to defend your position as you realise it's crucial to defend this animation - otherwise all such sources become suspect and then your view of 'how things are' is not reliable any more. Are you now withdrawing the following statement? 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. Or are you just making sure you say enough maybes, possiblys, seems, etc. to keep from saying the (for you) unsayable? Which you almost said: The reality is not 'it shows what seems to be several central columns being severed', the reality is it does show several central columns being severed. There - I've said it for you. Why introduce doubt into your statement? - that is what the video shows.

Now you've moved on to space shuttle wings being damaged - what's that to do with it? But thanks for demonstrating how fragile aircraft wings are. It's also worth noting that fuel tanks are in the wings too. The wings of an aircraft are fixed to the fuselage using what? Any ideas? A wing is only going to remain in place if these fixings hold - the join is a weak point.

You say: Slightly different parameters give different results. And, You will have certain parameters you want to put into the simulation....And: Everything I said is entirely consistent, and I agree with everything you quoted, with the exception of this, presumably?
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


And, I said: You are defending the indefensible. And, importantly: they entered the parameters into the program and showed it as 'what happened'. That is indefensible.

Your analysis is full of equivocation, mine has none. You cite these people as having spent 'years' working this out, they build machines to fire coke cans??! etc - if they had all that time and money, why not make a couple of scale models and do a real experiment? Why don't you find who paid for this research? The fact is, they presented a lie masquerading as science - and you are now defending it as if life depended on it. You really are showing your biases now. I still await others' assessments on this video - who believes that this animation represents an accurate portrayal of what happened, taking into account Newton's laws and the material involved?

 

[Mick West]

The reality is not 'it shows what seems to be several central columns being severed', the reality is it does showseveral central columns being severed. There - I've said it for you. Why introduce doubt into your statement? - that is what the video shows.

Quite right. That is what it shows. That was the result of at least one run of the simulation with scientifically plausible parameters and models.

A simulation is a model of reality. It allows you to see what might have happened. You can vary various assumptions.

Simulations can be stable, in which you get a similar same result pretty much all the time, or unstable, in which small changes in initial parameters yield quite different end results.

Aspects of this simulation were stable (the plane was pretty much destroyed), or somewhat stable (some interior columns destroyed), or unstable (where the rudder ends up). When you tweak the parameters, then the end results will differ, with the more unstable elements in the simulation differing more.

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.

Why not build a scale model? That's a good question. But it's the same basic reason we don't crash-test scale models of cars. Firstly it's very hard to perfectly scale everything to the correct physical size, and secondly some things just don't scale. Volume change is the cube of length change, surface area change is the square of length change. You can't use 1/100th size molecules, so materials, fluids, and the air all behave differently. For something as large and complex as the WTC, a scale model would have to approach 1/10th size to tell you anything, and even that would suffer from scaling problems.

Aha, you might say, bu what about the coke cans? Well, there they are not trying to determine what actually happened. They are trying to determine certain mathematical relationships. - Given a certain velocity, mass, and aluminum thickness, then in what pattern, and over what time scale does the energy transfer occur. They can create a simulated model of the coke can, then compare that to physical result, and see if it's accurate. This then allows them to adjust the underlying constants in that aspect of the simulation, which can then be scaled in the simulation.

Your analysis is full of equivocation, mine has none.

Perhaps therein lies your problem? We don't actually know what happened inside the building. All we can do it to try to carefully calculate the range of possible scenarios. It turns out, after careful calculation, that severing columns (mostly by the fuel tanks), is a plausible outcome.

Your analysis seems to be "Plane weak! Column strong! Column win!". Maybe a little equivocation is actually required?

What do you think would happen if one of the fuel tanks in the wings hit a column at 500 mph?

 

[lee h oswald]

That's a very good example...


A small bit of foam can do significant damage at 500 mph. .

Yes. To an aircraft! And what do you think a steel column would do to it??

 

[lee h oswald]

Quite right. That is what it shows. That was the result of at least one run of the simulation with scientifically plausible parameters and models.

And it was what they published.

 

[Mick West]

Yes. To an aircraft! And what do you think a steel column would do to it??

It's all relative isn't it. The leading edge of the Space Shuttle's wing was made of reinforced carbon-carbon. It was damaged by a bit of foam. Something stronger (like a big steel girder) would need something bigger to damage it, like say a big beer keg at 500 mph.

 

[Mick West]

And it was what they published.

And why not, if it was a scientifically plausible result?

Do you admit it was scientifically plausible?

 

[Mick West]

Remember they said:

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/distribution/PapersChron/WTC_I_Engineering_Perspective.pdf

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.

Content from External Source

Table 1 shows 17 columns damaged on story 95.

Here's Table 2:

Analysis Total number of damaged core columns
and, if indicated, story with highest number
of core columns damaged
(*) Kajima Corp.
• Impact Analysis: 18 collapsed + 3 fractured; story 95
(**) MIT
• Impact Analysis: 4-12 failed
(**) NIST
• Less Severe Impact Analysis; 1 severed + 2 heavily damaged; story 96
• Base Case Impact Analysis; 3 severed + 4 heavily damaged; story 94
• More Severe Impact Analysis; 6 severed + 3 heavily damaged; story 95

(**) Weidlinger Associates Inc.
• Impact Analysis: 23 failed/heavily damaged
• Collapse Analysis: 20 failed

Content from External Source

So their video does not seem unreasonable.

 

[lee h oswald]

Coke can vs girder, girder wins.

But what if you had a beer barrel? At 500 miles an hour?

Consider that for a minute. Have you ever hefted around a full beer barrel? That's quite a hunk of mass. What if you shot a beer barrel at a girder, at 500 mph? You think the girder will be unscathed?

What about a fuel tank - like a beer barrel, but bigger, thicker metal, vastly more mass, also at 500 mph.

And you know how they say that if you jump from high enough, water is like concrete. Liquids are essentially incompressible. A big tank of water hitting something at 500 mph is no dissimilar (during the initial fractions of a second) to a big hunk of concrete hitting something at 500 mph.

It's amazing how you flip your ideas around to suit the argument you want to be true but isn't. I'm sure you actually believe it.

If I had a beer barrel, first I'd empty it. If I was stupid enough to fire a beer barrel full of beer at a steel girder, what damage was sustained to what object would be determined by which object is designed best to withstand those pressures. You have given a specific - a beer barrel, and something not so specific, a girder. What are we talking about, 20mm plate? a pfc? a uc? 152 or 300 or or or? What angle is the beer barrel hitting what? on which face? the edge? full-on? close to a coupling with another beam? right in the middle of the beam? It's hard to say exactly what damage would be caused - but, for example, if it was 50mm plate hit side on, the barrel would be split in two and wrapped around the steel would be scratched and gouged, but structurally intact. Hit on its full face, if it was, say 3000mm x 200mm x 50mm it would have more impact, but again depending where it hits the beam, high up, low down, bang in the middle - that would probably bend the plate a bit - depends what part of the barrel hits it. In both cases the barrel would be destroyed.
More important than all that is: A beer barrel, like a coke can, has a certain proportion and construction and dimensions that are designed to hold a certain amount of liquid which produces gas. The containers need to be strong enough to resist deformation due to increased pressure, and in turn be light enough to be manageable for people. The shape of a beer barrel/soda can and its dimensions are built for purpose. As are airplanes. The shape and dimensions and construction of the fuel tanks has, just as with the cans/barrels, been designed with the factor of weight being vital. Commercial airliners are built to carry people and goods. Also, there is no point to crash test a Boeing 767, it's obvious the thing will be destroyed. You saying: What about a fuel tank - like a beer barrel, but bigger, thicker metal, vastly more mass, also at 500 mph. Different dimensions are critical here, you said about scale, remember? Dimensions are critical to structural integrity and strength. And even more critical in this example is that tanks are in the wings, the weakest, most vulnerable part of an aircraft apart from the nose. If a plane tilts and touches down a wing, the wing usually rips off. Planes are made out of light stuff, so they can get in the air. Buildings are made of much harder stuff because they weren't designed to be flimsy - as we can see from the construction photos.

 

[Mick West]

You don't think that strength is a consideration in the design of aircraft fuel tanks?

You think the wings would "rip off". Think carefully about that. What's the distribution of mass there? What happens to the 500 mph fuel tanks after the wings "rip off", do they just stop?

 

[lee h oswald]

You don't think that strength is a consideration in the design of aircraft fuel tanks?

You think the wings would "rip off". Think carefully about that. What's the distribution of mass there? What happens to the 500 mph fuel tanks after the wings "rip off", do they just stop?

Obviously not, neither did I say that. It appears I have thought carefully. You missed the more important.... a beer barrel/soda can and its dimensions are built for purpose. As are airplanes. The shape and dimensions and construction of the fuel tanks has, just as with the cans/barrels, been designed with the factor of weight being vital....You saying: What about a fuel tank - like a beer barrel, but bigger, thicker metal, vastly more mass, also at 500 mph. Different dimensions are critical here, you said about scale, remember? Dimensions are critical to structural integrity and strength. And even more critical in this example is that tanks are in the wings, the weakest, most vulnerable part of an aircraft apart from the nose.

 

[lee h oswald]

You don't think that strength is a consideration in the design of aircraft fuel tanks?

Another example of twisting words? Ofcourse it is - just like I said: aircraft (and that includes their fuel tanks) are built for purpose. They are not built to withstand striking steel columns, they are designed to hold the fuel to fuel the aircraft operating normally, obviously. This is the problem you refuse to see clearly.

 

[Mick West]

They are not going to withstand striking a steel column. They will be utterly destroyed. But in the process they have to transfer energy to the column.

How fast do you think a full fuel tank (around 40,000 pounds or so?) would have to be going to damage one of the columns?

Here's an interesting video of an inch thick steel plate being hit by a car, a concrete wall and a mound of dirt, at 650 mph. Not the best analog, as the steel plate is not fixed, but it gives some perspective.

​

Remember, at sufficiently fast speeds, water is like concrete - not the same, but it packs a mean punch.

 

[Unregistered]

They are not going to withstand striking a steel column. They will be utterly destroyed. But in the process they have to transfer energy to the column.

How fast do you think a full fuel tank (around 40,000 pounds or so?) would have to be going to damage one of the columns?

Here's an interesting video of an inch thick steel plate being hit by a car, a concrete wall and a mound of dirt, at 650 mph. Not the best analog, as the steel plate is not fixed, but it gives some perspective.

​

Remember, at sufficiently fast speeds, water is like concrete - not the same, but it packs a mean punch.

how is a sheet of 25mm, sheet, relevant? and what was it hit by? A flat plate with braces travelling at mach1? what do you expect?

 

[lee h oswald]

And why not, if it was a scientifically plausible result?

Do you admit it was scientifically plausible?

No, it was not. It was a lie.

 

[lee h oswald]

They are not going to withstand striking a steel column. They will be utterly destroyed. But in the process they have to transfer energy to the column.

How fast do you think a full fuel tank (around 40,000 pounds or so?) would have to be going to damage one of the columns?

40,000 lbs? not after the tanks have been ruptured and the resistance is shot, mass disappeared and contents ignited. Considerably lighter then.

Anyway, you appear to be avoiding the question again, and phrasing your answers as 'it's plausible given the parameters' or 'it seems like..' or 'possibly...' - Q: Do you withdraw your previous statement that it was likely not what happened which was presented in the final cut of the video you presented as evidence that an aircraft would sever several (12?) steel core structural members (as well as the exterior wall without any apparent damage at all to the aircraft in the first instance) before decelerating and breaking up sufficiently? A: ...

 

[Mick West]

how is a sheet of 25mm, sheet, relevant? and what was it hit by? A flat plate with braces travelling at mach1? what do you expect?

I would know what to expect. That's the problem. Just basing things on "steel is strong" is not useful, you need to actually run the numbers.

The flat plate with braces was destroyed.

 

[lee h oswald]

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.

And I, and presumably unreg, are waiting for your reply. It's another you've not answered. I think that's a bit rude to someone new. More important, they are all good points - what do you say?

 

[lee h oswald]

Here's an interesting video of an inch thick steel plate being hit by a car, a concrete wall and a mound of dirt, at 650 mph. Not the best analog, as the steel plate is not fixed, but it gives some perspective.

Yes - but more to the point, you reinforce mine....the steel was a sheet of steel and it was bent. Your video shows steel being shattered by a much inferior assault. Of course the steel sheet will bend - it's a sheet and was hit with Mach1 flat plate designed to crush and with struts to reinforce - what do you expect to happen? You're confusing apples with pears again.

 

[lee h oswald]

I want to expand on this: Different dimensions are critical here, you said about scale, remember? Dimensions are critical to structural integrity and strength. And even more critical in this example is that tanks are in the wings, the weakest, most vulnerable part of an aircraft apart from the nose.

That was what I said about scale/dimensions - maybe I should make it clearer what I'm saying, with an example: take a piece of 10mm rebar 1000mm long and try to bend it over your knee holding an end in each hand. You will be able to bend it a lot. Now take a piece of the same at 200mm long and try the same. You'll struggle. Everyone's done it with sticks in the park, but it applies even to spaghetti. Try it.

 

[lee h oswald]

Analysis Total number of damaged core columns
and, if indicated, story with highest number
of core columns damaged
(*) Kajima Corp.
• Impact Analysis: 18 collapsed + 3 fractured; story 95
(**) MIT
• Impact Analysis: 4-12 failed
(**) NIST
• Less Severe Impact Analysis; 1 severed + 2 heavily damaged; story 96
• Base Case Impact Analysis; 3 severed + 4 heavily damaged; story 94
• More Severe Impact Analysis; 6 severed + 3 heavily damaged; story 95

(**) Weidlinger Associates Inc.
• Impact Analysis: 23 failed/heavily damaged
• Collapse Analysis: 20 failed

So their video does not seem unreasonable.


I've spent a little time looking at this. Despite the fact they are all (apart from maybe one or two....one really), unrealistic, in my opinion, but even if we accept these figures, I can tell you it is not realistic to expect what we saw. Those columns were designed to achieve at least double what they could have been expected to in static loading terms. As there were 47 of these columns, and at the most less than half of them failed according to your quoted source, then all should not have disintegrated - a bit of bending and facade damage, yes.

 

[Mick West]

You're still going on an argument from incredulity. Yes, steel girders are strong, but when faced with five different independent studies that say that some columns were probably damaged during impact, then you simply say that they were lying, because you personally don't think a plane could do that.

Do you think all five of the studies are part of the cover-up? Or are they just mistaken?

 

[Mick West]

Those columns were designed to achieve at least double what they could have been expected to in static loading terms. As there were 47 of these columns, and at the most less than half of them failed according to your quoted source, then all should not have disintegrated - a bit of bending and facade damage, yes.

Wouldn't the plane impact and later collapse be dynamic loading (a live load) , not static (dead load)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_load

Why are you saying "disintegrated"? Where is it claimed the columns disintegrated? They failed, which basically means they snapped or ripped (no sure if there's a good word for it). "Disintegrated" kind of implies they turned to dust, which I don't think anyone is suggesting.

 

[lee h oswald]

You're still going on an argument from incredulity. Yes, steel girders are strong, but when faced with five different independent studies that say that some columns were probably damaged during impact, then you simply say that they were lying, because you personally don't think a plane could do that.

Do you think all five of the studies are part of the cover-up? Or are they just mistaken?

No, I said what I said; even if we accept this as the truth, the building should have remained intact - according to the engineering. Can I put it more simply?

 

[lee h oswald]

Wouldn't the plane impact and later collapse be dynamic loading (a live load) , not static (dead load)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_load

Why are you saying "disintegrated"? Where is it claimed the columns disintegrated? They failed, which basically means they snapped or ripped (no sure if there's a good word for it). "Disintegrated" kind of implies they turned to dust, which I don't think anyone is suggesting.

The impact was absorbed, no problem. Dynamic loading is relevant to moving loads, so only took place after collapse was initiated. Can I put it more simply?

I think if you read it again you might get it. Where did I claim the columns disintegrated? Please indicate.

And: are you avoiding this question? Q: Do you withdraw your previous statement that it was likely not what happened which was presented in the final cut of the video you presented as evidence that an aircraft would sever several (12?) steel core structural members (as well as the exterior wall without any apparent damage at all to the aircraft in the first instance) before decelerating and breaking up sufficiently? A: ...

 

[Mick West]

No, I said what I said; even if we accept this as the truth, the building should have remained intact - according to the engineering. Can I put it more simply?

It did remain intact. But then the fire caused it to collapse. The reports all agree on that too.

 

[lee h oswald]

Yes, steel girders are strong, but when faced with five different independent studies ...

...they fall apart like paper...independent?

 

[lee h oswald]

And: are you avoiding this question? Q: Do you withdraw your previous statement that it was likely not what happened which was presented in the final cut of the video you presented as evidence that an aircraft would sever several (12?) steel core structural members (as well as the exterior wall without any apparent damage at all to the aircraft in the first instance) before decelerating and breaking up sufficiently? A: ...

Well, are you?

 

[lee h oswald]

And where have all your mates gone?