9-11 an INSIDE JOB?

[lee h oswald]

let's say I put a monkey in a two room apartment in order to observe its behaviour. The monkey goes in the other room so I can't see what it's doing. I create a computer simulation of the monkey and the apartment and set the parameters of monkey behaviour into my program. I run the program and it shows the monkey masturbating in the other room. Now, we don't know if monkey was knocking one out or not, only he knows that. So we made the final cut out of it anyway.

Oh yes, I forgot to say that the parameters of monkey behaviour were set by the program makers - there were only two possible behaviours set: one for yes, he was knocking one out, and two for no he wasn't. Heads or tails. It's a pretty hopeless attempt to justify the animation which presented as its final cut - after years of research, according to you - images of an aircraft airframe and wings shattering multiple massive steel columns. Despite all the equivocation you indicate in your language, in this film there is nothing equivocal about what it portrays. If this 'simulation' business is so hopelessly inaccurate, why would anyone spend 'years' coming up with something which is so inherently unreliable? Flipping coins and masturbating monkeys have nothing to do with it.

Let's say I toss a coin, but the coin lands out of sight.

I create a physical simulation of the coin and the surroundings in a computer, I run it, and it comes up heads. I then create a video of the simulation results.

Regarding that video, it shows what seems to be the coin landing on heads, it's quite possible that is is not an accurate representation of what happened.

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

See?

What I see is some verbal gymnastics designed to somehow legitimize your backing of this video. In spite of what you say, there really is great difficulty to reconcile these two statements:

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.

and:

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

The statements are pretty well opposed, either it is not an accurate scenario or it is one that makes physical sense. I think what happened is this: I asked you (repeatedly) to look at the film again after you presented it with the question, what is wrong with this? On finally reviewing the film, you made the first statement, which very strongly indicates you think that it was not a likely scenario that several steel core columns were shattered by the aircraft. A glimpse of the truth in a moment of honesty. Subsequently you went all around the houses as you soon realized that defending this 'simulation' was very important to your whole belief set. Accepting that the makers presented what they did in the final cut as unreliable and inaccurate would require a pretty hefty diversion for you, a difficult psychological shift, initially made as the truth was unavoidable for a moment - but now you have regained your 'equilibrium' and are using every trick you can think of to attempt to justify it. Verbal gymnastics.

 

[lee h oswald]

Don't you think that sounds a little like an argument from incredulity?

No. It sounds like a question. Incredulity works for everyone, including you. You are eminently credulous of your video showing an aircraft creating shattered steel columns - you have to be - but totally incredulous that there could possibly be any skullduggery surrounding its production; you won't , it appears, even entertain the possibility. You are utterly incredulous that anything other than the official narrative of the events of 9/11 could be true.
You'll say you've covered all the angles, there's no evidence etc. where quite clearly there is a lot of room for uncertainty. You have a belief - and I say I'm not sure. Your language is full of equivocation where there actually appears to be none; you've made your mind and you're sticking to the belief. The refusal to discuss all aspects of what happened shows something...what could it be?

When trying to get to the bottom of something, a crime for example, one needs to take all factors into account, not just the ones you want to. You'd be a lousy detective. Marlowe you ain't.

 

[lee h oswald]

Originally Posted by lee h oswald
let's say I put a monkey in a two room apartment in order to observe its behaviour. The monkey goes in the other room so I can't see what it's doing. I create a computer simulation of the monkey and the apartment and set the parameters of monkey behaviour into my program. I run the program and it shows the monkey masturbating in the other room. Now, we don't know if monkey was knocking one out or not, only he knows that. So we made the final cut out of it anyway.

Exactly! The point there is that the monkey could have been masturbating. It's quite possible. Nobody actually knows what he did.

You are claiming (in this analogy) that it's impossible for monkeys to masturbate. I'm claiming that it is possible, and the simulation demonstrated a possible outcome.

I am not claiming anything of the sort - where did I claim that? You're doing quite well to miss the point. Didn't you use the word obtuse earlier...? The point is this: the veracity of the simulation relies entirely upon the parameters set. The makers of your video evidence chose to publish a version which I (and you) say is likely not an accurate rendering of reality. I'd like to know why they did that - you say it's plausible (or maybe not, possibly, maybe, we can't be sure....)

 

[Mick West]

I am not claiming anything of the sort - where did I claim that?

Well, do you or don't you think it's possible that the towers fell due to the plane impacts and subsequent fires?

 

[lee h oswald]

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?

​

why do you think it is right?

 

[lee h oswald]

I am looking at the actual physics involved

 

[Mick West]

I think the simulation shows a plausible scenario.

Do you or don't you think it's possible that the towers fell due to the plane impacts and subsequent fires? I'd somehow got the impression that you do not, but then you say:

I am not claiming anything of the sort - where did I claim that?

So I'm asking you explicitly, to clear the air.

 

[lee h oswald]

....Purdue University, with one of the most prestigious engineering schools in the
nation, produced an animation of an airliner easily pushing right through an image of a
twin tower. See
http://www.livevideo.com/video/killtown/C988F75E99224372824831E3F73DC126/purd
ue-sim-of-aa11-s-strong-wi.aspx; Purdue has been rewarded with a Homeland Security
Institute grant and its president was appointed to the board of SAIC, a top military and
NIST contractor...

Curiouser and clearer.

Originally Posted by Mick
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?


why do you think it is right?

 

[lee h oswald]

Advertisement


A High-Quality High-Fidelity Visualization of the September 11 Attack on the World Trade Center

 

[Mick West]

What do you mean by "right"? Do you mean A) Showing what happened. or B) Showing what might possibly have happened.

Because I think it's right in the sense that it shows what might have happened. we don't know what happened, so it's impossible to know if it's "right" in the first sense.

Is that really not clear?

Do you or don't you think it's possible that the towers fell due to the plane impacts and subsequent fires?

 

[lee h oswald]

Advertisement


A High-Quality High-Fidelity Visualization of the September 11 Attack on the World Trade Center

Bullshit

 

[lee h oswald]

What do you mean by "right"? Do you mean A) Showing what happened. or B) Showing what might possibly have happened.

Because I think it's right in the sense that it shows what might have happened. we don't know what happened, so it's impossible to know if it's "right" in the first sense.

Is that really not clear?


I really am lol!

 

[lee h oswald]

Where's MikeC? Laureate Reynolds? Ross, what about your response to my question about your claim I hadn't brought any 'facts'? Where are you?

 

[lee h oswald]

What does everyone think of the Purdue simulation, Newton's third law of motion; steel, concrete and aluminium?

 

[Mick West]

Answer the question.

Do you or don't you think it's possible that the towers fell due to the plane impacts and subsequent fires?

 

[lee h oswald]

I created a simulation: I imagined that either 1) you all agree with me and can't bring yourselves to say so, or 2) you really disagree so strongly that you can't be bothered to reply. I ran the numbers into my program and it came out that you agree! So that's what I'm going to publish. Presumably you agree with the method. It's a plausible outcome of the program I created.

 

[Mick West]

You seem to be avoiding the question.

Do you or don't you think it's possible that the towers fell due to the plane impacts and subsequent fires?

 

[lee h oswald]

Ooh, I love it when you talk nasty...

Answer the question.

Do you or don't you think it's possible that the towers fell due to the plane impacts and subsequent fires?

I refer you to my earlier post - you are trying to make an argument based on a wanking monkey - doesn't that bother you?

You are claiming (in this analogy) that it's impossible for monkeys to masturbate. I'm claiming that it is possible, and the simulation demonstrated a possible outcome.

I am not claiming anything of the sort - where did I claim that? You're doing quite well to miss the point. Didn't you use the word obtuse earlier...? The point is this: the veracity of the simulation relies entirely upon the parameters set. The makers of your video evidence chose to publish a version which I (and you) say is likely not an accurate rendering of reality

 

[lee h oswald]

And not even a real wanking monkey - an irrelevant simulated one

 

[Mick West]

I was using your analogy to try to explain to you what the meaning of the simulation was.

Since you refuse to answer, I'm going to assume that you think that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the planes and subsequent fires caused the collapse.

I do think it possible. I think the NIST calculations show this, I think the simulation shows this (that it was possible, not what exactly happened), and several other analyses show this.

You think it was impossible - seemingly because the WTC is like a giant baseball bat, and your stove does not collapse when you burn wood in it. Basically an argument from incredulity.

 

[lee h oswald]

In the light of the evidence against this film, I urge you to reconsider the veracity of it - and then consider the possible motivation behind that presentation of 'the facts'

 

[lee h oswald]

I was using your analogy to try to explain to you what the meaning of the simulation was.

Since you refuse to answer, I'm going to assume that you think that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the planes and subsequent fires caused the collapse.

I do think it possible. I think the NIST calculations show this, I think the simulation shows this (that it was possible, not what exactly happened), and several other analyses show this.

You think it was impossible - seemingly because the WTC is like a giant baseball bat, and your stove does not collapse when you burn wood in it. Basically an argument from incredulity.

The incredulity is all yours

 

[lee h oswald]

I also urge anyone passing through to watch this simulation and put aside all previous input insofar as that is possible. Attach to that any first hand knowledge you might have of the materials involved. Everyone has first hand experience of aluminium - soda cans, beer cans, foil, sheets if you work in certain construction areas - plenty experience there, in the aircraft business - concrete? look around, under your feet, walk through the underpass and look up, down and sideways - in the subway - steel? it's in there. Hit a piece of steel or concrete with a 16lb hammer and then hit a piece of aluminium. Do you believe what you see, feel, hear or what you are told? Watch the film and ask yourself where it goes wrong.

 

[lee h oswald]

It's worth watching this thing a few times - it throws up more and more unlikely scenes the more you watch it. What's really interesting is that the aircraft shows absolutely no sign of damage on 'peeling' back the steel outer layers of the building - there is no deformation of the shape whatsoever - Shurely shome mishtake? - steel peels like a sardine tin, but nose cone (or hollow fairing) plunges through without inconvenience from the steel outer columns - quite large, as I recall from the photos I posted earlier....hmmmm. Let me reconsider everything I've ever learned for a moment...and then the wings - in their entirety, cut through the sardine tin - then we get the view inside: the aircraft is nothing more than a bunch of mangled lines, shredded apparently - so the aircraft was shredded by the outer wall, but showed no sign of damage when it hit (and passed through) the outer wall. I don't know why, but this seems unlikely....It's all very confusing, don't you think?

 

[Mick West]

So you saying that it just feels wrong to you? Steel and concrete is strong. Aluminum is weak. So there's no way aluminum could break steel. Is that the argument?

Why not pick some numbers to illustrate your argument?

A36 structural steel, tensile strength 58,000-80,000 psi.
6061-T6 Aluminum Alloy, tensile strength 42,000 psi.

Not TOO different. Aluminum is actually much stronger than steel, pound for pound. Aluminum density = 2.7 g/cm3, A36 Steel density = 7.8 g/cm.

And when you are out there doing your field testing, try hitting a piece of rebar with a full beer barrel at 500 mph, to get a more accurate comparison.

 

[lee h oswald]

So you saying that it just feels wrong to you? Steel and concrete is strong. Aluminum is weak. So there's no way aluminum could break steel. Is that the argument?

Why not pick some numbers to illustrate your argument?

A36 structural steel, tensile strength 58,000-80,000 psi.
6061-T6 Aluminum Alloy, tensile strength 42,000 psi.

Not TOO different. Aluminum is actually much stronger than steel, pound for pound. Aluminum density = 2.7 g/cm3, A36 Steel density = 7.8 g/cm.

And when you are out there doing your field testing, try hitting a piece of rebar with a full beer barrel at 500 mph, to get a more accurate comparison.

Man, you're funny. First you talk about scale, all serious, and how you have experience with its problems - and now you compare what? 150lb barrel to a 10-12mm rebar at 500mph? It's like firing a bullet at a matchstick. What a ridiculous suggestion. I reckon we know the outcome there - no experiment required. And a beer barrel at 500mph ain't the same as a fuel tank - different dimensions see? try snapping a long stick - easy; now a short one - can't do it? Proportions, dimensions see? They are important to structural integrity. Fuel tanks are not made like beer barrels, they snap much easier. Try it with spaghetti, stick, steel - any material you want: the longer and slimmer it is, the easier it will snap.

Not too different?

Why don't you give it up? Aluminum is actually much stronger than steel....this is desperate

usually, when we want to cut steel, we use a circular, steel, diamond tipped blade - and it still takes a while

or...





Oxygen torches cutting steel in a steel mill, Illinois, USA

or...

Welder cutting steel

Aluminium? I could cut that on site with light tools; snips even.

If the plane was made of steel and the columns of aluminium - now we're talking (maybe)! Maybe that's where they got the parameters mixed up?

 

[Mick West]

Why don't you give it up? Aluminum is actually much stronger than steel....this is desperate

You missed where I said "pound for pound". Aluminum has a much higher strength to weight ratio than steel. That's why they don't make planes out of steel.

 

[lee h oswald]

Close-up of a circular saw cutting a metal piece,

 

[lee h oswald]

You missed where I said "pound for pound". Aluminum has a much higher strength to weight ratio than steel. That's why they don't make planes out of steel.

no, I didn't miss it. You really have lost the plot. Try hitting a can with a hammer

 

[Mick West]

Try hitting a steel beam with a fully loaded 767 at 500 mph.

What would be a good scale test for that?

And I think you must have missed where I said "pound for pound". Because aluminum does has a much higher strength to weight ratio than steel.

 

[Ross Marsden]

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.

 

[Mick West]

I think most arguments with 9/11 truthers are ultimately pointless. But here I'm just trying to illustrate how lee's argument is an argument from incredulity, and when you actually get down to the facts, the things that he considers impossible, are actually quite possible.

We don't know if the plane destroyed any central support columns. But we do know, with math and physics, that it's possible.

Lee does not even believe in progressive collapse by gravity alone. So shifting the debate there will not be productive.

 

[Mick West]

So you saying that it just feels wrong to you? Steel and concrete is strong. Aluminum is weak. So there's no way aluminum could break steel. Is that the argument?

Why not pick some numbers to illustrate your argument?

A36 structural steel, tensile strength 58,000-80,000 psi.
6061-T6 Aluminum Alloy, tensile strength 42,000 psi.

Not TOO different. Aluminum is actually much stronger than steel, pound for pound. Aluminum density = 2.7 g/cm3, A36 Steel density = 7.8 g/cm.

And when you are out there doing your field testing, try hitting a piece of rebar with a full beer barrel at 500 mph, to get a more accurate comparison.

For the record, I picked the wrong aluminum alloy. A 767 is made from 2024 and 7075. 2024 has a tensile strength range of 30,000 to 68,000 psi. So can be actually be stronger than steel by volume, as well as weight. 7075 is stronger than that (40,000 to 78,000 psi)

 

[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.

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?

 

[firepilot]

So are you saying now, that not just do you believe it was a a planned demolition, but that an airplane did not actually hit it? Are you saying it was something else that hit it, or that it was just a hologram? I am trying to figure how what you are thinking it actually was that hit it, or are you thinking that somehow the laws of physics were not followed in the impact?

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.
It did not crumple either? are you expecting that it should have just visibly slowed down, with probably a tail sticking outside the WTC?

 

[lee h oswald]

I think most arguments with 9/11 truthers are ultimately pointless. But here I'm just trying to illustrate how lee's argument is an argument from incredulity, and when you actually get down to the facts, the things that he considers impossible, are actually quite possible.

We don't know if the plane destroyed any central support columns. But we do know, with math and physics, that it's possible.

Lee does not even believe in progressive collapse by gravity alone. So shifting the debate there will not be productive.

Tut tut. There you go lying about what I've said again. Lee does not even believe in progressive collapse by gravity alone - the usual question: point out where I said that or admit it's a fabrication.
I think most arguments with entrenched conservatives are probably ultimately pointless. You know as well as I do that this video is a load of rubbish. It presented a final cut which is what was desired from the funders of the 'research'. It's a lie, pure and simple. The fact that: ....Purdue University, with one of the most prestigious engineering schools in the
nation, produced an animation of an airliner easily pushing right through an image of a
twin tower. See
http://www.livevideo.com/video/killt...3F73DC126/purd
ue-sim-of-aa11-s-strong-wi.aspx; Purdue has been rewarded with a Homeland Security
Institute grant and its president was appointed to the board of SAIC, a top military and
NIST contractor...

...is presumably 'irrelevant'?

As usual, your post just restates the belief you hold - you actually can't argue against Newton's third, so you attempt to convince any poor sod passing through that aluminium planes are made of sterner stuff than steel and concrete buildings. You should be ashamed of yourself, really.

 

[Mick West]

No perceptible damage? With a fraction of a second the nose cone is gone:



I suspect it looks a bit odd because of the limitations of finite element analysis. As the name suggests this creates the model using a finite number of discrete elements. So failure occurs at the element level. That may also explains the neat curving of the columns - the program only calculates that they fail, not the resultant deformation - which is possibly added at the visualization stage.

 

[lee h oswald]

So are you saying now, that not just do you believe it was a a planned demolition, but that an airplane did not actually hit it? Are you saying it was something else that hit it, or that it was just a hologram? I am trying to figure how what you are thinking it actually was that hit it, or are you thinking that somehow the laws of physics were not followed in the impact?

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.
It did not crumple either? are you expecting that it should have just visibly slowed down, with probably a tail sticking outside the WTC?

If you read it all again, you'll find that the question is simple. If you answer it, I might consider answering yours.

 

[Mick West]

Tut tut. There you go lying about what I've said again. Lee does not even believe in progressive collapse by gravity alone - the usual question: point out where I said that or admit it's a fabrication.

So do you believe in it?

 

[lee h oswald]

No perceptible damage? With a fraction of a second the nose cone is gone:



I suspect it looks a bit odd because of the limitations of finite element analysis. As the name suggests this creates the model using a finite number of discrete elements. So failure occurs at the element level. That may also explains the neat curving of the columns - the program only calculates that they fail, not the resultant deformation - which is possibly added at the visualization stage.

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.