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

[lee h oswald]

Can you just quote the bits he got wrong.

Have you read the report? If you want to discuss it, then I would advise you to. You should know that I am qualified to assess such a report and that I have been through it twice. I wouldn't want to have you at a disadvantage.

The main point is that it is predicated on a false assumption. In that context the whole is easily discredited as deeply flawed and seriously inaccurate. Given the supposed 'expertise' of the four people involved in writing the report, then they should have questioned the false assumption and corrected it with all the evidence they had at their disposal. In short, the report is the wrong report because it begins at the wrong starting point for any investigation that would be a 'genuine' attempt to get to the bottom of the event.

Given your track record, I'd say it's a better idea if you read it and tell me why you think it is right....you'll probably say 'it seems reasonable to me' - that's my guess.

For starters, here's a little nugget: in the report it states that the truck parked outside the Murrah building contained equivalent of 4000lbs of TNT when it is quite well documented that the device was Ammonium Nitrate-Fuel Oil (ANFO) at 4800lbs. Apples and pears there. TNT and ANFO are different animals altogether....Page 50 section 3.2.1 and subsequent figures all give the same incorrect information. For anyone caring to know, ANFO has a blast potential around 30% of TNT, so a quick calculation tells you that 4800lbs of ANFO explosive is actually about the same in blast potential as 1400lbs of TNT. Which is quite different to the 4000lbs of TNT inferred in the report and in subsequent reports, one of them by your good old mates at 'reasonable' NIST. What a coincidence.

 

[lee h oswald]

Why do I keep getting logged out by the site? Why does the site run slow and freeze when I try to 'reply with quote'? Why do I get timed out after two minutes? Is it just me?

 

[lee h oswald]

It might be worth saying something here about the term 'progressive collapse'. Let's examine that for a second.

By whatever means, if a building suffers what is termed a 'global collapse' - that is, complete and catastrophic failure - then how else would you describe it? For example: it's not going to suffer a 'regressive collapse', is it? It's a kind of truism almost; it's very obvious that if something begins to collapse and then continues to collapse until there is nothing left to collapse then it is very safe to say that it 'progressively collapsed' - how else would it?

So, the meaning of the term 'progressive collapse' is: a statement of the bleeding obvious without ascribing any valid reason for that condition occurring.

 

[Gunguy45]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "blast potential"? I can't really find any references to that term. I found relative effectiveness and detonation velocities but not bp. I'm no engineer or explosives expert (or a terrorist..lol) just curious. Thanks!

 

[lee h oswald]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "blast potential"? I can't really find any references to that term. I found relative effectiveness and detonation velocities but not bp. I'm no engineer or explosives expert (or a terrorist..lol) just curious. Thanks!

No probs. Sorry not to be clearer, it's just my way of describing the maximum potential blast pressure expected of a given explosive. It's measured in pounds per square inch (PSI). ANFO rates at around 500,000 psi and TNT is about three (and a bit) times that.

 

[Gunguy45]

I guess that may have been the problem. Is this a calculation you developed on your own or is it some sort of industry standard?

 

[Mick West]

For starters, here's a little nugget: in the report it states that the truck parked outside the Murrah building contained equivalent of 4000lbs of TNT when it is quite well documented that the device was Ammonium Nitrate-Fuel Oil (ANFO) at 4800lbs. Apples and pears there. TNT and ANFO are different animals altogether....Page 50 section 3.2.1 and subsequent figures all give the same incorrect information. For anyone caring to know, ANFO has a blast potential around 30% of TNT, so a quick calculation tells you that 4800lbs of ANFO explosive is actually about the same in blast potential as 1400lbs of TNT. Which is quite different to the 4000lbs of TNT inferred in the report and in subsequent reports, one of them by your good old mates at 'reasonable' NIST. What a coincidence.

So where do you get that figure? The National Counterterrorism Center says it's 82% pressure equivalent (or 85% impulse equivalent). 4800x0.82 is 3936.

http://www.nctc.gov/site/technical/tnt.html

This calculator from the Institute of Makers of Explosives gives a result of 3,875 pounds.

http://www.ime.org/dynamic.php?page_id=9

So it seems the report was pretty accurate. Would you care to revise your claims?

 

[Mick West]

Why do I keep getting logged out by the site? Why does the site run slow and freeze when I try to 'reply with quote'? Why do I get timed out after two minutes? Is it just me?

Try clearing your cookies. Might be leftover from the upgrade.

 

[Gunguy45]

Just to add...from what I can quickly find (no...I haven't read the full report) the OKC bomb was ANNM...not regular ANFO. ANNM has an almost equal effectiveness as TNT because of the added nitromethane.

 

[lee h oswald]

So where do you get that figure? The National Counterterrorism Center says it's 82% pressure equivalent (or 85% impulse equivalent). 4800x0.82 is 3936.

http://www.nctc.gov/site/technical/tnt.html

This calculator from the Institute of Makers of Explosives gives a result of 3,875 pounds.

http://www.ime.org/dynamic.php?page_id=9

So it seems the report was pretty accurate. Would you care to revise your claims?

Nope. The TNT equivalence in the calculations you cite do not take into account the uncertainty of a device constructed by an amateur and housed in a non-spherical, non-ideal container. The uncertainties are described here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...VIk9bQ&sig=AHIEtbRR5pilvSjoRyShvj4Ib_K9z69UNw

where the authors state this (and cite a reference I will come to):

2a. Uncertainty in TNT equivalency factor

The construction and the efficacy of the resulting bomb have been widely discussed in the open literature.
Two readily available on-line summary articles are:

Explosives – ANFO *Ammonium nitrate-fuel oil), at
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/system/munition/explosives-anfo.htm

ANFO, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANFO

Differences in the preparation of ANFO explosive as well as the physical make-up of its components can
introduce variability in TNT equivalency. These can be manifest as variability in the amount of absorbed
water in the mixture, a lack of uniformity in mixing, differences in specific gravity, and the particular
oxidizer and type of fuel oil used.

Because of the inherent variability in one or more of these factors, there is uncertainty as to the TNT
equivalent mass that should be assumed for a terrorist attack. To provide a framework for assessing the
blast parameters, we shall assume in the following that the probability Fm(m)dm that a terrorist explosive
attack will involve an explosive of TNT equivalent mass m in the interval (m, m+dm) has the shape of a
normal probability distribution function with a mean mo and a dispersion δm, We shall also assume that
the truncated normal probability distribution is only nonzero for m larger than some minimum mmin and
for m less than some maximum mmax.

Specifically,

Fm(m)dm =

where the normalization constant is

Cm = (2/π1/2δm) [Erf((mmax-mo)/δm) + Erf((mo-mmin)/δm)

From the foregoing discussion, we shall use as a numerical example

Cm exp[- (m-mo)2/(δm)2]dm

0 otherwise

for mmin < m < mmax

[1a]

[1b]

12

Journal of Physical Security 4(2), 10-29 (2010)

mo = 32,000 lbs TNT
mmin = 12,000 lbs TNT
mmax = 64,000 lbs TNT
δm = 20,000 lbs TNT

The mean value, 32,000 lbs, corresponds to 40,000 lb of ANFO with a TNT equivalency factor of 0.8 [the 'industry standard'], whereas the minimum and maximum values, 12,000 and 64,000 lbs, correspond to 40,000 lb of ANFO with TNT equivalency factors of 0.3 and 1.6, respectively. The dispersion δm = 20,000 lbs has been set equal to mo – mmin to describe a likely spread in values comparable to the difference between the nominal 0.8 equivalency factor and the minimum equivalency factor of 0.3. This spread has been chosen rather than a spread equal to the difference between the maximum equivalency factor of 1.6 and the nominal factor of 0.8, to weight more heavily the multitude of factors that can decrease the TNT equivalency.

Further, from http://www.psosonline.com/en/Physic...mprovised-and-military-explosive-devices.html

A paucity of accurate data on the physics and dynamics of VBIEDs results in calculations and assumptions being based on the well researched dynamics of military grade explosive devices. Terror events around the world have shown that the efficacy of VBIEDs is generally significantly lower than that of military grade explosives.

...Difference in gravitational weight and quantity may partly account for the 15-40 fold differences in the explosive size estimates described above. There are more factors to consider however when we analyze or calculate the reflected blast pressure generated from improvised explosive devices that were not built to the best military standards. The following factors may account for the huge gap between expected and actual output:

• The purity of the explosive (TNT) and percentage of "dirt" or inert material which can be expected to be 5%-10% higher in an improvised device.
• The shape and geometry of the explosive device which affects the blast result and may even result in total failure of the explosion to reach detonation velocity (as probably happened in the Istanbul event described above).
• Location and strength of the initiation mechanism (detonator and booster) since a poorly designed initiation sequence may result in poor detonation or even total failure.
• Explosive devise casing since confinement, the way that the explosive charge is packed, may dramatically change the explosive reaction and the blast load and fragmentation distribution, especially in improvised explosives.
  

...

1. Explosive weight

Calculating the explosive weight based on volume is usually done by multiplying by 1.64 g/cm3​, the specific gravitational weight for cast TNT however this ignores the fact that the explosive may not be TNT. Military type explosives tend to be denser then commercial explosives. For example, ANFO density is usually between 0.8 - 1.0 g/cm3​, with an average of 0.9 g/cm3​, compared to 1.64 g/cm3​ for TNT so the actual weight of ANFO explosive in the same volume of space within the VBIED could be as little as 55% of the calculated weight. Even if the explosive is TNT, this can come in various shapes and density/gravitational weights – from powder or flakes to cast TNT. The specific gravitational weight for powder or flaked TNT is only 0.9 g/cm3​, so here the actual weight of powder or flaked TNT explosive in the same volume of space within the VBIED could be only 55% of the calculated weight..

Therefore the difference in gravitational weight between military and improvised explosive devices can result in up to 45% reduction in explosive weight.

And further:

2. Velocity of detonation

Detonation velocity is one of the most important factors in assessing the peak blast pressure and impulses. The speed of detonation is translated into shock waves in the air that are measured by peak incident pressure and impulses. As can be seen in the Figure 7 below, the detonation velocity of a TNT explosive charge varies from under 4800 m/sec for low density (powdered) TNT to around 6750 m/sec for the maximum density of a good quality cast TNT charge with the optimum initiation and geometry shape. This 40% increase in detonation velocity will increase the reflected pressure on a building at any distance, depending on the pressure wave shape and size.

Test data from the early 1960’s that was confirmed in the 1970's indicated that commercially manufactured ANFO in relatively large quantities of above 120 kg had an average detonation velocity of 4200 m/s and an average equivalent weight, on a pressure basis, of 0.82 compared to standard TNT charge with explosion velocity of 6750 m/sec. The positive duration and impulse of the blast wave, although not stated in terms of equivalence, appeared to be somewhat less. It should be mentioned that this was long distance target testing and so was measured a long distance away from the blast. With VBIEDs we may expect a greater difference as the distance is much less and the reflected pressure from nearby buildings may influence the explosion's wave shape. This difference in velocity speed between ANFO and TNT of between 4200 m/sec to 6750 m/sec is responsible for a reduction of 18% in pressure and impulses in long range and even more in short distance targets. Assuming home made explosive devices use even lower velocity explosive materials, the loss of pressure and impulses will be more than 20%.

A reduction of 20% of the TNT equivalent pressure from the 55% left after the volume reduction (See 4.1 above) will leave only 44% equivalent weight, on a pressure basis. This is without taking into account other facts such as the level of professionalism of the bomb maker, the effect of camouflage and the challenges of initiating a VBIED.

And:

Purity of the explosive Explosive purity is a significant element when calculating performance. Inert materials and "dirt" are a direct result of the manufacturing process and can reduce the efficiency of the explosive by about 5%-10% in a commercially available explosive compared to the same type of explosive at its top performance.

Improvised bombs will usually use home made explosive material such as TATP, ANFO, ANS or improvised military type explosives like Nitroglycerin and C4. In many events the bomb manufacturer at his home will use a mixture of military ammunition and military and improvised explosives to build a bomb, particularly in the case of vehicle borne or other large bombs. The fact that the explosive charge is not homogenous affects its performance to the extent that parts of the bomb may not even be initiated while other parts of it will detonate with a relatively good performance. That phenomenon may happen when the less sensitive explosive is inside a casing, for example old ammunition, that will break the detonation wave to the point below the sensitivity point. Introducing inert metal (or other inert material) particles to explosives results in weak detonations. The non-ideal behavior of the explosive is caused by failure of some of the individual detonation wavelets between the metal particles. Subsequent decomposition of the partially decomposed explosive occurs behind the detonation front. This purity/manufacturing quality issue in improvised explosives has not been investigated enough, but is most certainly one of the major reasons for failure in terror related explosions.

Even a very conservative figure of a 10% loss in explosive force in improvised ANFO as a result of inert materials and bad production compared to industrially manufactured ANFO, results in 40% efficiency of the VBIED charge compared to original calculated value (after the volume, velocity and purity issues have been taken into account)

And:

Geometry of the explosive device Geometry is crucial in a commercial, less sensitive explosive material like ANFO, and less so but still important in military type high explosives

And finally:

Conclusions

Starting from the optimum condition of 100% performance for a military grade explosive device, we have shown that after the volume, velocity and purity issues and shape/dimensional issues are considered, we are left with a very conservative 36% of the original TNT equivalent charge. This goes a long way to accounting for the phenomena that were seen in the two VBIED studies described earlier.

........ Nevertheless, if we calculate the known energy losses in a VBIED threat based on the ATF or FEMA [irony?] threat analysis method using very conservative assumptions, we can demonstrate a 64% loss. In other words, the explosion’s output will be only a third of the original assumed output. The difference between protecting against a 300 kg VBIED compared to a 100 kg VBIED threat in a structural and envelope wall enhancement project may represent millions of US $ of savings.

There's more, but you might like to digest that first.

 

[Mick West]

So the first link there agrees with the 0.8 average figure. The second is about calculating weight from volume, which is not relevant. The rest is from an Israeli report written several years after the Oklahoma report. So what exactly is the mistake?

And of course the bomb was not a simple 4800 pounds of ANFO. Here's the actual composition of the truck bomb, perhaps you could work out the TNT equivalent from this?




It's also worth nothing how we got here. You claim the Purdue simulation is fake, and that the people involved with it are either unqualified or corrupted. I then showed that Mete Sozen did seemt o be very well qualified on paper. You then brought up his involvement in the Oklahoma city bombing, and said that since the report contained what you consider to be an incorrect TNT equivalent for the truck bomb, then it's all bogus, and Sozen should not be trusted, hence 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[Mick West]

And, this is all somewhat irrelevant anyway, as the TNT equivalent was NOT calculated from the mass of the explosive material, but from the size of the crater and estimates of peak overpressure from measurements of damage to surrounding buildings.

https://www.metabunk.org/files/fema_277_ok_city.pdf

 

[lee h oswald]

So the first link there agrees with the 0.8 average figure. The second is about calculating weight from volume, which is not relevant. The rest is from an Israeli report written several years after the Oklahoma report. So what exactly is the mistake?

And of course the bomb was not a simple 4800 pounds of ANFO. Here's the actual composition of the truck bomb, perhaps you could work out the TNT equivalent from this?


It's also worth nothing how we got here. You claim the Purdue simulation is fake, and that the people involved with it are either unqualified or corrupted. I then showed that Mete Sozen did seemt o be very well qualified on paper. You then brought up his involvement in the Oklahoma city bombing, and said that since the report contained what you consider to be an incorrect TNT equivalent for the truck bomb, then it's all bogus, and Sozen should not be trusted, hence 9/11 was an inside job.

Amazing! Yet somehow not surprising. You manage to ignore all the pertinent bits - you and Sozen are peas in a pod, eh. And yes, I agree, it's definitely worth remembering how we got here and why.

Also quite amazing is that there's a schematic of the bomb layout in the back of the truck which was reduced to dust in the explosion - who had a sneaky peek before the device went off? Who's the 'artist'? McVeigh?
As you well know, all reports say ANFO, 4800lbs, home-made, in multiple containers, not spherical, centres approx six feet above the ground. We won't mention that cctv has been withheld, just like 911, eh? Must be an issue of 'national security' I'd say. Bit like bolting the stable door after the horse has taken off? Just a bit. The pattern's always the same.

I'm in good company on this one:

http://11syyskuu.net/terrorismi/eglin study.PDF

is a link to a study report. The study was carried out in 1997 at Eglin AFB and is a blast effects study. Benton K. Partin Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret.) acquired the data directly from Armament Directorate, Wright Laboratory, Eglin AFB. As I had to put up with Sozen's biography, here's a potted one of the Brigadier General's:

(703) 780-7652
8908 Captains Row
Alexandria, Virginia 22308 Thirty one years active duty in the Air Force. Progressively responsible executive, scientific and technical assignments directing organizations engaged in research, development, testing, analysis, requirements generation and acquisition management of weapons systems. Assignments from laboratory to the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Personal contributions made in the fields of research and development management, weapon system concepts, guided weapons technology, target acquisition aids, focused energy weapons, operations research and joint service harmonization of requirements. Retired as a Brigadier General.
White House appointed Special Assistant to the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration. Personally designated to prepare the White Paper on the Federal Aviation Administration for the 1989 Presidential Transition Team. This included development of policy initiatives on FAA/USAF joint use of the Global Positioning System (GPS), operational life for commercial aircraft, antiterrorism, airport and airway capacity, requirements in the FAA acquisition process and FAA leadership and management development.
Military Command Pilot and Command Missileman with 4000 hours (37 combat.)
Education:
B.S. Chemical Engineering
M.S. Aeronautical Engineering
Ph.D. Candidate, Operations Research & Statistics (Academics Completed.)
Publications/TV
Sino-Soviet Conflict. Competition and cooperation: Risks in Force Structure Planning,
A Reduced Upper Limit for Sequential Test Truncation Error.
Frequent TV Talk Shows on the Voice of Freedom.
Honors:
Distinguished Service Medal
Legion of Merit thrice
Distinguished Graduate - Air War College
Community Affairs:
Chairman, United States Defense Committee
Member of the Board, In Touch Missions International
Member of the Board, Front Line Fellowship
Founding Chairman of the School Board, Engleside Christian School
Washington Rep. for the Association of Christian Schools International (1981-1983)
Chairman Fairfax County Republican Party (1982-1986)
Lifelong Professional Challenge:
Continuing studies and analyses to anticipate and forecast the future course of world military/political/economic transforming processes.

Is he qualified?

 

[lee h oswald]

And, this is all somewhat irrelevant anyway, as the TNT equivalent was NOT calculated from the mass of the explosive material, but from the size of the crater and estimates of peak overpressure from measurements of damage to surrounding buildings.

Most relevant, I'd say.

 

[Mick West]

Most relevant, I'd say.

Why is it relevant? It's all about some calculation that Sozen did not do. You claim Sozen made a mistake. What was the mistake?

 

[lee h oswald]

It's also worth nothing how we got here. You claim the Purdue simulation is fake, and that the people involved with it are either unqualified or corrupted. I then showed that Mete Sozen did seemt o be very well qualified on paper. You then brought up his involvement in the Oklahoma city bombing, and said that since the report contained what you consider to be an incorrect TNT equivalent for the truck bomb, then it's all bogus, and Sozen should not be trusted, hence 9/11 was an inside job.

Actually, on reviewing that last bit....I think we've got yet another case of incorrect representation of what I said - you need to go back and check it.

I claim that the Purdue simulation is seriously inaccurate and have demonstrated that it is, and that it does not resemble the reality it claims to depict. By contrast, you claim to have 'debunked' a quote by FDR in another thread - on what basis you claim that is not apparent at all; however, when Purdue get several things wrong with their 'simulation' it is not 'debunked', it is excused. By you, that is. Purdue's simulation is best summed up by the narrator in the opening lines: the visualisation needed to be eloquent to the non-expert user - really just a way of saying it needs to look like a Roadrunner cartoon (because it does, only not as good) so any idiot gets it. And what they get is a lie; a misrepresentation of what really happened. There's a lot of it about.

You say:

You then brought up his involvement in the Oklahoma city bombing, and said that since the report contained what you consider to be an incorrect TNT equivalent for the truck bomb, then it's all bogus

But do, please, show me exactly where I said that the incorrect tnt eq calc was the reason why it is bogus? I didn't use the word 'bogus' either. It's the post at the head of this page you're supposedly referring to. Perhaps you might like to reframe your statement so it more accurately reflects the truth?

 

[lee h oswald]

Why is it relevant? It's all about some calculation that Sozen did not do. You claim Sozen made a mistake. What was the mistake?

I've already said what the mistake was - haven't you been following?

Is the Brigadier General qualified?

 

[Mick West]

But do, please, show me exactly where I said that the incorrect tnt eq calc was the reason why it is bogus? I didn't use the word 'bogus' either. It's the post at the head of this page you're supposedly referring to. Perhaps you might like to reframe your statement so it more accurately reflects the truth?

No, I wouldn't. If I got something wrong in paraphrasing what you said, then you can simply tell me what you actually mean.

 

[Mick West]

I've already said what the mistake was - haven't you been following?

Is the Brigadier General qualified?

Not really, as he's got no qualification in structural engineering. But let's say that he is, for the sake of argument. His calculations are bogus because they are based on a a hypothetical calculated yield, whereas Sozen's are based on calculations of the actual force of the explosion in the field, from the crater size and other effects.

 

[lee h oswald]

Not really, as he's got no qualification in structural engineering. But let's say that he is, for the sake of argument. His calculations are bogus because they are based on a a hypothetical calculated yield, whereas Sozen's are based on calculations of the actual force of the explosion in the field, from the crater size and other effects.

So, in your opinion, the Brigadier General is not qualified to assess a blast effects test run by the Armament Directorate and the Wright Laboratory at Eglin Air Force Base and for which those entities provided him the data?

 

[lee h oswald]

Fascinating how you select (cherry-pick) and seize upon any item you consider might delay, deflect, dilute or otherwise stall the direction of the argument - while avoiding most questions and points put your way - did you get training for that?

 

[Mick West]

Fascinating how you select (cherry-pick) and seize upon any item you consider might delay, deflect, dilute or otherwise stall the direction of the argument - while avoiding most questions and points put your way - did you get training for that?

I feel like I directly addressed the issue by showing how Sozen's figures for the blast were more accurate (as they were based on actual field measurements). This also nullifies your higher issue of Sozen making mistakes which somehow then makes him unqualified.

I feel like we've wandered very far off the path here. But it's been somewhat illuminating. I can understand that you won't trust the 9/11 OS because you don't trust the OKC OS. You don't trust the OKC OS because you don't trust the JFK OS. It's not so much that the facts clearly disprove the OS, it's that you think ALL Official Stories are highly suspect, and you have a strong propensity to believe any take on the story that's the opposite of the OS.

So really it's pointless me trying to try to come to some agreement on 9/11 if you've already poisoned the the well by having a fixed belief (and correct me if I'm wrong) that OKC was a controlled demolition.

Even when you run into problems like the lack of audio of demolition-style explosions for the WTC towers, this means nothing to you, because you KNOW that Purdue is part of the plot, and because Partin does not concur with Sozen, then Sozen is a shill or a dupe.

I'm sorry you feel like I'm cherry picking. I try not to. I try to address the central point. But sometimes it's hard to know what point it is you are trying to make. You said Sozen made "incorrect assumption and went from there." in saying the TNT equivalent was 4000 pounds. I respond with they made the calculation based on the size of the crater, so how could it be an incorrect assumption? You claim it's well documented the bomb was 4,800lb of ANFO. Yet McVeigh's diagrams show it was a combination of ANFO, the more powerful ANNM, and some raw ammonium nitrate, along with 350lb of shock tube. Given the complexity of the bomb makeup it's unlikely that Partin's estimate are correct, and the field measurement of the actual yield would be more accurate.

Certainly there seems to be nothing dishonest, misleading, or inaccurate in the report that Sozen contributed to, so it's difficult to see how any of this can somehow call into question his credentials, or invalidate a computer simulation done several years later.

 

[Canadian]

Obviously you support the progressive collapse conspiracy theory.
You ask what would happen if you dropped a 10 foot beam 100 ft (or whatever).
Now all you have to do is Prove any support columns or girders were dropped from somewhere Before being hurled hundreds of feet from the building structure.

You aren't doing a very thorough job here.

 

[Unregistered]

Excellent video Paul, thanks. It's quite striking just how similar it is, even on this much smaller scale.

Thanks for the link but you are only proving the truthers Correct.
OBVIOUSLY to demolish a building with this technique Requires Preparation -probably weeks.
We can only conclude that WTC Security shut down for at least a week before 911 so some Arabs with Box Cutters could set up huge hydraulic rams prior to the impacts.

Again- not very well thought out "debunkery".

 

[Mick West]

What, so you think it was verinage?

Verinage requires preparation to do cleanly and safely. Those were obviously not concerns here


And regarding falling beams - how could there NOT be falling beams? And how could they not impact the solid structure? It's not going to dissolve away?

 

[lee h oswald]

.

So really it's pointless me trying to try to come to some agreement on 9/11 if you've already poisoned the the well by having a fixed belief (and correct me if I'm wrong) that OKC was a controlled demolition.

Even when you run into problems like the lack of audio of demolition-style explosions for the WTC towers, this means nothing to you, because you KNOW that Purdue is part of the plot, and because Partin does not concur with Sozen, then Sozen is a shill or a dupe.

I'm sorry you feel like I'm cherry picking. I try not to. I try to address the central point. But sometimes it's hard to know what point it is you are trying to make. You said Sozen made "incorrect assumption and went from there." in saying the TNT equivalent was 4000 pounds. I respond with they made the calculation based on the size of the crater, so how could it be an incorrect assumption? You claim it's well documented the bomb was 4,800lb of ANFO. Yet McVeigh's diagrams show it was a combination of ANFO, the more powerful ANNM, and some raw ammonium nitrate, along with 350lb of shock tube. Given the complexity of the bomb makeup it's unlikely that Partin's estimate are correct, and the field measurement of the actual yield would be more accurate.

Certainly there seems to be nothing dishonest, misleading, or inaccurate in the report that Sozen contributed to, so it's difficult to see how any of this can somehow call into question his credentials, or invalidate a computer simulation done several years later.

So really it's pointless me trying to try to come to some agreement on 9/11 if you've already poisoned the the well by having a fixed belief (and correct me if I'm wrong) that OKC was a controlled demolition.

Now that, and most of what precedes it, is actually quite funny. I have consistently said throughout all discussions that I don't know what happened - I am merely raising questions and objections to your apparent certainty about it all. 'Poisoned the well'? lol! It's you who's the one with the 'fixed belief'- have a read back over all these pages and it's very clear who has the fixed beliefs round here.

Even when you run into problems like the lack of audio of demolition-style explosions for the WTC towers, this means nothing to you, because you KNOW that Purdue is part of the plot, and because Partin does not concur with Sozen, then Sozen is a shill or a dupe.

Again, I cannot claim to know what happened, because for me there's not enough reliable evidence to make that conclusion. I'm not going to jump about making bold claims about what really happened, I leave that to you.

You said Sozen made "incorrect assumption and went from there." in saying the TNT equivalent was 4000 pounds.

No, I didn't say that. I said this,

The main point is that it is predicated on a false assumption. In that context the whole is easily discredited as deeply flawed and seriously inaccurate. Given the supposed 'expertise' of the four people involved in writing the report, then they should have questioned the false assumption and corrected it with all the evidence they had at their disposal. In short, the report is the wrong report because it begins at the wrong starting point for any investigation that would be a 'genuine' attempt to get to the bottom of the event.

.......

For starters, here's a little nugget: in the report it states that the truck parked outside the Murrah building contained equivalent of 4000lbs of TNT when it is quite well documented that the device was Ammonium Nitrate-Fuel Oil (ANFO) at 4800lbs

So the incorrect assumption was not the miscalculation of tnt equivalence, that was just 'a little nugget', as is clearly stated.

Certainly there seems to be nothing dishonest, misleading, or inaccurate in the report that Sozen contributed to, so it's difficult to see how any of this can somehow call into question his credentials, or invalidate a computer simulation done several years later.

You've lumped the OK city report in with the Purdue simulation. They are discrete and have been treated as discrete. Purdue's simulation got quite a lot of things wrong - I'd say there was a fair amount of bunk in it and what it depicted. Basic errors, incorrect damage representation - pretty serious stuff for something which trumpets its own 'high fidelity' 'scientifically accurate' content. They couldn't even get the flight number right! How basic is that?
OK City is another issue altogether. The connection is that it's the same people being pulled in to do the govts 'investigation', and in each case there are many unanswered questions and the official story is rightly challenged. Do you think that no challenges should be made in such circumstances? We should just accept, on faith, what we are told - let other people do our thinking for us? I don't think so, and neither does this guy -

Letter from Gen. Partin to U.S. Sen. Trent Lott

Benton K. Partin Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret.)
8908 Captains Row
Alexandria, Virginia 22308
703-780-7652
July 30, 1995
Sen. Trent Lott
United States Senate
487 Senate Russell Office Building
Washington, DC 205102403 Dear Sen. Lott:
The attached report contains conclusive proof that the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was not caused solely by the truck bomb. Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level.
Weapons Experience: I do not offer such an analytical conclusion lightly. I have spent 25 years in research, design, development, test and management of weapons development. This included: handson work at the Ballistic Research Laboratories; Commander of the Air Force Armament Technology Laboratory, and ultimately management responsibility for almost every nonnuclear weapon device in the Air Force (at the Air Force System command, Air Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) levels). I was also the first chairman of the OSD joint service Air Munitions Requirements and Development Committee. (A more detailed resume appears at Tab 1.)
Observations in Oklahoma City: To verify earlier analysis, I visited Oklahoma City during the last week of June. There I had the opportunity to view hundreds of photographs taken throughout the cleanup operation as the layers of debris were cleared away. The photos present irrefutable evidence that at least four demolition charges were set off at four critical columns of the reinforced concrete structure at the floor level of the third floor.
Conclusion: Based on my experience in weapons development and bomb damage analysis, and on my review of all evidence available, I can say, with a high level of confidence, that the damage pattern on the reinforced concrete superstructure could not possibly have been attained from the single truck bomb. The total incompatibility of this pattern of destruction with a single truck bomb lies in the simple, incontrovertible fact that some of the columns collapsed that should not have collapsed if the damage were caused solely by a truck bomb, and, conversely, some of the columns were left standing that should have collapsed if the damage had been caused solely by the truck bomb.
It is my hope and request that, as a Member of Congress, you will support a Congressional investigation to determine the true initiators of this bombing, which could not have occurred the way in which it has been portrayed as having happened. Further, it is requested that you defer action and reserve judgment on socalled antiterrorism legislation that has serious civil liberties implications, and which would not be passed except for the Oklahoma City bombing until the causes of the Oklahoma City disaster are determined by independent investigators.
Both the Federal Building in Oklahoma and the Trade Center in New York (See New York Times, October 28, 1993, p. A1) show evidence of a counterterrorism sting gone wrong.
No government law enforcement agency should be permitted to demolish, smash and bury evidence of a counterterrorism sting operation, sabotage or terrorist attack without a thorough examination by an independent, technically competent agency.
If an aircraft crashed because of a bomb, or a counterterrorism sting or an FAA Controller error, the FAA would not be permitted to gather and bury the evidence. The National Transportation Safety Board would have been called in to conduct an investigation and where possible every piece of debris would have been collected and arrayed to determine cause of failure.

To remove all ambiguity with respect to the use of supplementary demolition charges, the FBI should be required to release the high quality surveillance color TV camera tape of the Murrah building bombing on April 19, 1995.
It is my observation that the effort required to bomb the A. P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City pales in comparison with the effort to cover up evidence in Oklahoma and the media’s withholding of vital information from the American people.
Sincerely yours,
Benton K. Partin
Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret.)
BKP:aw
Enclosure

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

That's something of an appeal to authority there.

Clever people can still get things wrong. Retired generals are no exception. I particularly remember retired general Tom McInerney giving this spectacularly wrong assessment of the the "Mystery Missile" live on Fox news.

McInerney: This is not an airplane because of the plume, and the way you see that plume, airplanes do not con at sea level or 5000 feet like that. I spent 35 years flying fighters and NEVER saw an airplane con like that. That is a missile, launched from a submarine and, if you can see, it goes through a correction course and then it keeps a very smooth trajectory, meaning the guidance system has now kicked in, it's going about 45 degrees away from you, that's why you're not seeing a lot of vertical ...

Hanitty: General, are you 100% certain?

McInerney: Sean, I've watched that film ten times, watched 15 other trident films, SM3s, Surface Missile 3s, and ... launchers, I am absolutely certain that that is not an aircraft.

Content from External Source

But it was a contrail. He was entirely wrong. So why exactly should I trust a flat assertion from Partin?

 

[lee h oswald]

That's something of an appeal to authority there.

Clever people can still get things wrong. Retired generals are no exception. I particularly remember retired general Tom McInerney giving this spectacularly wrong assessment of the the "Mystery Missile" live on Fox news.

McInerney: This is not an airplane because of the plume, and the way you see that plume, airplanes do not con at sea level or 5000 feet like that. I spent 35 years flying fighters and NEVER saw an airplane con like that. That is a missile, launched from a submarine and, if you can see, it goes through a correction course and then it keeps a very smooth trajectory, meaning the guidance system has now kicked in, it's going about 45 degrees away from you, that's why you're not seeing a lot of vertical ...

Hanitty: General, are you 100% certain?

McInerney: Sean, I've watched that film ten times, watched 15 other trident films, SM3s, Surface Missile 3s, and ... launchers, I am absolutely certain that that is not an aircraft.

Content from External Source

But it was a contrail. He was entirely wrong. So why exactly should I trust a flat assertion from Partin?

It's no more of an appeal to authority than your acceptance of the official report. Clever people can and do get things wrong. Sometimes they do it on purpose. And Mete Sozen is no exception to that rule.

I don't see what your example has to do with the question.

Partin conducted his own investigation, including travelling to OK City and having pretty much the same information as Sozen et al had access to. If you're trying to say that Partin wasn't qualified to do such a thing then I disagree. Partin was eminently well-qualified for that task. Add to that his independence. He had no-one to answer to and access to the information. People with Partin's background do not usually go out on a limb on matters like these and should not be summarily dismissed, in my opinion. Partin's inquiry was further bolstered by the Eglin AFB Blast Effects Study (EBES), carried out by The Armament Directorate, Wright Laboratory, which took place in 1997. And within a study of the EBES there are a few more 'appeals to authority' - where experienced, working engineers asked to assess the EBES report and make comparisons to the Murrah building, concurred with Partin (and, importantly, independent of Partin) that the building could not have been damaged and collapse in the fashion it did because of one single ANFO truck bomb.
There's a huge difference there between someone sitting in Fox News and spurting his mouth off, and someone who has taken a measured and detailed approach to his work over a period of time and procedure.

 

[Mick West]

Partin's report is flawed in large part because it's based on an incorrect TNT equivalency calculation, rather than calculating it from the size of the crater.

Do you agree with everything in the Partin report?

 

[lee h oswald]

Partin's report is flawed in large part because it's based on an incorrect TNT equivalency calculation, rather than calculating it from the size of the crater.

Do you agree with everything in the Partin report?

I suggest you look at the EBES report and study. Do you agree with everything in the ASCE/FEMA report?

 

[lee h oswald]

Partin's report is flawed in large part because it's based on an incorrect TNT equivalency calculation, rather than calculating it from the size of the crater.

Do you agree with everything in the Partin report?

Your argument then hinges on the size of the crater - the tnt equivalent is and can not be established accurately, or didn't you read the literature on that?

 

[lee h oswald]

Let's be clear on this type of 'question'. I cannot say that I agree with everything in the report because I was not party to the evidence first hand. In much the same way as you, I am removed from the physical evidence or any possibility of examining it. What we do have is two contradictory reports. Actually, three. Partin's and the EBES report both concur that the damage could not have been caused by the truck bomb alone. And then there's the official story of 'progressive collapse' of a steel r/c building caused by a truck bomb alone - an air-coupled blast is most inefficient for such a task....don't you think?

http://11syyskuu.net/terrorismi/eglin study.PDF

 

[Mick West]

I think we need to look at the larger picture. Clearly a truck bomb exploded. That bomb alone would have done quite a bit of damage. The official reports say that it caused a partial progressive collapse.

Two main things lead me to think the official story here is most likely true:

1) If it were physically impossible for a truck bomb to have caused that damage, then way more people would be able to discern this. Particularly a large number of professionals and academics, and particularly those in other countries. Seeing as the implication of additional explosions is quite incredible, it seems almost impossible that it would not create a vast amount of interest. I don't have the time or expertise to look into it - but thousands of other people around the world have, and 99.99% of them seem to see nothing suspicious.

2) There seems no conceivable reason why someone would plant additional explosives, given that there was already going to be a huge explosion from the truck bomb. People would be killed, damage would be done. Why take this monumental risk just to make the building collapse a bit more? What if the truck bomb did not go off, or he was stopped by a cop, or it went off 100 yards away. Then you are left with a building rigged with explosives. It's ludicrously risky, with no real additional benefit.

 

[lee h oswald]

I think we need to look at the larger picture. Clearly a truck bomb exploded. That bomb alone would have done quite a bit of damage. The official reports say that it caused a partial progressive collapse.

Two main things lead me to think the official story here is most likely true:

1) If it were physically impossible for a truck bomb to have caused that damage, then way more people would be able to discern this. Particularly a large number of professionals and academics, and particularly those in other countries. Seeing as the implication of additional explosions is quite incredible, it seems almost impossible that it would not create a vast amount of interest. I don't have the time or expertise to look into it - but thousands of other people around the world have, and 99.99% of them seem to see nothing suspicious.

2) There seems no conceivable reason why someone would plant additional explosives, given that there was already going to be a huge explosion from the truck bomb. People would be killed, damage would be done. Why take this monumental risk just to make the building collapse a bit more? What if the truck bomb did not go off, or he was stopped by a cop, or it went off 100 yards away. Then you are left with a building rigged with explosives. It's ludicrously risky, with no real additional benefit.

The 'larger' picture? What's that then?

1) Talk about 'appeal to authority' - appeal to anyone more like. And you state

...and 99.99% of them seem to see nothing suspicious

Are you in touch with all of them?

2) No conceivable reason? Like having a plan for a maximum number of casualties?

And no - it's not 'make the building collapse a bit more' it's 'make the building collapse', period. That's quite different, don't you think? Instead of attempting all these ifs, buts, whys and maybes, think about the more prosaic - who had the means, who had the motive, who had the opportunity?

 

[Mick West]

1) I'm basing this on the lack of any international outcry. Clearly either nobody noticed the problem, or there was no problem. There are plenty of people who have looked at the Murrah collapse, and written papers referencing it.

2) So you take a nice simply plan of a massive truck bomb, and make it a hundred times more complex and risky simply to kill more people. What exactly does this killing more people achieve? Why not simply use a bigger bomb?

 

[lee h oswald]

1) I'm basing this on the lack of any international outcry. Clearly either nobody noticed the problem, or there was no problem. There are plenty of people who have looked at the Murrah collapse, and written papers referencing it.

2) So you take a nice simply plan of a massive truck bomb, and make it a hundred times more complex and risky simply to kill more people. What exactly does this killing more people achieve? Why not simply use a bigger bomb?

You're asking those questions to the wrong person - there's a surprise!

 

[lee h oswald]

Always important to remember and easy to forget - who had the means, who had the motive, who had the opportunity...

 

[lee h oswald]

1) I'm basing this on the lack of any international outcry. Clearly either nobody noticed the problem, or there was no problem. There are plenty of people who have looked at the Murrah collapse, and written papers referencing it.

2) So you take a nice simply plan of a massive truck bomb, and make it a hundred times more complex and risky simply to kill more people. What exactly does this killing more people achieve? Why not simply use a bigger bomb?

I'm basing this on the lack of any international outcry

Right, so that's how these things are decided is it?

Clearly either nobody noticed the problem, or there was no problem. There are plenty of people who have looked at the Murrah collapse

Actually, quite a few people noticed the problem - Gen Partin was one of them. He noticed the problem up to the point of being motivated to make his own independent report. Here's some people who 'noticed the problem', which you say 'nobody noticed'...

General Benton K. Partin. A retired U.S. Air Force Brigadier General, Partin had responsibility for the design and testing of almost every non-nuclear weapon device used in the Air Force, including precision-guided weapons designed to destroy hardened targets like the Alfred P. Murrah Building. Partin has exhaustively researched the bombing and the resulting pattern of damage.

In a letter dated May 17, 1995, hand-delivered to each member of the Congress and Senate, Partin stated:

When I first saw the pictures of the truck-bomb's asymmetrical damage to the Federal Building, my immediate reaction was that the pattern of damage would have been technically impossible without supplementing demolition charges at some of the reinforcing concrete column bases…. For a simplistic blast truck-bomb, of the size and composition reported, to be able to reach out on the order of 60 feet and collapse a reinforced column base the size of column A-7 is beyond credulity.
​

Another man who knows a thing or two about bombs is Samuel Cohen, inventor of the Neutron Bomb. Cohen began his career on the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos, where he was charged with studying the effects of the atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. During his 40 year career, Cohen worked with every application of nuclear weapons design and testing.

Cohen stated his position in a letter to Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key:

It would have been absolutely impossible and against the laws of nature for a truck full of fertilizer and fuel oil… no matter how much was used… to bring the building down.[6]​
​

Dr. Roger Raubach doesn't believe the government. Raubach, who did his Ph.D. in physical chemistry and served on the research faculty at Stanford University, says, "General Partin's assessment is absolutely correct. I don't care if they pulled up a semi-trailer truck with 20 tons of ammonium nitrate; it wouldn't do the damage we saw there."



Sam Gronning, a licensed, professional blaster in Casper, Wyoming with 30 years experience in explosives,

"The Partin letter states in very precise technical terms what everyone in this business knows: No truck-bomb of ANFO out in the open is going to cause the kind of damage we had there in Oklahoma City. In 30 years of blasting, using everything from 100 percent nitrogel to ANFO, I've not seen anything to support that story."[8]​

​

Gronning said, "I set off a 5,000 lb ANFO charge. I was standing 1,000 feet from it, and all it did was muss my hair, take out the mud in the creek that we were trying to get rid of, and it shattered a few leaves off the trees around it. It didn't cause any collateral damage to any of the deeply set trees that were within 20 feet of it."




As a publication from the Atlas Powder company states:

…agricultural fertilizer prills when made into ANFO had very poor explosive characteristics. They would not detonate efficiently because of their high density, lack of porosity and heavy inert coatings of anti-setting agents.… The ability of an oiled prill to be detonated depends greatly upon the density of the prill. Dense prills, such as agricultural grade, often are not detonable at all; or if initiated, perform at a very low rate of detonation and may die out in the bore hole performing no useful work.[9]​

​

U.S. Army Technical Manual TM 9-1910 states it thusly:

The grade of ammonium nitrate used in the manufacture of binary explosives is required to be at least 99 percent pure, contain not more than 1.15 percent of moisture, and have maximum ether-soluble, water-insoluble acidity, sulfate, and chloride contents of 0.10, 0.18, 0.02, 0.05, and 0.50 percent, respectively.

​

"ANFO is easy to make if you know how to do it," adds Jeffrey Dean, Executive Director of the International Society of Explosives Engineers, "but it takes years of experience to work with safely." According to Dean, "It is almost impossible for amateurs to properly mix the ammonium nitrate with the fuel oil. Clumps of ANFO would inevitably fail to detonate."[10]​




"My knowledge comes from practical handling of explosives," added Gronning. "And my belief is that 4800 lbs of ANFO wouldn't have scuffed the paint on the building!"

The FBI also changed the size of the bomb numerous times. They originally claimed that it weighed 1,200 pounds, upgraded that figure to 2,000 pounds, then to 4,000 pounds, and finally, they issued a press release stating that the bomb weighed 4800 pounds.



Senior FBI chemist Frederick Whitehurst conducted a test on McVeigh's clothing but found no residue there, or in McVeigh's car either.[20]​

Whitehurst came forward with allegations that the FBI has been slanting results of its forensic tests for years. Collected in a 30-page memorandum, Whitehurst criticized FBI laboratory personnel for incompetence. As a Justice Department memorandum states: "Dr. Whitehurst contends that the Explosives Unit and the Chemistry and Toxicology Unit inappropriately structure their conclusions to favor the prosecution."[21]​

According to the Wall Street Journal, "[Whitehurst's] accusations of bias and even manufacturing evidence have called into question several high-profile government cases, including the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings."[22]​
Whitehurst's allegations were further elaborated on in a highly revealing report issued by the DoJ Inspector General's Office, which concluded that "[SSA David] Williams repeatedly reached conclusions that incriminated the defendants without a scientific basis and that were not explained in the body of the report."

Indeed. It appears Williams reached his conclusions based, not on empirical evidence, but on the fact that Terry Nichols allegedly purchased large quantities of ANFO. As the OIG (Office of Inspector General) report states:

Without the evidence of these purchases, Williams admitted he would have been unable to conclude that ANFO was used. Indeed, Williams stated that based on the post-blast scene alone it could have been dynamite….
​

Williams claimed "that the initiator for the booster(s) was either a detonator from a Primadet Delay system or sensitized detonating cord." Yet as the OIG report states, "No evidence of a Primadet system or sensitized detonating cord was found at the crime scene."[23]​

Content from External Source

That's just the tip of the 'problem noticed' iceberg.

So you take a nice simply plan of a massive truck bomb, and make it a hundred times more complex and risky simply to kill more people. What exactly does this killing more people achieve? Why not simply use a bigger bomb?

A hundred times more complex and risky? How did you calculate that risk factor? The questions are a bit ludicrous - don't people who plant bombs usually want to do maximum damage? Second-guessing the motivations of those responsible is just that - guessing.

 

[lee h oswald]

[SIZE=+1]Manchester bomb[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-2]You are in: Manchester > Features > Manchester bomb > Video: Manchester bomb[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]Video: Manchester bomb[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]The moment a massive IRA bomb exploded in Manchester city centre. It's the first time this dramatic footage, filmed from the Greater Manchester Police helicopter, has been seen since the terrorist attack ten years ago. [/SIZE]

The previously unseen pictures shows the huge blast as a white lorry, packed with 3,500kg of explosives, detonates in Manchester city centre in 1996.

Content from External Source

Content from External Source

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/features/Manchester_bomb/

Semtex vs ANFO...? No building collapsed in Manchester city centre....

 

[Mick West]

But they didn't do maximum damage. Most of the building remains standing, many people in the building survived. They (apparently) went through all that risk of covertly installing explosives in the building and arranging them to go off when the truck bomb went off.

I understand the incredulity regarding a pressure wave destroying a column. But saying things like "It would have been absolutely impossible and against the laws of nature for a truck full of fertilizer and fuel oil… no matter how much was used… to bring the building down." seems a bit much. No matter how much? Not 10,000 pounds? 100,000 pounds.

Here's a 5000 pound ANFO explosion. Note the size of the crater at the end
​




I'm actually inclined somewhat to agree with your sources though. If the building just consisted of a bunch of columns and crossbeams then the explosion would have done far less structural damage. But they seem to focus on that, and ignore the forces on the columns from the flexing floors. I think the collapse mechanism in the US&R report sounds more likely.

http://failures.wikispaces.com/Murrah+Federal+Building

It's amusing though that here the destruction of the columns via shattering of the concrete from a few tons of nearby explosives is deemed unlikely by the theorists, and yet a relatively small amount of explosives is somehow able to dustify the entire WTC towers.