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

[Clock]

It is a matter of opinion . . . IMO 9/11 is the single most destructive issue tearing apart this country and creating distrust in the world . . . not since the Vietnam and Korean Wars has there been such distrust created . . . it is time to put it to rest . . . the investigations to many people were whitewashes . . .

So if it is time to put it to rest why are you asking to make a model to replicate WTC 7, and it's fall? I don't believe in that whole distrust thing. 9/11 was shocking and unexpected, to say the least, and there isn't much distrust going on in the real world. The internet is different, it's one shepherd, teaching his sheep about things, and then setting them free. They then start yapping away to other people about what the shepherd said and they have no idea what they are talking about.

the ironic thing about conspiracy theorists is that they say all of the masses are brain-washed while they are brain-washed by other people who see patterns and symbols and claim it as "proof"

 

[George B]

Wind tunnels are still used because fluid flow is computationally very expensive. But do engineers still build scale models of bridges for anything other that aesthetics? I think you'll find that computer models are used now because they are FAR more accurate and useful. Only individual assemblies are tested at near full size.

You would be a lot better off trying to create an open-source computer model.

But could you describe exactly what it would take to remove your suspicion? Who, for example, would you trust to run the tests? What would have to be demonstrated in order for you to be convinced that WTC7 was not deliberate demolition.

1) How about taking a condemned multi-story building . . . blowing a few stories away midway up and showing the rest will pancake . . .
2) Build a replicate . . . let it burn uncontrollably for seven hours and let us see if it also pancakes . . .

 

[Clock]

Guys, I am saying that I will be off in the next couple of days. I might come back after Christmas is over.

Have happy holidays and enjoy your Christmas.

 

[George B]

So if it is time to put it to rest why are you asking to make a model to replicate WTC 7, and it's fall? I don't believe in that whole distrust thing. 9/11 was shocking and unexpected, to say the least, and there isn't much distrust going on in the real world. The internet is different, it's one shepherd, teaching his sheep about things, and then setting them free. They then start yapping away to other people about what the shepherd said and they have no idea what they are talking about.

the ironic thing about conspiracy theorists is that they say all of the masses are brain-washed while they are brain-washed by other people who see patterns and symbols and claim it as "proof"

Here is my response . . .

The results of the 2007 August poll indicate that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks and over 30% of those polled seek immediate impeachment. While only 32% seek immediate Bush and/or Cheney impeachment based on their personal knowledge, many citizens appear eager for clear exposure of the facts.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

Opinion polls in the US have picked up widespread doubts among the American people.


A New York Times/CBS News poll in 2006 found that 53% of those questioned thought the Bush administration was hiding something. Another US poll found a third of those questioned thought government officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen.


http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/wtc7-report-nears-completion/

 

[Mick West]

1) How about taking a condemned multi-story building . . . blowing a few stories away midway up and showing the rest will pancake . . .
2) Build a replicate . . . let it burn uncontrollably for seven hours and let us see if it also pancakes . . .

2. WTC7 did not pancake, the interior collapsed, then the exterior.

1. Go back to the start of this thread, look at all the verinage examples.

 

[Mick West]

Here is my response . . .

The results of the 2007 August poll indicate that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks and over 30% of those polled seek immediate impeachment. While only 32% seek immediate Bush and/or Cheney impeachment based on their personal knowledge, many citizens appear eager for clear exposure of the facts.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

Opinion polls in the US have picked up widespread doubts among the American people.


A New York Times/CBS News poll in 2006 found that 53% of those questioned thought the Bush administration was hiding something. Another US poll found a third of those questioned thought government officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen.


http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/wtc7-report-nears-completion/

And how many thought that they were controlled demolitions?

Of course Bush and Cheney were hiding "something" - you could ask that question about anything.

 

[George B]

2. WTC7 did not pancake, the interior collapsed, then the exterior.

1. Go back to the start of this thread, look at all the verinage examples.

In number 2) change "pancake" to "total collapse". . . in 1) Include the cited examples (better yet, a new building) in a precision study done by the contracted investigators . . .

 

[George B]

And how many thought that they were controlled demolitions?

Of course Bush and Cheney were hiding "something" - you could ask that question about anything.

Probably around 15% . . . others probably wondered . . .

 

[Mick West]

There are too many unknowns to be able to replicate the conditions in a single test.

Anyway, that's a bit of a red herring - the physical objections have all been answered, so there is no justification for such an expensive test. Especially as the hard core believers would not be convinced by anything.

 

[George B]

There are too many unknowns to be able to replicate the conditions in a single test.

Anyway, that's a bit of a red herring - the physical objections have all been answered, so there is no justification for such an expensive test. Especially as the hard core believers would not be convinced by anything.

I disagree completely and your "Verinage" collapse example is suspect as well . . . see below

Do they have a case here? A moment's reflection will reveal that not only does this NOT support their case (that fire weakened steel causing gravitational collapse), but rather it strongly supports the controlled demolition theory regarding the towers. How so?Consider their example. What is the Verinage method? It is controlled demolition! So they are using an example of controlled demolition in order to refute the controlled demolition theory!! This is obviously self-refuting. In order for them to have a case, it would seem to me that they would have to provide examples of fire alone initiating specific and simultaneous structural failure in order to cause a symmetrical collapse that resemble anything like the WTC buildings. Consider that the Verinage method employs a team of structural engineers who "rig the physics" in a purposeful and deliberate manner in order to accomplish the desired result; a symmetrical, rapid collapse. This strongly supports the controlled demolition theory, NOT a fire initiated, gravitational collapse theory. To say that fire can do exactly what a team of engineers and demolition experts do is not only absurd, but it is an insult to their profession in my opinion. It is argued that the Verinage method emulates the WTC conditions for this kind of collapse. But how can that be without fire? This is question begging as the whole debate is centered on whether random office fires can bring down buildings in the exact manner as controlled demolition, exhibiting all, or most of, their characteristics. The Verinage example refutes their own case.
Also, a closer look at theVerinage method reveals other problems for the debunkers. For example, what type of building is the method used for? Are any steel framed high rises? No.
To bring down steel framed buildings, explosives are generally used.
Does the method employ a gravitational collapse of the top 15 % of the building in order to crush the bottom 85%, like we see in the WTC's? No, they weaken the columns on the CENTRAL floors and let physics do the work.
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/02/reflecting-on-verinage-demolition.html?m=1

 

[Mick West]

I think more than a moment of reflection is required.

Go back to the first page. Is the photo consistent with progressive collapse?

Its an important question, as the proposed inconsistencies are justification for more investigation.

 

[George B]

I think more than a moment of reflection is required.

Go back to the first page. Is the photo consistent with progressive collapse?

Its an important question, as the proposed inconsistencies are justification for more investigation.

The examples are controlled demolitions or staged Verniage (same thing without explosives) . . . how are these examples going to make me believe WTC which looks the same is not also controlled demolitions . . . my answer . . . we need more study by disinterested parties . . . what is it going to hurt ?? We spend a billion dollars every few days fighting warlords in Afganistan and the Drug Cartels . . . without much success I might add. . .

 

[Clock]

Here is my response . . .

The results of the 2007 August poll indicate that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks and over 30% of those polled seek immediate impeachment. While only 32% seek immediate Bush and/or Cheney impeachment based on their personal knowledge, many citizens appear eager for clear exposure of the facts.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

Opinion polls in the US have picked up widespread doubts among the American people.


A New York Times/CBS News poll in 2006 found that 53% of those questioned thought the Bush administration was hiding something. Another US poll found a third of those questioned thought government officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen.


http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/wtc7-report-nears-completion/

So? polls are irrelevant. But, I will stay on topic. Here are more polls for you:






See what I did there?

Also, my polls are newer than yours. The first one is from 2008 and is from the entire world while the second one from 2010, coming from a website. Yours is from 2006, at the height of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

(yes, I know the first one has a grammar error, but I didn't make it, cut me a break. also, it's the numbers that matter)

 

[HappyMonday]

PS . . . I am not a CT believer . . . I think a covert stratospheric sulfur injection program has a 30% chance of being possible . . .

I see, and I'm aware of your position and how hard you work here to maintain an open approach, hence the initial comment that it's unfortunate to see you utilising similar language to many believers. It misrepresents you.

 

[George B]

So only 46% think Al Qaeda did 9/11 . . . thanks for the help . . .

 

[Oxymoron]

Here is my response . . .

The results of the 2007 August poll indicate that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks and over 30% of those polled seek immediate impeachment. While only 32% seek immediate Bush and/or Cheney impeachment based on their personal knowledge, many citizens appear eager for clear exposure of the facts.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories


Also, my polls are newer than yours. The first one is from 2008 and is from the entire world while the second one from 2010, coming from a website. Yours is from 2006, at the height of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

(yes, I know the first one has a grammar error, but I didn't make it, cut me a break. also, it's the numbers that matter)

Just shows what cognitive dissonance and brain washing by the mockingbird media can do.

Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheyney planned the whole thing to go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan months before the attack.

The 'hijackers' were CIA assets

The buildings were rigged to collapse well before the event

Insurance was increased 300% 6 months prior to event.

Your leaders lied and you lap it up.

You tell me it's not true.... where is your evidence?....Oh no... YOU DON'T HAVE ANY, just parroted made up stupid cover up theories

Former CIA Asset, Susan Lindauer, provides an extraordinary first-hand account from behind the intelligence curtain that shatters the government's lies about 9/11 and Iraq, and casts a harsh spotlight on the workings of the Patriot Act as the ideal weapon to bludgeon whistle blowers and dissidents. A terrifying true story of "black budget" betrayals and the Patriot Act, with its arsenal of secret evidence, indefinite detention and threats of forcible drugging,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LUHa_-OlA&NR=1&feature=endscreen

First we get the true events leading up to the event, then from 30 minutes on we get the truth about the vans which primed the WTC buildings.

Watch it and weep.

Merry Xmas

 

[George B]

I see, and I'm aware of your position and how hard you work here to maintain an open approach, hence the initial comment that it's unfortunate to see you utilising similar language to many believers. It misrepresents you.

You seem to have a higher estimation of me than I have of myself . . . LoL!!

 

[HappyMonday]

You seem to have a higher estimation of me than I have of myself . . . LoL!!

#PolitenessPolicy

 

[George B]

#PolitenessPolicy

So without the policy . . . ??? What?

 

[HappyMonday]

So without the policy . . . ??? What?

JOKE dude!

 

[Clock]

So only 46% think Al Qaeda did 9/11 . . . thanks for the help . . .

yes, and 25% are unsure because of people saying

"The Government did it!"
or
"Al Qaeda did it!"

There are more people who are unsure than people who are sure that the US Government did it.

 

[Clock]

Just shows what cognitive dissonance and brain washing by the mockingbird media can do.

Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheyney planned the whole thing to go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan months before the attack.

The 'hijackers' were CIA assets

The buildings were rigged to collapse well before the event

Insurance was increased 300% 6 months prior to event.

Your leaders lied and you lap it up.

You tell me it's not true.... where is your evidence?....Oh no... YOU DON'T HAVE ANY, just parroted made up stupid cover up theories

Former CIA Asset, Susan Lindauer, provides an extraordinary first-hand account from behind the intelligence curtain that shatters the government's lies about 9/11 and Iraq, and casts a harsh spotlight on the workings of the Patriot Act as the ideal weapon to bludgeon whistle blowers and dissidents. A terrifying true story of "black budget" betrayals and the Patriot Act, with its arsenal of secret evidence, indefinite detention and threats of forcible drugging,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LUHa_-OlA&NR=1&feature=endscreen

First we get the true events leading up to the event, then from 30 minutes on we get the truth about the vans which primed the WTC buildings.

Watch it and weep.

Merry Xmas

Lol, so basically what you are saying is that if the numbers aren't going to your way, then it's brain-washing, of course... just to be the better man in this discussion right? It's ok.

I am going to tell you what I told George: Opinions are irrelevant.

It does not change the fact that the grass is green, or that cows go "moo". The only thing that it does is tell what someone thinks about a certain matter. Does it change facts? No.

Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheyney planned the whole thing to go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan months before the attack

And where is there proof of this?
The only thing that government had was a warning that something might happen, but they ignored it.

The 'hijackers' were CIA assets

Again, any proof of this?

The buildings were rigged to collapse well before the event

(I sound like a broken record here) proof? And if they did, how would they do this in secret when you had 50, 000 people working there daily, and thousands of tourists coming in every day?

Insurance was increased 300% 6 months prior to event.

What type of insurance? And, what increased? The rates? If those increased, then it would have cost the government Billions to cover the damage. Again, P-R-O-O-F?

Your leaders lied and you lap it up.

Just like how conspiracy theorists lie by re-arranging quotes to fit their view and call it "real" and you lap it up. Irony? I think so.

You tell me it's not true.... where is your evidence?....Oh no... YOU DON'T HAVE ANY, just parroted made up stupid cover up theories

Hey, those are your silly theories, not mine, I am just correcting them. And I do have evidence, if you look at the previous posts about WTC 7. Also, it would seem as if you don't have any evidence to your claims.

Oh, and that video? She is just talking about foreknowledge about 9/11, which is true. The bush government was warned that they were cooking up something for them, and they decided to ignore it because it was a 'rumor'. This is nothing new, people know about this.

View attachment 1254

View attachment 1255

But happy holidays to you too

 

[George B]

yes, and 25% are unsure because of people saying

"The Government did it!"
or
"Al Qaeda did it!"

There are more people who are unsure than people who are sure that the US Government did it.

All the more reason to show transparency and convince the majority there is nothing being withheld from them . . . trust once lost is most difficult to regain . . . they have lost the trust of many in the US and the world . . .

What could they possibly lose to bend over backward to show the world every stone was not left unturned . . . do all the tests, use third party investigators, open all the files, reconstruct, model, reenact . . . do it all . . . and don't take seven years to do it . . .

 

[Clock]

All the more reason to show transparency and convince the majority there is nothing being withheld from them . . . trust once lost is most difficult to regain . . . they have lost the trust of many in the US and the world . . .

True, especially when you have people on the internet going right left and center and calling you stupid if you believe in the official story, and of course, brain washed.

 

[George B]

True, especially when you have people on the internet going right left and center and calling you stupid if you believe in the official story, and of course, brain washed.

What could they possibly lose to bend over backward to show the world every stone was not left unturned . . . do all the tests, use third party investigators, open all the files, reconstruct, model, reenact . . . do it all . . . and don't take seven years to do it . . .

 

[Joe]

Since we seem to be backing Al Qaeda in Syria and did in Libya does that not make them a arm of The US Government ?

 

[Clock]

Who said that we were backing Al Qaeda? Me and George are just saying that the situation could have been handled in a better way, I admit. But Bush was like that lol... I did not like him.

 

[Joe]

Who said that we were backing Al Qaeda? Me and George are just saying that the situation could have been handled in a better way, I admit. But Bush was like that lol... I did not like him.

I was referring to the graph above . The Syrian rebels are made up of Al Qaeda , the same ones that were killing our troops are now being armed by America . Bush ,Obama doesn't matter . We see it with foreign affairs . They both suck .

 

[Unregisturd]

I agree with 'clock', this has got to be one of the most comprehensive discussions on 9-11 that I have come across. WTC7 has always been a bit of an enigma for me but the info submitted above from what I have read so far is really useful in coming to a balanced opinion.

This is a really valuable thread which all 9-11 truthers would do well to read. I do not consider myself a 'conspiracy theorist' just someone who tries not believe anything. The info I have got from this thread has been really helpful for me in trying to understand a lot of anomalies that have made me question the official story.

Thanks everyone for the contributions.

 

[Aemilius]

Hey Mick.... Still discussing this?

 

[Mick West]

Hey Mick.... Still discussing this?

Not since Dec 2012. Why?

 

[Aemilius]

I just had a few questions.... Are you game?

 

[Mick West]

Read this first.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/

 

[Aemilius]

Oh yeah, I forgot.... Can I post images/gifs as a new member?

 

[Mick West]

Oh yeah, I forgot.... Can I post images/gifs as a new member?

Yes. Now please make your point. If it's not about something in this thread then start a new thread.

 

[Aemilius]

Well, Mick, I wouldn't have posted in this thread if I wanted to discuss the Great Pyramid.

Anyway, it seems to me that you went to a great deal of trouble to show "lee h oswald" how free fall could be accomplished without the use of explosives. I'm just wondering though (and perhaps you explained it earlier and I missed it).... How do you see replacing one form of controlled demolition (explosive) with another form of controlled demolition (verinage) as being at all illustrative of how it (the collapse of the building) could have happened without controlled demolition?

Thanks for your patience, if you already covered it.... Is that essentially what you're saying though?

 

[jaydeehess]

Verniage is an example of gravity driven progressive global collapse. No explosives required.
That is about as far as it goes with Verniage.
While the towers did not suffer column on column impact as in Verniage, it did experience progressive floor collapse that left the perimeter to peel away and the core unsupported laterally.

Hope Mick doesnt mind my stepping in.

 

[Aemilius]

Thanks jaydeehess. I'm actually looking at WTC 7 particularly.... Is the verinage model applicable?

 

[Pete Tar]

The point it's applicable to is that it involves an initial structural failure that instigates a further total one and doesn't use explosives to achieve this, contrary to the idea some people seem to have that the only way to achieve a total building collapse is explosives because that's all they've ever seen.
It's just a useful illustration of concept, not meant as an exact replication of the collapses.

 

[Landru]

Thanks jaydeehess. I'm actually looking at WTC 7 particularly.... Is the verinage model applicable?

And that is off topic as the photo in the op is a photo of WTC 1 or 2 (I don't know which). New topics in new threads.