The question here is if it actually is a "related process"? How is it related to a truck bomb? How is what people saw and heard in any way inconsistent with the official story?
9/11: Is this photo consistent with a progressive collapse?
- Thread starter lee h oswald
- Start date
- Status
The question here is if it actually is a "related process"? How is it related to a truck bomb? How is what people saw and heard in any way inconsistent with the official story?
No, I didn't cherry pick at all - I took all those quotes about perceptions from the first four pages or so. Hardly a concerted effort to 'cherry pick'. I didn;t need to cherry pick - it was right there from the start - and that's how it continues for pages and pages - explosion after blast after charge after percussion after bomb.
You've already made your position clear by saying there's no need to test for explosives. We know your angle; we know your bias; we know you're wrong on this point.
Do you agree that tests should be done as a matter of procedure? Process of elimination?
Last edited by a moderator:
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I have memory of myself about concerns voiced by the media during the live coverage that explosives could have been planted in the buildings or additional explosives on the aircraft, etc. . . . why would this not be run to ground . . . by any competent investigator . . . ??
It would be an appropriate conclusion.
First four pages of what? The first few references to explosions on the combined record are:
he did tell the camera crew to step back because we were concerned about falling glass. We assumed from the last explosion that there were big big chunks of glass coming down from somewhere. So he told them to get back against the building.
We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down.
I don't see any compelling reason to test for explosives. If there were explosives then there would be a vast amount of other evidence of those explosives. Lacking that evidence, then there's no reason to test for them.There was a fire that started there and it was spreading to other cars and once in awhile you'd have some explosions there and the fire actually after a period of time got pretty big because it was multiple cars. Several cars were going at once. So some debris from the building was burning and must have landed there and started these cars on fire.
But haven't the conspiracy theorists done their own tests? So what's the problem?
Because no evidence emerged to support those fears.
Read the transcripts. Search for the words "bomb" and "explosion". The amount of confusion and fear that day was huge.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Have you ever witnessed in person or have been a part of a multistory instantaneous demolition . . . ?
The answer, of course, is self-evident.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think we are talking about a controlled demolition or is that not a progressive collapse?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Mick! What a shame you had to remove my image of Lee and George...
I am sure it would have given the non-trolling members a giggle.
Can you remove this thread now as it is painful to read such obvious bunk?
Can we have a vote?
Was that an attempt to be courteous?
SR1419
Senior Member.
Yes...snippets - taken out of context- from which you draw your own biased conclusions.
No regard for the actual context of the comment...the time, place etc...just the word "bomb" and thus it must be so.
The first responder quotes are from all over the timeline of that day- they are speaking of various moments from their arrival on scene to collapse.
Other "eyewitness" accounts of "bombs" are from the moment of impact to collapse.
Take them out context, collect them all together and it looks impressive.
Put them in context and its look nothing like a description of a controlled demolition.
Fully loaded jet planes rammed into buildings at ~500mph- causing major structural damage across multiple floors and raging fires across multiple floors..and yet you find it suspicious that people heard things explode....you find suspicious that, in buildings that had previously had been bombed before and were clearly under attack that day, they thought the explosions they heard sounded like "bombs".
Fascinating
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
General Checklist for a simple fire investigation . . . include the need for a thorough investigation . . .
[ex=http://www.interfire.org/res_file/mmo3b.asp]
B. Preliminary Scene Examination*
1. Here is a summary of tasks to be completed at the fire scene:
a. Remove all debris not germane to the fire cause.
b. Cleanse all tools before bringing them into the area of origin (AO) andestablish an evidence collection area, where tools and evidence containersshould be assembled.
c. Replace furniture, appliances and other materials to their pre-firepositions using the maps drawn by the occupants.
d. Analyze fire flow patterns, damage patterns and evidence like shields andshadows, beveling, inverted cone burn patterns, etc. Document evidence withphotos, diagrams and notes.
e. Examine and document each potential accidental ignition source in the AO.Do this even if there is gross evidence of arson.
f. Diagram the room of origin with accurate shape, dimensions, windows,doors and other key features plus locations of key items and areas of evidence.Record ceiling com-position and wall and floor surfaces on the diagram. Measuremovable items of evidence with a tape from fixed locations. With tape measure,diagram and measure building exterior. Show first floor and basemententrance/exit points with lock types and conditions. Orient all drawings tonorth with a magnetic compass.
g. Document and collect physical evidence using appropriate methods.
h. Call in experts for advice if required (electrical inspectors, furnacetechnicians, etc.)
i. Contact arson prosecutor before releasing the scene to see if he/shewould like to tour it with the investigation team.
2. Initial procedures for fire investigators at the scene include--
a. Check for possible secondary incendiary devices
b. Check license plates of automobiles in the area of the fire
c. Ensure that access to the scene is under control
Access to the fire scene must be controlled to avoid scene contamination andinjuries. Law enforcement agencies usually handle site access.
In small residential or building fires, investigators work from the outsideto the inside of the building. In large fires or explosions a search strategymust be devised and followed by investigators.
3. At the scene, investigators should note--
a. activities in the area before and after the fire started
b. location of all electrical and heating equipment
c. smoke and heat patterns and structural damages (including any fire"V" patterns)
d. dimensions, type of construction and furnishings
e. depth of char on items
4. Secure the area--
Don't rush to give up the scene. Take your time with each of these steps.
a. Defer overhaul of the scene until a thorough examination of the scene iscompleted.
b. Secure and seal off the area with police barriers, ropes, etc.
c. Restrict entrance to the scene - including officers, other investigatorsand news media. (Anyone entering the scene should be prepared to offer courttestimony about his or her reasons for entering.)
d. Arrange for a patrol of the area while the investigation is pending.
e. Searches and seizures must be lawful, administrative (based on statute)or with warrant based on probable cause. f. Generally the property owner oroccupant's consent is required to search the scene if the fire scene has beenreleased by the fire department or time has elapsed since the fire.
[/ex]
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Is it too far a reach to see that a proper investigation of Arson where multiple sources are never ruled out is not analogous to 911 . . . don't tell me you don't see the parallel . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
lee, seems we have been relegated to the dust bin of the Forum yet again . . . LoL!!!
See:
[ex=http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm]8. Why didn’t NIST consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation like it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis?
NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation that included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the WTC towers.
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests, and created sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed according to the scenario detailed in the response to Question 6.
[...]
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST or by the New York City Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department, or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
22. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
The responses to previous questions demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.
As for thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited), it burns slowly relative to explosive materials and would require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.[/ex]
[ex=http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm]8. Why didn’t NIST consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation like it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis?
NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation that included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the WTC towers.
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests, and created sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed according to the scenario detailed in the response to Question 6.
[...]
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST or by the New York City Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department, or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
22. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
The responses to previous questions demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.
As for thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited), it burns slowly relative to explosive materials and would require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.[/ex]
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Seems to get a controlled collapse even on a computer one needs to balance the fall by zigzagging the explosions . . .
[EX=http://euklid.bauing.uni-weimar.de/ikm2009/papers/uploads/145/5-final-man_123.pdf]
4.3 Multibody analysis
The simulation of the multibody model described above is executed on a Intel Xeon CPU
5110@1.60GHz, 2GB RAM machine. It is to be mentioned that the simulation duration of 3 s
requires approximately 2 h of calculation time. At the beginning, the supported structures on
the 5th floor are removed from the simulation model. By that, the upper part of the building
starts to bend down due to the dead load. As the remaining columns on the 5
th floor fail to
support the vertical dead load of the upper part because the compression stress is exceeded, the
building collapses also in the vertical direction. Hence, a combined collapse is occurring. After
1.5 s, two rows of columns and a part of the shear walls on the 2
nd and the ground floors have
been removed in a zigzag shape. Accordingly, the simulation continues until the model reaches
the full collapse at time 3 s after the explosion. The deformations of the building obtained from
CADCE at different time sequences during the simulation are depicted in figure 7.
[/EX]
[EX=http://euklid.bauing.uni-weimar.de/ikm2009/papers/uploads/145/5-final-man_123.pdf]
4.3 Multibody analysis
The simulation of the multibody model described above is executed on a Intel Xeon CPU
5110@1.60GHz, 2GB RAM machine. It is to be mentioned that the simulation duration of 3 s
requires approximately 2 h of calculation time. At the beginning, the supported structures on
the 5th floor are removed from the simulation model. By that, the upper part of the building
starts to bend down due to the dead load. As the remaining columns on the 5
th floor fail to
support the vertical dead load of the upper part because the compression stress is exceeded, the
building collapses also in the vertical direction. Hence, a combined collapse is occurring. After
1.5 s, two rows of columns and a part of the shear walls on the 2
nd and the ground floors have
been removed in a zigzag shape. Accordingly, the simulation continues until the model reaches
the full collapse at time 3 s after the explosion. The deformations of the building obtained from
CADCE at different time sequences during the simulation are depicted in figure 7.
[/EX]
He can't see it. One must surmise there are one of two possible reasons for this stance. First is a psychological position needing to adhere to all that has gone before; trust in the system; belief in the well-meaning, but also somewhat incompetent and ultimately benign, levels of government such as he perceives them. He can't allow himself to see the chasm between his expectation and reality because that would require a paradigm re-evaluation, and he doesn't want that. He's thinking about how real his bank balance is. It's not that easy...The second reason might be that he really believes what he says. Anything's possible - who am I to say with any conviction?
But there WAS a comprehensive investigation. You just don't think it was good enough. NIST had an investigation where:
[ex=http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm]
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests, and created sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed according to the scenario detailed in the response to Question 6.[/ex]
I've read their report, it seems fine. I see no evidence of any cause for collapse beyond what is in the report.
You and Richard Gage disagree. You don't trust the experts because you think they are part of the conspiracy. You raise what seems like to you to be reasonable objection. But you are far, far in the minority opinion, and unfortunately have shown that you don't really understand many of the concepts you use in your objections, like dynamic loading, or Newton's second law of motion.
I say unfortunately, because even though it's apparent that you don't fully understand these things, you simply laugh at any suggestion to that effect, and make zero attempt to reconcile any differences in interpretation, preferring instead to mock. It's unfortunate because it's not going anywhere.
Discussion like these should not really be about the people involved in the discussion, they should be about the facts. But when people ignore the facts, and they keep ignoring them after their errors have been pointed out, then eventually you've got to ask why.
I'm a debunker. I'm interested in getting rid of bunk. That's it.
[ex=http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm]
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests, and created sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed according to the scenario detailed in the response to Question 6.[/ex]
I've read their report, it seems fine. I see no evidence of any cause for collapse beyond what is in the report.
You and Richard Gage disagree. You don't trust the experts because you think they are part of the conspiracy. You raise what seems like to you to be reasonable objection. But you are far, far in the minority opinion, and unfortunately have shown that you don't really understand many of the concepts you use in your objections, like dynamic loading, or Newton's second law of motion.
I say unfortunately, because even though it's apparent that you don't fully understand these things, you simply laugh at any suggestion to that effect, and make zero attempt to reconcile any differences in interpretation, preferring instead to mock. It's unfortunate because it's not going anywhere.
Discussion like these should not really be about the people involved in the discussion, they should be about the facts. But when people ignore the facts, and they keep ignoring them after their errors have been pointed out, then eventually you've got to ask why.
I'm a debunker. I'm interested in getting rid of bunk. That's it.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Seems not all structural engineers and architects agree with the above findings though they be only a few hunderd yet impressive never-the-less . . . http://www.ae911truth.org/
The AE911Truth Petition:TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Please Take Notice That:
On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.
Spongebob
Active Member
You are polite Mick, their BS is shot down in flames (as it is here) but on JREF or ATS they have to endure impolite humiliation
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So you wonder why people come to a discussion forum to debate a topic??? . . . why would one want to only correspond with people who agree with you?? That is not a debate that is a mutual admiration society . . . LoL!!!!
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You are polite Mick, their BS is shot down in flames (as it is here) but on JREF or ATS they have to endure impolite humiliation
Being . . ."shot down in flames" is in the eye of the beholder .. .interpretation . . . it depends on one's perspective . . .
I'm not that impressed. There are 105,000 registered architects in the US. Significantly less than 1% of then signed the petition. How many of them have worked on buildings like the WTC?
A lot of the people on that petition have no relevant experience.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So in your opinion when do the numbers become relevant? . . .
It's very interesting reading:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_ENGSONLY_
It's almost entirely the argument from personal incredulity, and sprinkled with the usual talking points.
http://www2.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_ENGSONLY_
It's almost entirely the argument from personal incredulity, and sprinkled with the usual talking points.
The "official" 9/11 story seems to violate laws of physics and engineering analysis, specifically with respect to the collapse speed and the temperatures of molten iron. The only explanation that seems to be in accordance with all observations is controlled demolition.
Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing most of the contents into dust and ash - twice? Why would WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified - and necessary - for all three collapses.
Being a civil engineer and understanding the laws of physics, I know that a building cannot fall a free fall speed without the floors already falling also giving no resistance.
It seems to me that the version given does not correspond to what we saw on TV. Buildings fall like that when imploded.
From my engineering intuition, the way the Towers collapsed due to fire is impossible. Many people have shown by using simple physics calculation that the upper floors cannot cause complete failure. I would really like to know the real cause of the collapse.
You get the sense that most of these people have not read the NIST report.My concerns with the Twin Towers lie in the inconsistency with the method of collapse, i.e. a symmetric free fall collapse, when damage incurred was asymmetrical - one would anticipate a toppling of the upper tower.
Tower 7's collapse is not at all consistent with the collateral damage it received - it's collapse was as well completely symmetrical and within its footprint that is difficult to rationalize from asymmetrical damage and fire.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
What is your expertise . . . are you qualified to read the report and determine whether it is complete and accurate . . . could the evidence have been tampered . . . could other conclusions have been gleaned from the same evidence . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Hmmmmm. . . .seems you are no more qualified than the professionals risking their reputations and careers by signing the petition . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Anyone can have an opinion. . . However the credibility of the opinion is based on several factors . . . the main factors are the reputation, motive, and reliability (i.e. Value) perceived by the person considering the opinion presented. . . . while I may consider your opinion as plausible, I may feel yours is influenced too heavily by information, data, etc. that I consider biased or mislead . . . just as you may feel about my opinion in the same way. . . .
I don't doubt your ability to form an opinion, your intellect, or even your logic. . . I feel you are using tainted and incomplete information as the basis for your opinion. . . As you must believe I am using an invalid set of assumptions to form my opinion. . .
I will use a well known computer concept to illustrate my position. . . .garbage in garbage out. . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
lee, excellent analysis. . . We have a need to believe the authorities, to think they are looking out for our welfare, our best interests and would not mislead, with-hold or falsify information. To accept that the opposite may be true is devastating and would require a complete change of thought to consider the consequences. . . To doubt everything, to question even the most respected sources of information . . . the very foundation of our realities would be shattered. . . I believe now I have been there for several years. . . .LoL!!!!!
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/lying
"There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
Benjamin Disraeli
- Status
Similar threads
