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

Status
Not open for further replies.

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
What are the two sources of the same sound?

Why don't the videos recorded in the city, close to the towers, have any explosions? Listen to this, very good audio - you can hear the tower collapsing. But no explosions.


This does NOT match the Hoboken audio - which suggests the Hoboken audio is recording some more localized
noise.

On the contrary it does match exactly . . . Go to the 7:15 to 7:40 mark and replay the analysis . . . There were no explosive sounds recorded for many seconds before the collapse . . . Identical to the video you provided . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Here is an interesting analysis of explosions on WTC 7. . . .seems there is some evidence to counter the NIST Report. . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
On the contrary it does match exactly . . . Go to the 7:15 to 7:40 mark and replay the analysis . . . There were no explosive sounds recorded for many seconds before the collapse . . . Identical to the video you provided . . .

The Hoboken video has an "explosion" noise a few seconds before the collapse is initiated.

But again - why not show this? Put the frequency analyses side by side.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The Hoboken video has an "explosion" noise a few seconds before the collapse is initiated.

But again - why not show this? Put the frequency analyses side by side.

Please provide the time mark . . . For the noise
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here is an interesting analysis of explosions on WTC 7. . . .seems there is some evidence to counter the NIST Report. . . .

The video seems perfectly in keeping with the NIST report. The building suffered violent internal failure before the skin fell. That would obviously make quite bit of noise.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Please provide the time mark . . . For the noise

From the vide you posted:


It's about about 1 minute mark.

Note this video was taken from 2 miles away, so any noise would be delayed by ten seconds.

It simply does not match the close-up videos.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
From the vide you posted:


It's about about 1 minute mark.

Note this video was taken from 2 miles away, so any noise would be delayed by ten seconds.

It simply does not match the close-up videos.

If you are referring to the video above. . . I agree it is not synched up at the appropriate timing . . . For the distance for the sound to travel . . .
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Ah, so Kevin Ryan was an expert at testing drinking water?

Or, if you weren't so biased, you could say: Ah, so Kevin Ryan was the man chosen (as site manager) to oversee the tests being done on some wtc samples. A pretty responsible position, no?

He got some contradictory results, took the concerns to his management and was promptly sacked for his trouble.

I think, if we're going to have half a chance... we need a few more people like Kevin Ryan
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
... on WTC 7. . . .seems there is some evidence to counter the NIST Report. . . .


Yes there is...Un mouton dans une boite

The NIST Report = A Dry-Labbed Explanation In A Box. FOIA requests to see the computer simulation 'proof' encased in the official box are met with refusals because a proper look might 'jeopardise public safety'.
NIST Denies Access To WTC Data
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-12/nist-denies-access-wtc-collapse-data


This explanation in a box leaves much to be desired for those of us who prefer to live in reality,
instead of in a fictional world.


In a famous book by Antoine de Saint Exupery, a little prince from another planet asks the narrator to draw a sheep. After several unsatisfactory attempts, the narrator simply draws a box and tells the little prince that the sheep is in the box. The little prince then exclaims -- "That is exactly the way I wanted it!"

Just so, the Bush Administration asked its scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for an explanation as to what happened at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11. In response to this request, NIST drew up a series of fanciful stories over a period of years, each story differing from the previous one. Finally, after seven years, NIST published its last story for WTC 7 by simply saying, in effect: "The explanation is in our computer."

However, this explanation in a box leaves much to be desired for those of us who prefer to live in reality, instead of in a fictional world.

On the other hand, we are learning something from NIST with this new report, and that is that when government scientists begin working for a political agenda above all else, there is no limit to the extent of deception that they will engage in. We also know that those who have produced the NIST WTC reports must now assume personal responsibility for the ongoing 9/11 Wars, and the millions of deaths that will result from those wars.

NIST begins with a few little white lies, and never looks back" - Kevin Ryan.

from: The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak by K. Ryan. Full article continued at:
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/NIST_WTC7.html

NIST: We have the results and only we have the results
On computer simulations, virtual proof, logical fallacies, BBC contributions and blatant lies (YouTube)
(If you've watched nothing else on WTC 7, watch this)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQdJuQLNFCk&feature=player_embedded

 
Last edited by a moderator:

SR1419

Senior Member.
Or, if you weren't so biased, you could say: Ah, so Kevin Ryan was the man chosen (as site manager) to oversee the tests being done on some wtc samples. A pretty responsible position, no?

He got some contradictory results, took the concerns to his management and was promptly sacked for his trouble.


DO you just make up stuff to fit your beliefs??

Kevin Ryan was NOT involved in ANY testing of WTC samples thus received no "contradictory" results...he simply read the NIST report and disagreed with it...and wrote a letter.

He wrote the letter under the pretext of being a UL "executive"- they took offense...and fired him.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Documents for reference: the 911 commission report, run by 911 commission director Zelikow, author of war hawks' wish list: Catastrophic Terrorism: Imagining the Transformative Event (1998) Cor Blimey! What a coincidence guvnor...! He didn't have to imagine it for very long, did he?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
The executive director and head of research for the [911 Commission Report aka] Kean Commission, Philip Zelikow, was a close associate of Condoleezza Rice (they co-authored a book) and was a Bush 2000 transition team member who participated in meetings on the terrorist threat. He returned to Rice as a top aide at the State Department. The Family Steering Committee tracking the hearings called for his resignation due to grave conflict of interest in March 2004; this unfortunately went unreported in the media and was completely ignored by the Commission.

"The plain, sad reality--I report this following four full days studying the work--is that The 9/11 Commission Report, despite the vast quantity of labour behind it, is a cheat and a fraud. It stands as a series of evasive maneuvres that infantilize the audience, transform candour into iniquity, and conceal realities that demand immediate inspection and confrontation... ".
- Bejamin DeMott,
Harper's Magazine:
Whitewash as Public Service: How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Deutsche Bank, which had a building close to the World Trade Center that had been contaminated with dust, hired the RJ Lee Group, a scientific research organization, to prove to its insurance company that the dust contaminating its building was not ordinary building dust, as its insurance company claimed, but had resulted from the destruction of the World Trade Center.

Reports issued by the RJ Lee Group in 2003 and 2004 proved that the dust was indeed WTC dust, having its unique chemical signature. Part of this signature, the RJ Lee Group said in its final (2004) report, was 'spherical iron . . . particles' and this meant, it had pointed out in its 2003 report, that iron had 'melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.'

The RJ Lee reports thereby provided additional evidence that temperatures had been reached that significantly exceeded those that could have been produced by fire. These reports, which were made known in an article published in January 2008 by a group of scientists led by physicist Steven Jones, were simply ignored by NIST.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Or, if you weren't so biased, you could say: Ah, so Kevin Ryan was the man chosen (as site manager) to oversee the tests being done on some wtc samples. A pretty responsible position, no?

He got some contradictory results, took the concerns to his management and was promptly sacked for his trouble.

I think, if we're going to have half a chance... we need a few more people like Kevin Ryan

Except that's not true. He was not chosen to oversee any tests, nor does he claim this. He did no tests, and never claimed to have done any tests. That's all just truther mythology.

http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html

All he claims is:
  • UL (before construction) Certified the steel used in the WTC (which UL deny)
  • UL (after collapse) fire tested models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. (which they did)
  • He has some objections to the conclusions

He's just a guy with a BS in chemistry, who worked at a water testing company owned by UL, and who has some theory about 911.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What is this, scatter shot theory? One thing debunked, so you move on to the next.

Doen not the amount of bunk in the theories concern you at all? Do you not take pause when you realize something has been debunked? Or do you just ignore it and move on?

You were fooled enough to believe the tale about Kevin Ryan. Maybe that's not the only thing you got wrong?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
One thing debunked, so you move on to the next.

Mate - take a step back - you reckon they were right not to test for explosives, the 911 report is just dandy, let's not mention the torture eh?, and that Newton's laws don't apply in the case of the world trade center - yes folks, that's right, and if you don't believe it I'll find it and repost it if he hasn't 'edited' it - he likes a bit of editing. Debunked? If you say so. Straws, matey, straws.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Deutsche Bank, which had a building close to the World Trade Center that had been contaminated with dust, hired the RJ Lee Group, a scientific research organization, to prove to its insurance company that the dust contaminating its building was not ordinary building dust, as its insurance company claimed, but had resulted from the destruction of the World Trade Center.

Reports issued by the RJ Lee Group in 2003 and 2004 proved that the dust was indeed WTC dust, having its unique chemical signature. Part of this signature, the RJ Lee Group said in its final (2004) report, was 'spherical iron . . . particles' and this meant, it had pointed out in its 2003 report, that iron had 'melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.'

The RJ Lee reports thereby provided additional evidence that temperatures had been reached that significantly exceeded those that could have been produced by fire. These reports, which were made known in an article published in January 2008 by a group of scientists led by physicist Steven Jones, were simply ignored by NIST.

RJ Lee explained this:

[EX=http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8013472&postcount=1329]Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust
Well, let’s start with the basics. The World Trade Center was a building with many iron‐based components. There were structural components such as beams and electrical conduit. There were building contents such as desks and file cabinets.

Now, the building is hit by two jet airplanes resulting in a fire fed by jet fuel. The electrical system is compromised resulting in high voltage, high amperage electrical arcing between the wires and the conduit. The fire is in a building with a central core of elevator shafts that act like a chimney efficiently providing the oxygen needed for combustion. The air and other gasses are flowing with hurricane force speeds. The fire is sufficiently hot to exceed the plastic strength of the structural steel and the building collapses.

What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino‐silicate spheres were also observed in the dust.

The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino‐silicate spheres in the well‐studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces.
Rich Lee[/EX]

Lee, please don't just randomly paste things you find on the internet. Please do us the courtesy of at least checking if it's been debunked first.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mate - take a step back - you reckon they were right not to test for explosives, the 911 report is just dandy, let's not mention the torture eh?, and that Newton's laws don't apply in the case of the world trade center - yes folks, that's right, and if you don't believe it I'll find it and repost it if he hasn't 'edited' it - he likes a bit of editing. Debunked? If you say so. Straws, matey, straws.


The post is still there:

I think the continual bringing up of Newtons Laws is very interesting. But it's an area I don't like to go into, as it involves pointing out to someone that they don't understand what's going on. It's like with ice supersaturation in the chemtrail theory. 99.99% of the people who believe in chemtrails don't really understand ice supersaturation.

So, Newton's laws DO NOT APPLY HERE.

Why not? Because:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

Newton's laws are applied to bodies (objects) which are considered or idealized as a particle,[8] in the sense that the extent of the body is neglected in the evaluation of its motion, i.e., the object is small compared to the distances involved in the analysis, or the deformation and rotation of the body is of no importance in the analysis.

In their original form, Newton's laws of motion are not adequate to characterize the motion of rigid bodies and deformable bodies. Leonard Euler in 1750 introduced a generalization of Newton's laws of motion for rigid bodies called the Euler's laws of motion, later applied as well for deformable bodies assumed as a continuum. If a body is represented as an assemblage of discrete particles, each governed by Newton’s laws of motion, then Euler’s laws can be derived from Newton’s laws.
Content from External Source
Should we use Euler's laws? No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_laws_of_motion

Euler's laws of motion, formulated by Leonhard Euler about 50 years after Isaac Newton formulated his laws about the motion of particles, extends them to rigid body motion.[1]
Content from External Source
The laws apply to rigid bodies. The plane is not a rigid body. The building is not a rigid body.

So what should we use? Whatever we use to describe what happened, it's an approximation of the underlaying motions of the molecules. But the best way of getting a mathematical description is the finite element method. This type of thing:


What's wrong with that?
 
Last edited:

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Lee, please don't just randomly paste things you find on the internet. Please do us the courtesy of at least checking if it's been debunked first.


But you think everything you don't agree with has been 'debunked' - whatever it may be. There's no discussion to be had with you - you've got your position all worked out, you're a Faither - now it's all about 'correcting' other people.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So, what, the amount of bunk is fine because those accused of the WTC attacks were not given a trial by jury? How are these things related?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But you think everything you don't agree with has been 'debunked' - whatever it may be. There's no discussion to be had with you - you've got your position all worked out, you're a Faither - now it's all about 'correcting' other people.

No. Things are debunked if they are shown to be false, or based on false evidence. Like your assertions about Ryan, or your ideas about Newtons laws being applicable to deformable bodies, or your assertion that RJ Lee's test supported your theory. Those things have been debunked. You could easily have checked these things for yourself before bringing them up.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
The truth of it is that I know a lot more than your O level maths and copying from wikipedia etc. I use mathematical calculations every day to do my work, and they matter - I can guarantee you I know a lot more math than you when it comes to this sort of thing, so don't patronize me son.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Things are debunked if they are shown to be false, or based on false evidence.your ideas about Newtons laws being applicable to deformable bodies,

Ok, let's just take one of these assertions of yours - your ideas about Newtons laws being applicable to deformable bodies - where is this idea of mine communicated to you? Did you make it up like you usually do? Show us all the relevant text, eh?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The truth of it is that I know a lot more than your O level maths and copying from wikipedia etc. I use mathematical calculations every day to do my work, and they matter - I can guarantee you I know a lot more math than you when it comes to this sort of thing, so don't patronize me son.

I wasn't patronizing you. I was showing where you were wrong.

I've only got an A levels in maths and further maths (Bingley Grammer School), but I'm not sure what that's got to do with the facts. Either Newtons laws apply to deformable bodies or they don't.

As a computer game programmer I do use a remarkable amount of math though, as a lot of computer games nowadays involve a high degree of physical simulation. So I'm pretty familiar with simulation, the equations of motion, integration (in the simulation sense, not calculus), fluid flows, deformable bodies, and suchlike.

If you are interested, here's a couple of articles I wrote, one on using verlet integration to simulate blobs of mercury-like material, and the other on a form of advection I invented for simulating fluid flow.

http://cowboyprogramming.com/2007/01/05/blob-physics/
http://cowboyprogramming.com/2008/04/01/practical-fluid-mechanics/

But your skill set, or my skill set, is not really the issue. It's if the assertions we make are right or not. Is there somewhere my maths is wrong, or my physics?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ok, let's just take one of these assertions of yours - your ideas about Newtons laws being applicable to deformable bodies - where is this idea of mine communicated to you? Did you make it up like you usually do? Show us all the relevant text, eh?

Basically you said what happened violated Newton's laws. But since they don't apply, then you are wrong.

You know as well as I do that the nose would have been crushed on impact with the exterior - the video shows it breaking up inside the building. This is a violation of Newton's laws. You are, as I said before, defending the indefensible and it's shocking you put so much effort to it.

Do you think that Newton's laws apply to the plane as a body? If not, then HOW is the video violating Newton's laws?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Except that's not true. He was not chosen to oversee any tests, nor does he claim this. He did no tests, and never claimed to have done any tests. That's all just truther mythology.

http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html

All he claims is:
  • UL (before construction) Certified the steel used in the WTC (which UL deny)
  • UL (after collapse) fire tested models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. (which they did)
  • He has some objections to the conclusions

He's just a guy with a BS in chemistry, who worked at a water testing company owned by UL, and who has some theory about 911.

Well, forgive me for getting a detail wrong. I accept my error with good grace and apologise, it was from memory rather than wikipedia. The fact remains that he was a site manager at UL and in that role he objected to test results produced by those under him. Why do you think he did that? To further his career? Don't tell me - for whatever reason he did it, he was wrong, right?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well, forgive me for getting a detail wrong. I accept my error with good grace and apologise, it was from memory rather than wikipedia. The fact remains that he was a site manager at UL and in that role he objected to test results produced by those under him. Why do you think he did that? To further his career? Don't tell me - for whatever reason he did it, he was wrong, right?

He did it because he thought he was right.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Basically you said what happened violated Newton's laws. But since they don't apply, then you are wrong.



Do you think that Newton's laws apply to the plane as a body? If not, then HOW is the video violating Newton's laws?

You are fundamentally wrong to the point I don't wonder that you've done a fantastic job at bullshitting thus far. Well done mate - you should ask for a raise right now! You are saying that Newton's third law - every action has an equal and opposite reaction (action = negative reaction) does not apply to the 9th of september 2001 in New York? Has this happened before or since Isaac (and before him Galileo) formulated these great, and otherwise unfalsified, scientific theories? You speak to me of 'basic physics'?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Clearly when an object crashes into another and pierces or cuts or breaks it the action is NOT "balanced" by an equal and opposite reaction. One of the "sides" of the action/reaction has had it's strength exceeded and is not capable of providing an "equal and opposite force".

Understanding physics should mean that you also understand the limits of particular aspects of it too.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You are fundamentally wrong to the point I don't wonder that you've done a fantastic job at bullshitting thus far. Well done mate - you should ask for a raise right now! You are saying that Newton's third law - every action has an equal and opposite reaction (action = negative reaction) does not apply to the 9th of september 2001 in New York? Has this happened before or since Isaac (and before him Galileo) formulated these great, and otherwise unfalsified, scientific theories? You speak to me of 'basic physics'?

Well perhaps "basic physics" was the wrong choice of words. Basic physics, as taught to high school children, is rather a simplification. What we are talking about here is a little above that.

Let me quote Wikipedia again:

[ex=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion]In their original form, Newton's laws of motion are not adequate to characterize the motion of rigid bodies and deformable bodies. Leonard Euler in 1750 introduced a generalization of Newton's laws of motion for rigid bodies called the Euler's laws of motion, later applied as well for deformable bodies assumed as a continuum. If a body is represented as an assemblage of discrete particles, each governed by Newton’s laws of motion, then Euler’s laws can be derived from Newton’s laws. Euler’s laws can, however, be taken as axioms describing the laws of motion for extended bodies, independently of any particle structure[/ex]

You see the relevant part there: "Newton's laws of motion are not adequate to characterize the motion of rigid bodies and deformable bodies".

That's why they don't apply.

Take a different example. A person gets shot in the right hand. The bullet exerts a force on the right hand, and the hand pushes back with the same force. But we are talking about a person and a bullet. Does the person exert a force on the bullet? Or is it just a bit of his right hand that exerts the force? What about his left hand? What happens to that?

Not the best example. But the underlying point is that we are not talking about two tiny rigid bodies, which is what Newton's laws apply to, but to huge systems, "an assemblage of discrete particles" with a vast array of interconnected forces between those particles. Newtons laws apply at the particle level, but not at the system level, not at the level of a human body, or a plane. Describing that is much harder, and requires integration of the system - i.e. a computer simulation.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I think the problem with this whole deal is that NIST and FEMA are trying desperately to fit a narrative to the one which was presented within a couple of hours of the attacks - which was propaganda, no other word for it. It makes far too many assumptions and is relying on the unlikely scenario that the aircraft wings and airframe would be capable of severing significant steel structural elements. It also relies on the 'fire weakening the steel' idea, which really doesn't stand up to proper scrutiny. Most of the fuel exploded at impact, a visible fireball; fires burning only office furniture, carpets, screens etc would not burn hot enough or long enough to weaken steel to point of failure (definitely not in one hour!) - ref Madrid Windsor building, burning for 19(?) hours over multiple floors - a real inferno, but no total collapse. The black smoke from the towers tells us the fire is starved of oxygen and fuel and is going out. Records of firefighters talking to each other in one building show that those who have experience of fighting fires, and how fire behaves, believed that the situation was under control and that 'two lines' would take care of it. That's not, 'let's get the fuck out of here', it's 'two hoses and we're done here'.





some visual detail on the towers' structure


It's worth re-visiting this for reference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Noble1965
[Admin: old impolite posts removed]


So Mick, has he been banned for being a trifle impolite - are the same rigorous standards applied to all?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top