WTC: Rate of Fall (rate of crush)

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Do you have this argument in diagram form?
No, but it is clear that the trusses hanging in the North Tower were on the north side where the aircraft impacted and it was evident fairly quickly. So this must have been from the fuel/air detonation which occurred during the impact and was not sagging caused by heating over time.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
So Charlie Thornton (of the NIST oversight committee) finally tells the "TRUTH" . . . the WTC Towers were cheap, flawed, and didn't meet minimal strength design for a high rise construction . . . the perfect storm for a chance demolition . . . well . . . I have to say it makes more sense than anything I have heard of since this whole debate began . . . write the hole thing off as people using the cheapest route to a project that should allow the victims to sue the Port Authority for incompetence and negligence . . .
We just saw what happened to Con Edison trying to make that argument with regard to WTC 7.

I think you are confused with the Charlie Thornton videos. In the one you responded to from 1988 he says an aircraft impact would not take down the buildings and would only cause some local damage.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
We just saw what happened to Con Edison trying to make that argument with regard to WTC 7.

I think you are confused with the Charlie Thornton videos. In the one you responded to from 1988 he says an aircraft impact would not take down the buildings and would only cause some local damage.
No, I was really responding to the other video . . . I am not familiar with the Con Edison issue . . . please elaborate . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
This was very recently decided (Dec. 4, 2013) as you can see by the date on the linked to court opinions here http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/12/04/wtc.pdf

There is also a thread about it on this subforum here on Metabunk.org.
Well, well, well . . . seems even the courts recognize the "negligence" of the design and construction though they did not conclude it was the proximate cause of the collapse . . . so now we have a totally incompetent national security apparatus, ill conceived design and construction, inadequate airline security, and an embarrassment for an investigation, along with the loss of 3,000 citizens and thousands of military and civilians in the subsequent military actions motivated in part by 911 . . . no wonder the Conspiracy Theorists are feeding on such an unlikely sequence of disasters . . . and political policy strategists leveraging the outcomes to their advantages . . . and I thought the Vietnam War Era dysfunction was the worst in history . . . NOT anymore !!!!!
 

Ron J

Active Member
The main floor trusses were 32 inches deep and there were two of them together (double trusses) every 80 inches with 24 inch deep bridging trusses every 13 feet. The trusses were also made composite with the floor slab and had two layers of welded wire fabric which was equivalent to a 9/16" diameter rebar in each direction in each square foot of floor slab. The floors outside of the core were a substantial structure. My calculations show they would only sag 2 inches at 700 degrees C. It is also true that the floors could take a static load of about 12 times their own weight. The NIST FAQ admits this but tries to claim the entire upper section weight was applied suddenly to the floor which would double the stress. That is nonsense. A 12 story 73 million lb. mass does not move laterally while falling without a significant lateral load on it. There was no lateral load on the upper section during the early stages of the collapse and it would have fallen in place, with real column impacts occurring in a natural collapse. We would have at least seen an enormous deceleration.

I see nothing but unsupported conjecture from people like Charlie Thornton. The NIST model couldn't pull the perimeter columns inward due to truss sagging, so they applied an artificial lateral load to the columns. So according to people like Charlie Thornton and the NIST authors the buildings came down due to fictitious lateral loads. That is the real crap we are dealing with here.

Do some calculations of your own and stop listening to conjecture like what Charlie Thornton is spouting here about crappy design. It simply is not true and calculations prove it isn't.

"The floors outside of the core were a substantial structure. My calculations show they would only sag 2 inches at 700 degrees C."

http://www.debunking911.com/fire4.htm

In WTC1, someone trapped on one of the upper floors, said that floors were collapsing. The comment seemed to be in reference to the progression of the fire, not the crash. What floor he was on and what "floors" he was referring to is apparently unknown. Whether you think something should have behaved in a certain way, it wasn't.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Well, well, well . . . seems even the courts recognize the "negligence" of the design and construction though they did not conclude it was the proximate cause of the collapse . . . so now we have a totally incompetent national security apparatus, ill conceived design and construction, inadequate airline security, and an embarrassment for an investigation, along with the loss of 3,000 citizens and thousands of military and civilians in the subsequent military actions motivated in part by 911 . . . no wonder the Conspiracy Theorists are feeding on such an unlikely sequence of disasters . . . and political policy strategists leveraging the outcomes to their advantages . . . and I thought the Vietnam War Era dysfunction was the worst in history . . . NOT anymore !!!!!
George, yes, it is pretty bad.

Do you know about the structural feature omissions in the NIST WTC 7 report, which were found once the drawings were released early last year? There is a thread on it here but I am attaching a technical discussion of them here. Mick may move this to the appropriate thread but I need to tell you about it here.
 

Attachments

Ron J

Active Member
It is apparent that you have nothing to contribute to the discussion here other than your opinion. If you are fair minded you would refrain from trying to make unsupported claims.
Controlled demolition is the unsupported claim. The Towers were on fire and that was the method of destruction which occurred in the buildings after the planes had struck them. The fires caused a catastrophic structural failure.
 

Ron J

Active Member
Except, of course, the co-ordinated lateral force of dozens of columns buckling in almost perfect simultaneity. That force.


And to check that out we can type "911 wtc towers fire sagging" into Google Image and SEE what crap you come up with. I cannot see 2 inches of sag here, can you?

More like ten feet of sag.

Reality sucks, eh?

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm


The top photo shows the gaping hole in WTC1. To the lower left of the hole, there are split gaps between columns. Some of the split columns are bent, such that the portion of the column above the split, would not land directly on that, end to end, below the split.

I have seen a Youtube video of the North Tower collapse, in which it can be seen that columns just to the left of the gaping hole, but not all the way across to the east corner, were among the first to plunge into the columns on floors below.
 
Last edited:

qed

Senior Member
That is far from what is considered slender for a structural steel column, and where elastic buckling would occur, which would be a value over 100.
Are you certain 100 is the limit state for the hollow sections under consideration?

If so, please can you point me to a reference.

[edit: sorry, I only just got radius of gyration, so scrap this: it is meaningless, sorry:oops:.]
 
Last edited:

slenderbeam

Member
Attached is a spreadsheet that Ron Brookman and I did for the main and bridging trusses in the Twin Towers. The double main truss composite floor system moment of inertia of 4,750 in^4 shows it was equivalent to having W30 x 108 beams every 80 inches in the span from the perimeter to the core. That is substantial.

I have analyzed the connections of the trusses and while they were strong enough to pull the perimeter columns inwards they should not have even come into play because there would not have been a lateral load applied, due to essentially no sagging taking place. Even if the sagging was there the connections could have taken it. The problem for NIST is the truss sagging can't apply enough force to bow the perimeter columns inward. That happened when the core was removed to start the collapse.

There is no visual evidence that the columns missed each other at the beginning of the North Tower fall. That is nonsense.

The columns in the Twin Towers could have gone at least four stories without lateral support before buckling. They were stout. My argument that there should have been at least a severe deceleration, if not an actual arrest, concerns the first several stories of the collapse.
you can't calculate truss deflection this way.

it is dependent on the axial elongation of each truss component. using "inertia only" assumes beam theory which is not appropriate given limited engagement between top and bottom flanges.

run a model you will find your deflection is much higher.
 

slenderbeam

Member
There is no visual evidence that the columns missed each other at the beginning of the North Tower fall. That is nonsense.
Yes there is evidence. The upper section of tower rotated towards the side with the big black hole. How can you claim the columns could have landed on top of one another when the columns were locally twisted and smashed by the plane ?

The lower left hand corner of the rigid body clearly hits the tower inboard, away from the perimeter columns. Those floors had not a chance.

A previous post showing the rigid body behaviour below:

https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaM...bucket.com_albums_ad257_snow__crash_roto3.gif
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George, yes, it is pretty bad.

Do you know about the structural feature omissions in the NIST WTC 7 report, which were found once the drawings were released early last year? There is a thread on it here but I am attaching a technical discussion of them here. Mick may move this to the appropriate thread but I need to tell you about it here.
Interesting . . . but far beyond my limited knowledge of construction, engineering, and physics for me to have a reasonable opinion . . . I do believe and have stated many times that the NIST investigation was too cheap, limited and was flawed and inadequate IMO . . . the only thing I know for sure is the building fell in a way totally outside of my experiences and critical information is lacking or has been withheld for independent experts to confidently explain just what happened and the exact sequence . . .
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
There are no stupid games of omission going on.
You have omitted to answer my question: could you "explain how your imaginary two inches of truss sag was actually ten feet? Can you account for the difference?"

It sounds like you are having a problem distinguishing the floor damage due to the initial fuel/air detonation from what NIST wants to claim caused the initiation of the collapse due to fire heating up the trusses and causing them to sag and pull the perimeter columns inwards. The latter was also on the complete opposite side of the building from the aircraft impact in the case of the North Tower and is nothing more than a fantasy.
Thanks for reminding me.

No, but it is clear that the trusses hanging in the North Tower were on the north side where the aircraft impacted and it was evident fairly quickly. So this must have been from the fuel/air detonation which occurred during the impact and was not sagging caused by heating over time.
The blast damage would have been very equal across the penetrated floors. The heaving of the solid Pentagon flooring due to the lesser blast of the Boeing 757 (rather than the 767s which hit the tower) demonstrated the power of the initial blast.

It's just more evidence of the degree to which you choose not to acknowledge all the facts. (Because if you did you'd have nothing to show).
 
Last edited:

OneWhiteEye

Senior Member
Can you quantify the lateral force on the upper section, that you seem to be imagining, which would move its columns out of alignment with those of the lower section?
The lateral force originates in the same manner as here:



only everything is lesser in magnitude for the North Tower.

Naturally there are differences; the rotating section is shorter and the apparent fulcrum is towards the face. The failure in tension is absent, but horizontal force is not.

An upper section in rotation will push against its pivot horizontally in the direction opposite to the tilt. The fulcrum point can either resist this through its own stiffness or yield, or practically a mix of the two. A horizontal force of magnitude half a percent of nominal axial capacity is sufficient to cause 10cm horizontal displacement of the entire upper section over a story's fall. Do you think the columns below cannot provide this level of resistance to bending? Ah, but somehow they can support 5 times the imposed load vertically....

Even one degree of tilt displaces the upper section geometric mean 40cm from the lower section centerline. If there were "no such horizontal forces", how the heck did that happen?

While the column misalignment for WTC2 can be measured in stories, for WTC1 it is in feet. Given the extraordinary size of these buildings, a few feet is barely discernable in most videos with marginal quality taken at a great distance. A lateral offset of 14 inches has perimeter ends missing entirely; that's a little over a 0.5% of the total width. A video showing the tower as subtending 200 pixels would only show a one pixel shift in a completely orthogonal projection!

The Sauret video, being of exceptional quality, happens to be oriented in such a way that little angular motion is projected onto the image plane. Nevertheless, it is possible to see the upper north wall slipping outside the lower, as I show above.

Even if it were the case that there was no direct evidence for misalignment in video, one could not credibly argue the absence of evidence in available video is evidence of absence.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
you can't calculate truss deflection this way.

it is dependent on the axial elongation of each truss component. using "inertia only" assumes beam theory which is not appropriate given limited engagement between top and bottom flanges.

run a model you will find your deflection is much higher.
The deflection calculation is accurate for the truss/floor slab composite beam with a distributed load and simply supported end conditions.
 
Last edited:

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
The lateral force originates in the same manner as here:



only everything is lesser in magnitude for the North Tower.

Naturally there are differences; the rotating section is shorter and the apparent fulcrum is towards the face. The failure in tension is absent, but horizontal force is not.

An upper section in rotation will push against its pivot horizontally in the direction opposite to the tilt. The fulcrum point can either resist this through its own stiffness or yield, or practically a mix of the two. A horizontal force of magnitude half a percent of nominal axial capacity is sufficient to cause 10cm horizontal displacement of the entire upper section over a story's fall. Do you think the columns below cannot provide this level of resistance to bending? Ah, but somehow they can support 5 times the imposed load vertically....

Even one degree of tilt displaces the upper section geometric mean 40cm from the lower section centerline. If there were "no such horizontal forces", how the heck did that happen?

While the column misalignment for WTC2 can be measured in stories, for WTC1 it is in feet. Given the extraordinary size of these buildings, a few feet is barely discernable in most videos with marginal quality taken at a great distance. A lateral offset of 14 inches has perimeter ends missing entirely; that's a little over a 0.5% of the total width. A video showing the tower as subtending 200 pixels would only show a one pixel shift in a completely orthogonal projection!

The Sauret video, being of exceptional quality, happens to be oriented in such a way that little angular motion is projected onto the image plane. Nevertheless, it is possible to see the upper north wall slipping outside the lower, as I show above.

Even if it were the case that there was no direct evidence for misalignment in video, one could not credibly argue the absence of evidence in available video is evidence of absence.
It is the measurements and geometry of the fall that prove there would not be any significant misalignment of the columns in the upper and lower sections of the North Tower.

If you think there is any significant lateral force on the upper section of the North Tower show us a calculation for it and how much it would move a 73 million lb. mass which is not fully severed.

What actually happened in the North Tower is the collapse initiated at the 98th floor and the next floors to disintegrate were the bottom three floors of the upper section which would be the 99th through the 101st floors. Take a look at the greyscale slow motion video here using full screen and watching the corner. The upper section shortens significantly before anything below is crushed.
 
Last edited:

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Yes there is evidence. The upper section of tower rotated towards the side with the big black hole. How can you claim the columns could have landed on top of one another when the columns were locally twisted and smashed by the plane ?

The lower left hand corner of the rigid body clearly hits the tower inboard, away from the perimeter columns. Those floors had not a chance.

A previous post showing the rigid body behaviour below:

https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaM...bucket.com_albums_ad257_snow__crash_roto3.gif
The upper section of the North Tower actually rotated away from the side with the big black hole (that would be the north face) after it fell nearly straight down for the first several stories.

I think your analysis is quite lacking.
 

OneWhiteEye

Senior Member
It is the measurements and geometry of the fall that prove there would not be any significant misalignment of the columns in the upper and lower sections of the North Tower.
What "measurements" and what "geometry"? I've already shown you it IS misaligned:



This is like covering your eyes and shouting "No, no, no!". There it is, deny it if you wish...

If you think there is any significant lateral force on the upper section of the North Tower show us a calculation for it and how much it would move a 73 million lb. mass which is not fully severed.
I already said the geometric center is displaced horizontally 40cm relative to the lower section centerline with only one degree of tilt. It obviously can move horizontally. If it doesn't move the full 40cm relative to ground that would be because the top of the lower section displaces some amount the opposite direction in reaction.

How much force did it take to cause INTENSE, OBVIOUS, GROSS misalignment in the much heavier WTC2 upper section? You're trying to act like the physical laws which produced this result somehow do not apply in proportion to WTC1. This is false.

I also already indicated what average force would be required to displace the upper section laterally 10cm over a 1 story fall. Here's the pertinent excerpt from that work:

In other words, very little force relative to the axial capacity in the region.
 

OneWhiteEye

Senior Member
What actually happened in the North Tower is the collapse initiated at the 98th floor and the next floors to disintegrate were the bottom three floors of the upper section which would be the 99th through the 101st floors.
Assuming this to be true, can you explain why you feel it's not possible this could occur without artificial assistance?

Also assuming this to be true, why would you expect deceleration at the roofline to reflect that of a rigid body? It would be acting as a crumple zone. You know how those work, right? Deformation results in different accelerations at the impact and opposite end of a member. Right there, your own statement seems to deny the possibility that any jolt you calculate for a rigid body is applicable.
 

OneWhiteEye

Senior Member
This is an aside, but ever so slightly relevant. I've seen a number of times where it's been claimed that simultaneous crush up and crush down (two degree of freedom crushing) in the crude 1D models would result in a slower descent. This is predicated on the idea that (roughly) double the energy is required to crush above and below at the same time, a notion that seems reasonable on the surface. However, just the opposite is true, the roofline will go down faster.

A bi-directional crush is a process which produces mechanical energy at a faster rate than does rigid body one way crush down. Power as defined by time rate of change of potential energy to other forms is correspondingly greater. In essence, for an initially smaller lighter top section versus bottom, crush up proceeds as if it is in an accelerated frame of reference based on the crush down acceleration. Pure crushdown for a uniform density and neglecting structural resistance converges on g/3... if crushup can proceed simultaneously in a 2/3rds gravity, it will, and the roofline will descend faster than exclusive crushdown.

First examined here; as far as I know, no one else has gone there. Bazant was too pre-occupied with defending one-way crush that he took no time to explore what would happen otherwise. The lower crush front descends more slowly, the roofline faster.
 
Last edited:

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
OneWhiteEye, the misalignment of the corner that you show is about four stories into the collapse and occurs after the upper section shortens by about four stories. The reason there was no deceleration is that the first stories to disintegrate where 98, 99, 100, and 101. This is quite clear in the video. Why would stories above the initiation floor disintegrate before anything is contacted below in a natural collapse?
 
Last edited:

OneWhiteEye

Senior Member
OneWhiteEye, the misalignment you show is at least three to four stories into the collapse...
I'll check that more closely. I've no doubt that the south side has descended quite a bit, but the rates were clearly not the same with the north lagging. But, suppose it is four stories into collapse on the north, then what? Did it suddenly jump laterally most of the width of the bevel, or did it get there gradually? Linearizing the offset over the first four stories puts it minimally at about a foot per story. 14 inches and the perimeters miss! A foot seriously reduces residual capacity.

Besides, the bottom tip of the upper north wall is seen to go outside the lower from the beginning, and stays out. It appears the corner is also outside in the same fashion. This corner is the last to go and is adjacent to or part of the original hinge axis. It's the best alignment one can expect, and it isn't very good.

...when the upper section first starts to contact the lower section and go into an 8 degree tilt.
Are you saying the angular velocity of the upper section increased as early collapse progressed?

The reason there was no deceleration is that the first stories to go where 98, 99, 100, and 101. How did that happen if the collapse initiated on the 98th floor and there were no fires to speak of above the 99th floor?
I don't know. Mixed crush direction is expected in a more realistic model than Bazant's. Practically speaking, that's mostly irrelevant. Go have a look at Major_Tom's perimeter tracking effort. He's pretty much traced all the panels from their point of origin to final resting place. They popped out en masse from the initiation zones. Both towers, but especially WTC1. Why? I don't know. I do not see charges on the perimeter taking them out. Do you? So maybe something artificially weakened or eliminated the core and they blew out from connection failure with hoop stress.

I really don't claim to understand initiation very well at all, certainly not with respect to details. I argue against a jolt post-initiation because of all the reasons given. Initiation itself is a different animal. If you want to claim Greening's AP theory of initiation, then I can't refute that.

Don't you see that the upper section is shortening before anything is crushed on the corner?
Part of it is you can't recognize that the north upper slips outside the lower. The other part is, yes, I see it. Why should I be troubled about it? Seriously, if you can give a good reason why some disintegration of the top is completely unexpected, I'm all ears.

That corner is left standing after the entire upper section has passed it by. I think that's a pretty compelling argument in itself that it was not struck from above:


In the lower left is the part of the upper north wall which was initially seen overlapping the outside of the lower.
 

OneWhiteEye

Senior Member
OneWhiteEye, the misalignment of the corner that you show is about four stories into the collapse...
The video you provided is a perfect example of what I was talking about earlier given the scale of the building, distance from camera to target, and overall quality.

The projected cross section of the north face in the video is less than 175 pixels. That means a lateral translation of a perimeter column's width is subpixel. In this grainy video, riddled with compression artifact, it would be impossible to reliably detect a condition which would have perimeter ends in full misalignment.

If I scrub through the video until the first sign of corner misalignment can be detected, I see perhaps a two story descent on the north face. Here is the frame I've chosen:



... the corner enlarged:



... and here is the frame overlaid with the first frame:



The washer on its outer edge is around a half story in height; the difference in the roofline between the two frames is about 4x that, as you can see.
 

OneWhiteEye

Senior Member
With regard to the horizontal force required to displace the immense upper block laterally...

Please note that an axial FOS of 5 as Tony claims for the perimeter means the columns at any point in the structure could supply (roughly) 5mg of force in the vertical direction, where m is the mass of the structure above that point. If this force were directed horizontally, it would accelerate the entire upper block at 5g. (this greatly exceeds the maximum acceleration of the fastest production cars).

This is all about proportion! An initially self-supporting structure is more than capable of supplying a side force suitably scaled to laterally displace what it formerly supported, just from a little eccentricity. Where would this eccentricity come from? Like Jazzy said:

Jazzy said:
...the co-ordinated lateral force of dozens of columns buckling in almost perfect simultaneity. That force.
Bingo. Like this:



and this:



...both which come from Tony's coauthor on Some Misunderstandings. Simple examination shows that the force vector at the end of a buckling column (which would've happened in the initial failure area) has both vertical and horizontal components. It is certainly not difficult to imagine getting an average horizontal force at least 1/353 of the vertical, is it?

If it were true that the orientations of the column ends were random or otherwise properly mixed in the azimuthal direction, it could be argued that the horizontal contributions would cancel and give no net horizontal force. To that, I reply:

1) the magnitude of horizontal force for an individual column evident in the FEAs above must FAR exceed a mere 1/300th of the vertical component. In fact, they may well exceed the vertical component entirely over a large travel. Those ends stay aligned as much as they do because of externally imposed constraints on the simulation, not because they would if the ends were free to move the load above.

2) Given #1, elimination of forces by opposing buckling orientations would require cancellation to within a very fine degree. I don't think an acre footprint crush tube could be intentionally designed which would maintain axial alignment so well under uniform applied axial force. To suggest that it could happen by accident in a collapsing heterogeneous structure with irregular damage boggles the mind.

3) The fact that there is already tilt and non-zero angular velocity at initiation requires there be a spatial asymmetry present from the get-go. This is not a pure axial crush; there is definitely a bias and preferred direction. Thus there is zero expectation that horizontal components will be oriented in such a way as to cancel themselves out virtually to perfection.

It requires a proportionally very small force to displace the upper section far enough in one story's drop to reduce nominal capacity by up to an order of magnitude. It is unrealistic to expect anything else.
 
Last edited:

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
The reality is that the bottom of the North Tower's upper section disintegrated for four stories or more before contacting the lower section of the building. I don't know of a natural explanation for this. The only natural forces available to cause this would be contact with the lower section. This explains the lack of deceleration in the early stages.

You can have a misalignment after four stories of collapse and I would agree that at that point there is some visual evidence of it.

The overall observations point to unnatural causes for initiation and early stages (at least the first four stories) of the collapse.

Law enforcement should be investigating people who had access to the interior of the North Tower. This has yet to be done.
 
Last edited:

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Interesting . . . but far beyond my limited knowledge of construction, engineering, and physics for me to have a reasonable opinion . . . I do believe and have stated many times that the NIST investigation was too cheap, limited and was flawed and inadequate IMO . . . the only thing I know for sure is the building fell in a way totally outside of my experiences and critical information is lacking or has been withheld for independent experts to confidently explain just what happened and the exact sequence . . .
The omission of critical structural features which, if included, would have made the collapse hypothesis impossible in the NIST WTC 7 report. This would make it a little more than inadequate. Most would term what was found here evidence of intentional deception and fraud.
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
So maybe something artificially weakened or eliminated the core and they blew out from connection failure with hoop stress.
Certainly. Except for the word "artificially".

Most profoundly lacking is anyone's ability to appreciate or duplicate the intense bursts of vibrational energy (with single discrete causes) that must have rapidly occurred in the disintegrating structures causing previously successful structural members to fail in cascade. How is it ever possible to account for them?

It's no-one's fault that such ignorance allows a niche for bunk and memetic infection. Perhaps.
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
The fact that there is already tilt and non-zero angular velocity at initiation requires there be a spatial asymmetry present from the get-go. This is not a pure axial crush; there is definitely a bias and preferred direction. Thus there is zero expectation that horizontal components will be oriented in such a way as to cancel themselves out virtually to perfection.
Of course. The towers were damaged and sagged and leaned as a consequence.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The omission of critical structural features which, if included, would have made the collapse hypothesis impossible in the NIST WTC 7 report would make it a little more than inadequate. Most would term what was found here evidence of intentional deception and fraud.
I would more easily go with . . . the experts have presented an explanation which is inadequate to satisfy the needs of many who choose to doubt or cannot accept the official story . . .
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
I would more easily go with . . . the experts have presented an explanation which is inadequate to satisfy the needs of many who choose to doubt or cannot accept the official story . . .
The word 'inadequate' is very far from the mark. Vital elements were deliberately omitted from the drawings used to justify their initiation hypothesis. Of course you would prefer to -- 'go with' -- them leaving those out rather than ask them why they did that. Start by asking youself why they did that if inclusion would mean that the specific initiation could not happen. What possible explanation can you find ?

You prefer to accept the official story despite the obvious manipulation that has been revealed, and now prefer to put that to the back of your mind and 'more easily go with' the idea that it makes no difference -- when it has massive implications. Cognitive dissonance in its most basic form right there.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The word 'inadequate' is very far from the mark. Vital elements were deliberately omitted from the drawings used to justify their initiation hypothesis. Of course you would prefer to -- 'go with' -- them leaving those out rather than ask them why they did that. Start by asking youself why they did that if inclusion would mean that the specific initiation could not happen. What possible explanation can you find ?

You prefer to accept the official story despite the obvious manipulation that has been revealed, and now prefer to put that to the back of your mind and 'more easily go with' the idea that it makes no difference -- when it has massive implications. Cognitive dissonance in its most basic form right there.
I don't and have never accepted the official story and have doubted many of the conclusions all along . . . however, I don't have the technical knowledge to weigh the significance of the omission you have cited nor the motivation for such an omission by the investigators . . . Seems logical that if they had thought said omissions would easily have been discovered and concluded to be their deliberate manipulation they would have not done so . . . more likely incompetence or some other motive . . .
 
Last edited:

Hitstirrer

Active Member
more likely incompetence or some other motive . . .
Thank you. It seems that you have not seen the full details of the omissions. They were fully discussed in another thread called :-"Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered"

Further discussion in this thread would be off topic but I would ask you to go to the first entry in that thread, where a link to some videos is given and the critical nature of the omissions are explained fully. You will see that it wasn't incompetence, but some other motive.
 

Related Articles

Top