Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

[Oystein]

...
Iron oxide pigments have been synthetically produced since the 1920s. The Laux process was successful in producing iron oxide particles with specific size distributions in 1926, that's 89 years ago.

http://bayferrox.com/uploads/tx_lxsmatrix/Laux_brochure_english_compressed.pdf

There is nothing special about paint with specific sized particles because particle size produces defined characteristics. That's the whole point.
...

A couple of remarks on details:

• Lanxess produces red iron pigments with particle sizes from 90 nm to 700 nm.
• These red iron oxide pigments are temperature stable to at least 800 °C - more than Farrer's DSC run.
• Lanxess produces in Krefeld - only half an hour away from me. Perhaps I should visit some day and show the specialists there Harrit's paper

 

[Oystein]

Technically the scope of what could be invalidated is limited.

AFAICS The only issue that could change would be "core led" v "perimeter led" in explaining the initial stage of collapse. ...

And the T Sz input is equally flawed in either case - present false argument for a detail when even if the detail was true it has no effect of any consequence.

Not interested in this context about "explaining". Just want to be clear on claims of facts regarding observations and recordings.

 

[GlennB]

Tony's stubborn insistence on seeing video of a specific side of one building is designed purely to justify his continuing ignorant bluster. There is ample photographic evidence of bowing in the minutes before collapse.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave, I don't recall that NIST actually mentioned specific simplifications they made that would have caused their model not to produce the inward bowing of the exterior due to truss sagging. I only remember a general statement to that effect which seemed to be just a hollow excuse to allow the truss sagging theory to remain.

And that, quite simply, is the problem in microcosm; you choose to disbelieve anything that disagrees with your preferred conclusion, and edit your recollections to suit. Your entire thought process is GIGO, and you set yourself up as a gatekeeper to ensure that nothing but garbage goes in. I'd tell you to go back and read NCSTAR1.6D again, but what would be the point? You'd decide in advance what you wanted it to say, and see excuses where there are actually explanations. So you might as well carry on believing to the depths of your being that reality is other than what it is, and that the whole world is out of step with you, and revel in your irrelevance.

Dave

 

[Jango]

And that, quite simply, is the problem in microcosm; you choose to disbelieve anything that disagrees with your preferred conclusion, and edit your recollections to suit. Your entire thought process is GIGO, and you set yourself up as a gatekeeper to ensure that nothing but garbage goes in. I'd tell you to go back and read NCSTAR1.6D again, but what would be the point? You'd decide in advance what you wanted it to say, and see excuses where there are actually explanations. So you might as well carry on believing to the depths of your being that reality is other than what it is, and that the whole world is out of step with you, and revel in your irrelevance.

Dave

Undoubtedly so, but this is common in most people at some level, such as, "My son/daughter would never do that!" I.e. parental denial. The heartland of the U.S. has been griped with a similar situation albeit from different circumstances -- the shooting death of Michael Brown at the hands of a white police officer. Many people who wanted the issue to be nothing other than a racial one refuse to acknowledge the empirical evidence of the incident. They can't admit that sometimes white officers use appropriate force to respond to an incident involving black people because their belief is that *all* white police officers who or will kill black people do so *only because* they are *all* racists who hate black people because they're black. It is a rigorous militant ideological construct similar to new wave feminism, certain environmental groups, anti-abortion groups, the so-called Freemen of the Land, religious fundamentalists, die-hard sports fans, political partisans, Beliebers, and on down the line.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Technically the scope of what could be invalidated is limited.

AFAICS The only issue that could change would be "core led" v "perimeter led" in explaining the initial stage of collapse. Even if there was evidence to reverse the perimeter led core hypothesis (there is) the result is still "Top Block" lost support and fell.

It's conceptually no more important that "col 345 failed before col 456" when we know that all columns failed and the sequence has no effect on the result.

Or to give a slightly more controversial example whether or not "girder walk-off" was ONE of the causal factors leading to the failure of col 79 at WTC 7. The detail of girder walk-off versus another factor has zero consequence at any higher level of system for WTC 7. The detail of "Inward Bowing" versus core has zero effect in the bigger picture for either of the "Twins".

And the T Sz input is equally flawed in either case - present false argument for a detail when even if the detail was true it has no effect of any consequence.

There is a big difference between core led vs. perimeter led collapse and it is important to get it right. It isn't very hard, as only core led is possible and it then explains inward bowing and buckling of the perimeter due to its pull-in by the core through the floors.

NIST needs to redo the analysis to show core led collapse and also explain how the horizontal propagation across the entire building could occur in less than a second.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And that, quite simply, is the problem in microcosm; you choose to disbelieve anything that disagrees with your preferred conclusion, and edit your recollections to suit. Your entire thought process is GIGO, and you set yourself up as a gatekeeper to ensure that nothing but garbage goes in. I'd tell you to go back and read NCSTAR1.6D again, but what would be the point? You'd decide in advance what you wanted it to say, and see excuses where there are actually explanations. So you might as well carry on believing to the depths of your being that reality is other than what it is, and that the whole world is out of step with you, and revel in your irrelevance.

Dave

I don't tend to believe irrational explanations and that is what we have been given for why they did not get pull-in forces sufficient to cause exterior column inward bowing due to truss sagging.

FEA models are fully capable of generating the forces and showing the deformation if it was actually there.

It is in fact the nonsensical staying with the hypothesis of truss sagging causing inward bowing minutes before collapse, when it couldn't be shown as a mechanism, that would actually fit what you are saying. It is the GIGO here and you haven't and can't show otherwise. All you can do is accuse me of the same thing without a basis. The basis for what I am saying is in the NIST report. The explanation there is not rational.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I don't tend to believe irrational explanations and that is what we have been given for why they did not get pull-in forces sufficient to cause exterior column inward bowing due to truss sagging.

FEA models are fully capable of generating the forces and showing the deformation if it was actually there.

It is in fact the nonsensical staying with the hypothesis of truss sagging causing inward bowing minutes before collapse, when it couldn't be shown as a mechanism, that would actually fit what you are saying. It is the GIGO here and you haven't and can't show otherwise. All you can do is accuse me of the same thing without a basis. The basis for what I am saying is in the NIST report. The explanation there is not rational.

False statement, no the models can not possible create the conditions seen on 9/11/2001 in the twin towers, just ask any competent structural engineer, the only way to duplicated the event would be to build an exact duplicate of the buildings and crash planes into them!
The models are not designed to duplicate the real events, and the collapses were not core lead, or perimeter lead both seemed to have failed at the same time, do to connection
Failure.

When the connections the weakest parts fail disunification occurs, and the structure that resists gravitational collapse no longer exists.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

False statement, no the models can not possible create the conditions seen on 9/11/2001 in the twin towers, just ask any competent structural engineer, the only way to duplicated the event would be to build an exact duplicate of the buildings and crash planes into them!
The models are not designed to duplicate the real events, and the collapses were not core lead, or perimeter lead both seemed to have failed at the same time, do to connection
Failure.

When the connections the weakest parts fail disunification occurs, and the structure that resists gravitational collapse no longer exists.

If you can't duplicate your hypothesis with a finite element model then you are supposed to test. A test to see if sagging trusses could have pulled in the exterior columns could have easily been done. It would not require more than a few floors from one side of the building. That was not done and the reason it was not done is that there is no chance sagging trusses caused exterior column inward bowing minutes before collapse. The truss sagging explanation for inward bowing has no basis. It is utter nonsense and the gullible here don't question it.

 

[DGM]

Not interested in this context about "explaining". Just want to be clear on claims of facts regarding observations and recordings.

To the best of my knowledge there are no videos of the South face in the public domain. There were not "several helicopters" filming from all sides in the minutes leading up to the collapse. All but one (the NYPD) were grounded shortly after the second impact. The NYPD was not video taping, they provided still pictures and Tony claims the NIST altered their timing.

The inward bowing was reported to the NYPD and FDNY. Up thread a bit Tony quoted a passage saying ALL the emergency responders didn't get the message, to him this means it as never reported. Several commanders did report hearing the warning from the helicopter and the news did report it (video of news report up thread) .

 

[DGM]

If you can't duplicate your hypothesis with a finite element model then you are supposed to test.

What are you supposed to do if you can't find any evidence for your hypothesis?

 

[uvar]

Tony, apologies but I haven't been here for that much of the thread and I've just realised I'm not clear on your position.

How much of the 'official narrative' do you disagree with? That the collapse was unplanned but not how NIST claims it happened, or that the towers were deliberately destroyed with explosives instead, or...?

 

[GlennB]

To the best of my knowledge there are no videos of the South face in the public domain. There were not "several helicopters" filming from all sides in the minutes leading up to the collapse. All but one (the NYPD) were grounded shortly after the second impact. The NYPD was not video taping, they provided still pictures and Tony claims the NIST altered their timing.

And he has never addressed the fact that the changing angle of those shots plus the fact that the helicopter withdrew before collapse proves that the bowing was there some minutes before collapse. His accusations of fiddling exif data can't explain this.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

To the best of my knowledge there are no videos of the South face in the public domain. There were not "several helicopters" filming from all sides in the minutes leading up to the collapse. All but one (the NYPD) were grounded shortly after the second impact. The NYPD was not video taping, they provided still pictures and Tony claims the NIST altered their timing.

The inward bowing was reported to the NYPD and FDNY. Up thread a bit Tony quoted a passage saying ALL the emergency responders didn't get the message, to him this means it as never reported. Several commanders did report hearing the warning from the helicopter and the news did report it (video of news report up thread) .

NIST even talks about videos being examined where they talk about this alleged "minutes before collapse" inward bowing in their report. I would like to see them.

In the article I showed you here from 2004 the NIST representative said the alleged NYPD mention of inward bowing on 9/11/2001 was "not communicated". This contradicts what you say as you had earlier claimed you heard about it on Sept. 11, 2001.

 

[DGM]

In the article I showed you here from 2004 the NIST representative said the alleged NYPD mention of inward bowing on 9/11/2001 was "not communicated". This contradicts what you say as you had earlier claimed you heard about it on Sept. 11, 2001.

Was this not your quote?

It is funny that you say that because the article says it wasn't necessarily reported that day.

From the 2004 article

``No evidence has been found to suggest the information was communicated to all emergency responders at the scene,'' said an executive summary of a progress report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which is conducting the study.

I know English is not a second language for you...............

 

[DGM]

NIST even talks about videos being examined where they talk about this alleged "minutes before collapse" inward bowing in their report. I would like to see them.

Have you filed a FOIA request with the NYPD (go to the source if you want results)?

 

[DGM]

Evidently the NYPD was video taping.



From a NIST FIOA request.

 

[beachnut]

NIST even talks about videos being examined where they talk about this alleged "minutes before collapse" inward bowing in their report. I would like to see them.

In the article I showed you here from 2004 the NIST representative said the alleged NYPD mention of inward bowing on 9/11/2001 was "not communicated". This contradicts what you say as you had earlier claimed you heard about it on Sept. 11, 2001.

cherry picking and quote mining, the stuff of woo, the tools used to create 911 truth fantasy CD

No legitimate reason from 911 truth; for 13 years.

Bowing, appears 40 times in the final report (bow - 55). Thermite, zero. CD, 3 times, as in CD did not happen. Who planted the explosives in your CD fantasy.

 

[chrismohr]

Chris, you have never seen or heard me say there was not enough potential energy to cause collapses of the Twin Towers naturally if it was delivered impulsively and caused an amplified dynamic load. The generation of a dynamically amplified load requires deceleration of the impacting object. With that in mind it seems your set of questions to these physicists was incomplete, as they were not told there was no deceleration observed. I would bet if I had explained the full scenario to them they would have had a different point of view as to what would have actually had to be happening for the collapses to propagate without deceleration observed.

Well, I will leave Ozeco41 to explain the absence of deceleration for the 41st time, or Dave Rogers to show the graph of deceleration again. And BTW, if there was no deceleration in the Towers, why did the building collapse at 70% of freefall? That by definition is deceleration, with or without a jolt.
But the main point you bring up, that I asked the wrong question, is very interesting. Tony, you know very well that there are people in 9/11 Truth who have said that a steel-framed building has never AND CAN never collapse by fire alone, that even if one floor collapses the next floor would arrest the fall, etc etc etc.
But even more importantly, you said that if YOU were to show them lack of deceleration etc, my 14 physicists would give a very different answer. And BTW I have also talked with several structural engineers, including one licensed in New York who works on high-rises and who believes the US government "Let it Happen On Purpose." They too had the same answer for me, and the New York LIHOP S.E. guy even had studied the collapse of the Towers! He went through a long detailed explanation of how the structure weakened to the point of collapse inevitability with NO evidence or need for CD. Can you see why I reject your theories when you can't even get the support of a LIHOP guy when I go "out on the street" to get independent opinions on the 9/11 collapses?
But I digress. My main point is this: you said that IF you were to ask my 14 physicists about the alleged lack of deceleration, you would get a different answer. So DO IT. Find a structural engineering firm that does work on skyscrapers, and hire them to write a white paper analyzing your work. Here in Colorado, a local radio guy on the station where I volunteer organized a live conversation between Lesley Robertson and Steven Jones, and oh my, there's another guy in the structural engineering world who totally disagrees with you. And I have asked expert after expert about every aspect of the 9/11 Truth theory and NO ONE ever agrees with anything any of you say!
I've done my homework, checking out your theories against the views of experts as best I can. Now it's your turn. Raise a few thousand dollars and hire an accredited expert in the field to analyze your work. Come back to us when you have something tangible from them.

 

[DGM]

For clarity on the article Tony claims supports his belief:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aCuh.ATdfOXc&refer=top_world_news

A couple additional quotes:

Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall.

``The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the pending collapse of the building,'' said Sivaraj Shyam-Sunder, who heads the institute, at a press briefing in New York. ``Any time that information could have been communicated faster to the emergency responders in the buildings, it would have helped save lives.''

According to Shyam-Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam-Sunder said.

The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns.