Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[leonAzul]

It looks like the concrete is being pulverized before it hits the ground.

Actually, I'm very glad you brought this image to my attention, since that red arrow so clearly directs the eye to the shredded paper from the drywall...

 

[GregoryUrich]

GregoryUrich, could you source the specific statement from Casazza about the FBI, and the commission ignoring the whistleblowers?

ETA: thanks.

It's from a video of her speaking. I'm not sure I'll be able to find it again.

 

[gumboot]

It's from a video of her speaking. I'm not sure I'll be able to find it again.

I think she talks about it in the documentary In Their Own Words. She also appears to believe (amongst other things):
-That some of the alleged hijackers are still alive
-That there was a "stand down" of NORAD
-That the put options were suspicious
-That WTC7 was a CD
-That the FBI released photographs of the hijackers a few days after the attacks

 

[beachnut]

The fact that the administration was highly influenced by the PNAC agenda leads me to suspect the worst.

It is shameful and damaging to our country that they have chosen deception and war over honesty and international cooperation.

Why do you lack knowledge and understanding on PNAC, as you do on many 9/11 topics?
I think your truther core ideas, as stated in your petition with the "ample evidence", is more binding to you, than PNAC is to Bush.
You are still learning.

I thought you were from Sweden? Did you mean, your country, or the USA?

 

[dommyboysinjapan]

R.Mackey,

Your premise is incorrect. NIST did retain steel from various places in the Towers. Please open NCSTAR1-3, the metallurgical survey and parts inventory, and take a quick look at Tables 5-1 and 5-2. There you will see core column pieces from Floor 12 to 106, and perimeter sections from Floor 12 to 104. NIST did concentrate on the impact zone, but this should be obvious.

I checked out the pages you described. Sure enough, you were absolutely correct. I was quite surprised because I had read in many places online that they had saved metal only at or near the impact zones. According to the Tables from NIST this is simply untrue.

Congratulations you have successfully debunked this misconception that I had. You are now one for one and batting 1000.

I have quite a few other very serious questions that would have to have good explanations as well before I changed my mind though.

 

[DGM]

R.Mackey,



I checked out the pages you described. Sure enough, you were absolutely correct. I was quite surprised because I had read in many places online that they had saved metal only at or near the impact zones. According to the Tables from NIST this is simply untrue.

Congratulations you have successfully debunked this misconception that I had. You are now one for one and batting 1000.

I have quite a few other very serious questions that would have to have good explanations as well before I changed my mind though.

Have you read the 9/11 commision report yet? It's not hard reading and quite interesting.

 

[uk_dave]

I was quite surprised because I had read in many places online that they had saved metal only at or near the impact zones.

Care to share those sites with us?

 

[GregoryUrich]

Why do you lack knowledge and understanding on PNAC, as you do on many 9/11 topics?
I think your truther core ideas, as stated in your petition with the "ample evidence", is more binding to you, than PNAC is to Bush.
You are still learning.

I thought you were from Sweden? Did you mean, your country, or the USA?

Born in D.C. Grew up in New York. I have lived in the land of safe cars, social responsibility and bland food for 14 yrs.

I never signed anything saying I would uphold any ideas. I am aware you dislike that I signed some petitions because you mention it in every post. I still support a new investigation.

I know enough about PNAC to know they got exactly what they said was needed. To me the scary part is what they don't say. Their web site is just the tip of the iceberg because they know they can't say what they really think.

We all have a lot to learn.

 

[GregoryUrich]

I think she talks about it in the documentary In Their Own Words. She also appears to believe (amongst other things):
-That some of the alleged hijackers are still alive
-That there was a "stand down" of NORAD
-That the put options were suspicious
-That WTC7 was a CD
-That the FBI released photographs of the hijackers a few days after the attacks

I think you are right about the documentary. She says she (maybe they) met with potential whistle-blowers. The other conclusions are based on analysis rather than first hand experience. Maybe she's not such a good analyst but I take her at her word regarding the first hand experience. I haven't really looked into the other claims, but the WTC7 collapse is pretty freakish even from a conservation of energy perspective. I'm looking forward to the NIST report. Hopefully they can shead some light.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Actually, I'm very glad you brought this image to my attention, since that red arrow so clearly directs the eye to the shredded paper from the drywall...

There's no question about whether concrete was pulverized before hitting the ground. It was. The red arrow is pointing to what appear to be a number of similarly shaped and sized pieces which are probably the aluminum exterior panels.

One thing that has been ignored or underestimated especially early in the collapse is the contribution of SFRM to the dust. There were roughly 145 tons per floor and it was easily dislodged and crushed. Together with the drywall this could account for spreading 10lbs of dust per square foot over an 200 acre area. At the st911j forum we calculated (numbers from NIST):

Core: 12 psf partition allocation (gypsum wallboard assumed) and 3 psf fireproofing in accord with design

10,000 sq ft/floor x 15 psf = 150,000 lbs/floor

Outer: 6 psf partition allocation (gypsum wallboard assumed) and 3 psf fireproofing in accord with design

30,000 sq ft/floor x 9 psf = 270,000 lbs/floor

Total = 110 floors x 420,000 lbs/floor = 46,200,000 lbs (23,100 tons) per tower

92,400,000 lbs/200 acres x 1 acre/43,560 = 10.6 lbs/sq ft


We also calculated that an upper limit of 15% of the concrete was pulverized based on the dust content. Most of the concrete ended up in the basement.

 

[Sizzler]

I have a copy of the CAIB on my desk at work. Actually, the panel impact can be simulated to sufficient accuracy using first-principles models and back-of-the-envelope calculations. If you want to recreate the trajectory in more detail, that takes more work, but the root cause is actually extremely simple.

So this begs the question. Why did they spend all that money with the test? And, why was the test so transparent? I mean, I got to see it and thus I am now satisfied.

Why hasn't NIST made their computer simulations public?

This is reasonable, but if you don't mind, I'd like you to explore what would be a sufficient "experiment" in more detail. As it happens, there are always going to be assumptions and calculations and interpretations.

I wouldn't really be able to comment much more on this. I would like NIST to be able to do a test that would confirm that fire could cause collapse. I want them to use fire and make a column model (or whatever it is called) and make the thing collapse.

If I can see something collapse, just like I saw the wing get damaged, I will be satisfied.

Have you read NCSTAR1? Even the question of how much combustible material was available is open to interpretation -- as much as a factor of three if you believe Dr. Quintiere. There are uncertainties, and how we choose to model things will always depend on interpretations.

I just want them to make something collapse. They can set fire to it with whatever they want. They can put as much heat on it as possible and see just how much it takes. Then we will all know.

If initiation is possible we all know collapse does not arrest (according to everything we know and have published right now).

So, I want to see a model collapse.

A good experiment design, of course, is not sensitive to these assumptions. The problem is that most readers (e.g. the Truth Movement) rarely understand the assumptions, but merely note that there are assumptions, and thus never fairly evaluate their effect on the result. I cover this extensively in my whitepaper. Most of the assumptions NIST made are totally acceptable, but there are a few that I disagree with. You just have to be careful.

I trust you.

According to the updates, the WTC 7 report will include these experiments, albeit in the form of computer simulations. Unless like tanabear you demand it in full-scale, this should be enough to satisfy your request. I will be pushing for such a result myself.

Will I be able to see it? Just like I saw the wing get damaged by the foam. Is that a reasonable request?

 

[AZCat]

Why hasn't NIST made their computer simulations public?

What do you mean by "made their computer simulations public?" Are you asking for the output data or the digital models? Are you aware that the SAP2000 model of the towers is available from the NIST?

 

[Sizzler]

What do you mean by "made their computer simulations public?" Are you asking for the output data or the digital models? Are you aware that the SAP2000 model of the towers is available from the NIST?

I saw the Columbia test in which the foam piece damages the wing. I saw it on TV. This, without a doubt, confirmed their hypothesis (even though it was easy enough to do via mathematical modeling).

Likewise, I want to see NISTs hypothesis confirmed by model testing, either real life, or computer.

This isn't a complicated request.

 

[Par]

Are you aware that the SAP2000 model of the towers is available from the NIST?

I saw the Columbia test in which the foam piece damages the wing. I saw it on TV. This, without a doubt, confirmed their hypothesis (even though it was easy enough to do via mathematical modeling). Likewise, I want to see NISTs hypothesis confirmed by model testing, either real life, or computer. This isn't a complicated request.

Well, could you answer AZCat’s question, please?

 

[SDC]

I have lived in the land of safe cars, social responsibility and bland food for 14 yrs.

Cut by me... Ah, so then you live in Detroit.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I know enough about PNAC to know they got exactly what they said was needed.

Got to disagree here, when you read the entire report then most of what they said has not come to pass, even with 9/11.

First thing they wanted was for the US to be militarily powerful enough to continue the peace it had created with the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is now a failure. Of the programs that they recommended scrapping, virtually none have been. Those they wanted concentrated on still are lagging behind schedule. They wanted the US military to be capable of fighting two wars simultaeously, it currently is doing that, barely and only because its oppoents are weak. They used the example of WW2 where the US had to fight the Pacfic and European Wars, today they couldn't handle that, plain and simple, that they are holding on in two theatres is because those theatres are not full scale wars. Finally they wanted the US out of the Middle East and focused onto South East Asia which they considered to be the next potenial hotspot and the best place to launch a defence against the likes of China or North Korea. Instead the US is now totally focused onto the Middle East and has left the area that the PNAC declared as vital to the continued security of the US and the peace it had established to totally fend for itself.

As such of all the goals that PNAC wanted, very few have come to pass. Truthers often claim that the line "unless there is a new Pearl Habor" is a signal that the PNAC wanted one. This isn't true. The author of the statement was pointing out that change would be slow, as it always is, but that if something, such as a new Pearl Habor occured, then that change would likely be more rapid. There is no evidence that this means they wanted to have a new Pearl Habor to speed things up, in fact the rest of the report goes into length about not hurrying because that leads to mistakes, that it has to be accepted that these things will take time to do so as to get them right and make sure that the US was strong in the future. The evidence that they wanted one is about the same that a husband wants to kill his wife because he says, "I want to go to Paris to retire and this will take many years of working, unless my wife dies and I get her insurance."

 

[leonAzul]

There's no question about whether concrete was pulverized before hitting the ground. It was. The red arrow is pointing to what appear to be a number of similarly shaped and sized pieces which are probably the aluminum exterior panels.

You're right, that's not clear. I didn't intend to deny that there was concrete pulverized, I only meant to point out that that is not what this picture focuses on.

Strips of metal probably is more accurate, yet what I meant to point out is that they are obviously not blocks. Because of the shape there is nothing odd that they would flutter to the ground, rather than plummet.

 

[AZCat]

I saw the Columbia test in which the foam piece damages the wing. I saw it on TV. This, without a doubt, confirmed their hypothesis (even though it was easy enough to do via mathematical modeling).

Likewise, I want to see NISTs hypothesis confirmed by model testing, either real life, or computer.

This isn't a complicated request.

Have you looked at the NIST report? It has quite a few renderings from the simulation. Lots of text also where they discuss their results.

Unless you're holding out for a video. In that case, why are the Purdue animations not sufficient?

 

[DC]

Have you looked at the NIST report? It has quite a few renderings from the simulation. Lots of text also where they discuss their results.

Unless you're holding out for a video. In that case, why are the Purdue animations not sufficient?

many ppl seem not to know the part of the NIST report i liked it most

http://wtc.nist.gov/video/WTC_engine1.ram

http://wtc.nist.gov/video/WTC_engine2.ram

NIST provides video, ok not in the style of LC.....

but i miss the simulations of the "collapses"

 

[funk de fino]

but i miss the simulations of the "collapses"

Why would they have done that?