Loose Change - Part II

[Belz...]

Is the top of a building able to fall very fast, pulverize all of the concrete, break or bend all of the steel so that no full lenths remain,

And, may I ask what that full length is ?

 

[Mutton-Head]

Manny says,
“There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were placed in those buildings.”

Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so. That doesn’t make it “conclusive proof,” but it is evidence. Evidence should be in the report, and then refuted. It should not be omitted. In my opinion, firemen saying they heard/saw/felt explosives is good evidence. I would consider them reasonable experts in the field. Not ultimate experts, but reasonable.

“Then approximately 10,000 New York City Firefighters spent months at the scene. These are guys who lost 343 of their brothers and who are trained in many cases to examine fire debris to find the causes of fire. None of them -- none! -- reported finding any blasting caps or fuses or wires or anything else which indicate that explosives had been placed in the buildings.”

Firemen said they found nothing but dust. No desks, no chairs, no computers, no phones, etc. If a large group of firemen who lost their brethren told me that they heard/saw/felt explosives, you bet your life I would investigate it in my official report.


Chipmunk Stew say

“He (wrongly) concludes that there was literally molten steel at Ground Zero”

No, he says, “molten metal,” which is direct testimony from workers at the scene. Jones guesses that it is steel, but he openly admits that this is a guess. It cannot be molten aluminum, because aluminum does not glow red.


Arkan Wolfshade said

“Now, if Mutton-Head, has some evidence as to why these groups should not receive provisional agreement as to their expertise of the matters involved, I'm all for it being presented.

Yes. In the NIST report, there were many respectable firms involved. But the evidence (the steel) was carted away. That is negligence. I cannot trust their findings. It doesn’t matter whose fault it was that the evidence is gone. The report is compromised. If I were in charge of this crime scene investigation, I would have had all of the steel, and as much of the powder carted off to a secure location. Not melted down and sold. I would have reconstructed the towers. Does this sound funny? When an airliner blows up, its pieces are reconstructed. Yes it’s expensive, but IMHO, it is worth it. Our nation was attacked on 911. I want to know who did it, and how. The how is a big piece IMHO. I would have had the steel at least partially reconstructed. Whenever a workman had to cut a piece of steel away to remove it, both sides of the cut would have been marked with an ID #. The two sides would have the same number, so that when they were taken to a secure location, it could be reconstructed like a big plastic model. The pieces and the instructions would all be there. How much extra time and money would it have taken to mark the pieces as such. Even if you later decide you don’t want to do the reconstruction, the pieces are available. As of now, they are gone, and that is that.
This to me, is negligence of the highest order.



Huntsman says
“and thermite is not an explosive, either”

Some notes from Steven Jones’ paper
“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. “

Notice “cutter charges,” not “explosive.”

“Thus, we find substantial evidence supporting the current conjecture that some variation of thermite (e.g., solid aluminum powder plus Fe2O3, with possible addition of sulfur) was used on the steel columns of the WTC Tower to weaken the huge steel supports, not long before explosives finished the demolition job.”

Notice thermite and explosives.

It seems you did not pay close attention to these points when reading the paper.



Pardalis says“Alot of things could sound and look like explosions without being explosions. Probably these alledged "superiors" were just doing these firemen a favour so that they wouldn't make fools of themselves”

Well, that’s allot of coulds and probablies for me.


Rwguinn says“KE=PE=mgH=w*h where g= your favorite gravitaional constant, m is mass (not weight)m and h is the building height at the mass location.
It ain't hard.”

Thank you for your knowledge. I agree it’s not hard. Potential energy, kinetic energy, mass, height, acceleration due to gravity. I am impressed. The hard part is the rest of the equation, the resistance of the building and the work done to cause the damage.

Three cinder blocks on an aluminum can. Did you spend any amount of time and thought on that analogy? Is doesn’t even deserve a response.


Dubfan says

“Greening's paper describes a mathematical model based on verifiable facts and assumptions.”

Assumptions. Back to my question of why the steel is gone. Back to “My expert is better than your expert.”


Pardalis says“Mutton-Head, what I don't personally understand about your way of thinking is, as though there might be discrepencies and anomalies about the WTC towers collapse, what makes you jump to the explosives devices explanation so quickly? How can you make such a leap?”

Because the firemen’s of the testimony, which was ignored.



Shrinker says

“Well, Mutton-Head, after typing your name I find myself overcompensating in the politeness department. It is a little disconcerting.”

Yes! My Kung Foo is strong! Mere mortals you all are!

This starting to feel like 50 against one.

Whew.....

 

[Belz...]

And it did.

Until Katie Holmes gave birth!

Kiwi... please. stop. using. smileys. overload. imminent.

 

[Abbyas]

Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so. That doesn’t make it “conclusive proof,” but it is evidence. Evidence should be in the report, and then refuted. It should not be omitted. In my opinion, firemen saying they heard/saw/felt explosives is good evidence

They didn't say heard/saw/felt explosives, they say heard/saw/felt explosions. Does that make things clearer?

I would have reconstructed the towers

I'm not sure how you can say that not doing this is negligence. Is there another engineer that says that would be the normal and appropriate method?

Because the firemen’s of the testimony, which was ignored.

The testimony that they heard explosions wasn't ignored. I think you'll see that the NIST report does include stuff blowing up (to be crude), just not explosives.

This starting to feel like 50 against one.

Ha, understandable. Feel free to invite anyone who agrees with you or has more information to come on down.

 

[Belz...]

Rolling On the Floor Laughing My A** Off.

Bah! Why don't people use WORDS instead of damn acronyms!

 

[pgwenthold]

You have to be able to discern between something that "looks" like a controlled demo, and something that "is" a controlled demo. Especially if the only evidence you have is eyewitness accounts by people obviously in shock.

I say, go back and compare the videos of the WTC towers falling and some controlled demolitions. Outside of "buildings fell down," there is basically no comparison.

The falling of the WTC towers in fact looks NOTHING like a controlled demolition. Heck, our own favorite CTer geggy has admitted it.

 

[Belz...]

As Admin:

Can I suggest that if the major participants are happy with the idea that I close this thread and you start a new one? No one in their right mind is going to wade through 120+ pages!

If you do that, Darat, I'm going to see to it that not only you get your own little private hell down here, but also that NONE of your socks match anymore.

Beign #1 henchman has its advantages.

 

[Gravy]

...Others also personally witnessed floors compressed into each other. This isn't just stuff people made up -- it's based on evidence recovered from the site. NIST and other actual scientists and engineers didn't limit themselves to what they could Google. They did real live investigations, talked to actual people, inspected actual steel, extensively modeled on computers designed for that purpose. You pathetic terrorist supporters with your compression artifacts and '9.8 m/s/s give or take an order of magnitude' grade-school physics aren't dog crap on the shoes of real investigators.

Boy, am I with Manny on this. Actually, I'm always with Manny here because his posts make so much damn sense. He doesn't post as often as some of us do, but when he does, attention should be paid.

The CTs and newcomers here have no idea how often we have to deal with this issue of experts. This is totally, utterly, mind-blowingly baffling to me. If (Ed forbid) your child was hit by a car, would you want her to be treated at a trauma center with triage nurses, a full staff of emergency doctors and specialists, radiologists, anesthesiologists. etc? Or would you want her treated by chiropracters, homeopaths and psychic healers?

Well, the latter option is exactly the type of "treatment" suggested by CTs for the trauma suffered on 9/11. MANY times it has been suggested that the experts involved in the investigation were "suspect" because they had worked on other high-profile cases, or because they had "connnections' to the government. The phrase "so-called experts" is used by CTs on a daily basis. The phrase "no investigation at all was done" is also used on a daily basis.

Suppose that on 9/13 we fired all of the FBI evidence experts, all the firemen, police, engineers, steelworkers, demolitions experts, construction experts, forensics experts. And we replaced them with the "Scholars for Truth." Would CTs be satisfied with the result of their "investigation?" Of course not. They'd scream bloody murder.

Because these people are not only unqualified to conduct such an investigation, they deliberately distort the truth all the time. Their dishonesty is an absolute insult to thinking people. And every one of us who posts here regularly can prove it. Doubt me? Then pick a name at random from the published CT crowd. And within minutes I'll show you a pack of lies. We're plenty fallible here, and there will always be a lot we don't know, but unlike the CT bunch, WE DON'T HAVE TO LIE TO SUPPORT OUR STATEMENTS.

This issue came up again today, as it does almost every day. I received an email from someone who

A) wanted my opinion about the temperature the steel in the towers had to reach in order for collapse to occur, and,

B) Listed three members of "Scholars for Truth" and informed me that two were structural engineers and one was a fire safety engineer.

My reply was: A) I make no claim about the temperature of steel in the towers, but if you want to make such a claim I'll be glad to look at it, and since I may not understand it, I'd prefer to run it past a structural engineer.

B) That's big news if true. I'll check it out. I tried to verify the professions of the three but couldn't, so I emailed the claimant as well as Jim Fetzer of ST911, and I'm awaiting a reply.

I hate to sound cynical, but I'm 99% sure that these three people are not licensed in the given professions.

I'm 99% sure of that because no credentials are listed for these people on the ST911.org site, and because every time a CT has made a similar claim, they've been wrong.

Every single time.

So, yeah, some of us get ticked off at being lied to constantly by the "Truth Movement." This isnt a subject to lie about.

 

[Mutton-Head]

moving thread

all for moving the thread

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Manny says,
“There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were placed in those buildings.”

Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so. That doesn’t make it “conclusive proof,” but it is evidence. Evidence should be in the report, and then refuted. It should not be omitted. In my opinion, firemen saying they heard/saw/felt explosives is good evidence. I would consider them reasonable experts in the field. Not ultimate experts, but reasonable.

What, exactly, in context, did the firemen say?

“Then approximately 10,000 New York City Firefighters spent months at the scene. These are guys who lost 343 of their brothers and who are trained in many cases to examine fire debris to find the causes of fire. None of them -- none! -- reported finding any blasting caps or fuses or wires or anything else which indicate that explosives had been placed in the buildings.”

Firemen said they found nothing but dust. No desks, no chairs, no computers, no phones, etc. If a large group of firemen who lost their brethren told me that they heard/saw/felt explosives, you bet your life I would investigate it in my official report.

explosions <> explosives

A fire extinguisher will explode under compression, it is not an explosive. Full soda cans will explode under pressure or heat, they are not explosives. etc

Chipmunk Stew say

“He (wrongly) concludes that there was literally molten steel at Ground Zero”

No, he says, “molten metal,” which is direct testimony from workers at the scene. Jones guesses that it is steel, but he openly admits that this is a guess. It cannot be molten aluminum, because aluminum does not glow red.

Yes http://images.google.com/images?q=t...minum.com/Plant_Tour/MoltenAlumInCrucible.jpg
It http://images.google.com/images?q=t....alliedmetalcompany.com/images/moltenal05.jpg
Does http://images.google.com/images?q=t...lisher.com/media/paper305/stills/d676oeaq.jpg
Glow http://images.google.com/images?q=t...undry/Foundry%20Images/2002_0619_190931AA.jpg
Orange http://images.google.com/images?q=t...marineboat.com/sub/images/casting_sand_14.JPG

Arkan Wolfshade said

“Now, if Mutton-Head, has some evidence as to why these groups should not receive provisional agreement as to their expertise of the matters involved, I'm all for it being presented.

Yes. In the NIST report, there were many respectable firms involved. But the evidence (the steel) was carted away. That is negligence. I cannot trust their findings. It doesn’t matter whose fault it was that the evidence is gone. The report is compromised.

Part of the responibility of the people taking part in the investigation is to ensure that all relevent data is available for the investigation. Why did none of the people involved complain about evidence being removed prior to examination? Or are you suggesting they are all negligent?

If I were in charge of this crime scene investigation, I would have had all of the steel, and as much of the powder carted off to a secure location. Not melted down and sold. I would have reconstructed the towers. Does this sound funny? When an airliner blows up, its pieces are reconstructed. Yes it’s expensive, but IMHO, it is worth it. Our nation was attacked on 911. I want to know who did it, and how. The how is a big piece IMHO. I would have had the steel at least partially reconstructed. Whenever a workman had to cut a piece of steel away to remove it, both sides of the cut would have been marked with an ID #. The two sides would have the same number, so that when they were taken to a secure location, it could be reconstructed like a big plastic model. The pieces and the instructions would all be there. How much extra time and money would it have taken to mark the pieces as such. Even if you later decide you don’t want to do the reconstruction, the pieces are available. As of now, they are gone, and that is that.
This to me, is negligence of the highest order.

Not entirely bad ideas, but still no evidence of intentional criminal activities. Instead you point out procedures you disagree with and assign intent and value to them without providing evidence for doing so.

Huntsman says
“and thermite is not an explosive, either”

Some notes from Steven Jones’ paper
“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. “

Notice “cutter charges,” not “explosive.”

“Thus, we find substantial evidence supporting the current conjecture that some variation of thermite (e.g., solid aluminum powder plus Fe2O3, with possible addition of sulfur) was used on the steel columns of the WTC Tower to weaken the huge steel supports, not long before explosives finished the demolition job.”

Notice thermite and explosives.

It seems you did not pay close attention to these points when reading the paper.

A cutter charge is an explosive. I'll defer to Huntsman, resident expert on explosives, to deal with the particulars of thermite.

Pardalis says“Alot of things could sound and look like explosions without being explosions. Probably these alledged "superiors" were just doing these firemen a favour so that they wouldn't make fools of themselves”

Well, that’s allot of coulds and probablies for me.

Opinion noted.

Rwguinn says“KE=PE=mgH=w*h where g= your favorite gravitaional constant, m is mass (not weight)m and h is the building height at the mass location.
It ain't hard.”

Thank you for your knowledge. I agree it’s not hard. Potential energy, kinetic energy, mass, height, acceleration due to gravity. I am impressed. The hard part is the rest of the equation, the resistance of the building and the work done to cause the damage.

Which is why it needs to be hard math and not pseudocode.

Dubfan says

“Greening's paper describes a mathematical model based on verifiable facts and assumptions.”

Assumptions. Back to my question of why the steel is gone. Back to “My expert is better than your expert.”

Did you even notice the word "verifiable" in that sentence?

Pardalis says“Mutton-Head, what I don't personally understand about your way of thinking is, as though there might be discrepencies and anomalies about the WTC towers collapse, what makes you jump to the explosives devices explanation so quickly? How can you make such a leap?”

Because the firemen’s of the testimony, which was ignored.

Transcripts of this testimony, or verifiable quotes from the firemen indicating such?

 

[dubfan]

Manny says,
“There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were placed in those buildings.”

Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so.

NO ONE (except you CT-types) has said explosives were placed in those buildings.

That is a blatant distortion.

 

[Gravy]

...One thing you have to bear in mind at this forum is that many people here are actually 'experts'. Only yesterday one of our regulars was on the BBC discussing his field. I've been on TV and radio too and in the press (once described as a 'boffin' in the tabloids), doing my little bit....

Mutton-Head, I'm one of the world's experts on long-distance trekking (really), so when it's time to take a hike, buster/bustress, I'll let you know!


eta: I was once boffin in the tabloids, but two weeks of penicillen cleared it up.

 

[Mutton-Head]

Abbyas says

“They didn't say heard/saw/felt explosives, they say heard/saw/felt explosions. Does that make things clearer?”

They said explosions and compared it specifically to controlled demolition charges. Some even said explosives. I would have investigated this buy looking at all of the steel.

I would have reconstructed the towers

”I'm not sure how you can say that not doing this is negligence. Is there another engineer that says that would be the normal and appropriate method?”

Oh come on, when a plane is blown-up in mid-air this is standard procedure. Are you telling me it’s too much of a leap to apply to a building? Especially the largest terrorist attack ever in US history

Gravy says

“This is totally, utterly, mind-blowingly baffling to me.”
“Suppose that on 9/13 we fired all of the FBI evidence experts, all the firemen, police, engineers, steelworkers, demolitions experts, construction experts, forensics experts. And we replaced them with the "Scholars for Truth." Would CTs be satisfied with the result of their "investigation?" Of course not. They'd scream bloody murder.”

No, I want them to do their jobs correctly. I’m not talking about doctors healing my kid, that’s a bad analogy. I’m talking about investigating a crime scene. Let’s try to keep the metaphors and analogies to a minimum. Show me any cop who throws out crime evidence. All evidence is taken to a lab. Tell me that it would have been unreasonable to cart all of the WTC steel to a secure location, tagged, and ready to be inspected at a later date. It’s not just about, “who is an expert.” It’s also, “did they do their job.”

“they deliberately distort the truth all the time. Their dishonesty is an absolute insult to thinking people.”

Show me my distortions and lies.

“extensively modeled on computers designed for that purpose. You pathetic terrorist supporters with your compression artifacts and '9.8 m/s/s give or take an order of magnitude' grade-school physics aren't dog crap on the shoes of real investigators.”

Modeled on computers. That’s grade-school investigation. Real investigators don’t model, they study evidence. Stop telling me that the NIST people were real investigators. Because they sure didn’t act like real investigators. Was it their fault, or their superiors fault? I don’t know. That’s not my concern. I’m concerned with the report.


Arkan Wolfshade says

“What, exactly, in context, did the firemen say?”

If you’re truly interested, Google the video interviews and find out for yourself. I’m not here to do all of the work for you.

“explosions <> explosives
A fire extinguisher will explode under compression, it is not an explosive. Full soda cans will explode under pressure or heat, they are not explosives. Etc”

Once again, go listen to the interviews. Stop making these guesses. I’m, not making guesses. I’m repeating what firemen said. I think they no more about explosions than me.

“It cannot be molten aluminum, because aluminum does not glow red.”

I couldn’t quite see your pictures. Does aluminum glow red? My mistake.

“Part of the responibility of the people taking part in the investigation is to ensure that all relevent data is available for the investigation. Why did none of the people involved complain about evidence being removed prior to examination? Or are you suggesting they are all negligent?”

I don’t care who is negligent at this point. That’s not for me to decide. Well, my opinion is that whoever was in charge of the investigation was negligent. My point is though that the NIST report is compromised. That’s why us whacky kooky googoo CTers are looking into it. Please don’t refer to me as a CTer. I am me, and you are you.

“Not entirely bad ideas, but still no evidence of intentional criminal activities. Instead you point out procedures you disagree with and assign intent and value to them without providing evidence for doing so.”

No, I say the report is compromised. Please pay attention. If the NIST does a bad job, then somebody has to point it out, and add details that were left out.

“Did you even notice the word "verifiable" in that sentence?”

Yes I did notice verifiable. Did you notice that I pointed out that they are combined with assumptions? Do you even read my replies?

I want to add that the “assumption” that they were explosive charges is just that. It is an assumption. It can be confirmed or refuted in the investigation. The problem with the NIST report is that it takes assumptions and calls them conclusions. You can’t arrive at a conclusion until you have done the work. If many firemen says “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” That is a direct quote from one of the videos, spoken by an actual fireman, as three other firemen agreed.

“Transcripts of this testimony, or verifiable quotes from the firemen indicating such?”

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes……..
Search for yourself.

Dubfan says

“There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were placed in those buildings.”

Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so.

NO ONE (except you CT-types) has said explosives were placed in those buildings.

That is a blatant distortion.”

It is not a blatant distortion. I am not a CTer, I am me. I will no longer respond to Dubfan. He can apologize if he wishes.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Manny says,
“There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were placed in those buildings.”

Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so. That doesn’t make it “conclusive proof,” but it is evidence. Evidence should be in the report, and then refuted. It should not be omitted. In my opinion, firemen saying they heard/saw/felt explosives is good evidence. I would consider them reasonable experts in the field. Not ultimate experts, but reasonable...

What is a "reasonable expert?"

Anyway, what you consider evidence in this instance is purely circumstantial and, considering how open to interpretation sounds are, weak in the extreme.

Sir, evidence for a controlled demolition would be:

• Physical remains of thousands of lbs. of explosives necessary to complete the task
• Physical remains of thousands of lbs. of wiring and assorted peripherals necessary to complete the task
• Correspondence, including e-mails, between the planner(s) and the numerous workers and technicians necessary for securing, transporting, and installing the thousands of lbs. of hardware and materials necessary to complete the task. These would include but not be limited to detailed diagrams and schematics
• Testimony of one of the numerous pyrotechnic workers or transport crew mentioned above, along with supporting documentation
• Testimony of one of the numerous WTC security detail who would have witnessed and okayed such a massive delivery as necessary
• Testimony of one of the numerous occupants of the WTC that such installations and other goings-on were witnessed, including an document trail detailing how that occupant pursued the matter

And so on.

Merely the speculation while under duress of one or a few emergency personnel that they heard explosions, never mind the buildings were in the violent process of de-construction and so could be expected to emit a groan or two, is not in any way shape or form...evidence for a controlled demolition.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Our nation was attacked on 911. I want to know who did it, and how.

Terrorists. They flew planes into buildings.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...I would have reconstructed the towers.

...Oh come on, when a plane is blown-up in mid-air this is standard procedure. Are you telling me it’s too much of a leap to apply to a building? Especially the largest terrorist attack ever in US history...

Shall we take the two or three billion dollars necessary (never mind the years required to complete the task) out of petty cash?

 

[Mutton-Head]

Actually, now that I think about it, I find Gravy to be unnecessarily insulting.

“they deliberately distort the truth all the time. Their dishonesty is an absolute insult to thinking people.”

I will also no longer respond to Gravy. He can likewise apologize if he wishes.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Terrorists. They flew planes into buildings.

Bravo.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[Mutton-Head]

Regnad Kcin says

What is a "reasonable expert?"
Anyway, what you consider evidence in this instance is purely circumstantial and, considering how open to interpretation sounds are, weak in the extreme.
Sir, evidence for a controlled demolition would be:

A firefighter saying “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” Is a reasonable expert. Honestly I’m getting tired of repeating myself.

“Merely the speculation while under duress of one or a few emergency personnel that they heard explosions, never mind the buildings were in the violent process of de-construction and so could be expected to emit a groan or two, is not in any way shape or form...evidence for a controlled demolition.”

Once again, A firefighter saying “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” Is evidence, It is not a conclusion, but it is evidence. Do you even know the difference. Are any of you paying attention?

“Shall we take the two or three billion dollars necessary (never mind the years required to complete the task) out of petty cash?”

Oh good lord people. You’re really not even reading what I’m writing. I said, I will cut and paste and repeat myself yet again for those who can’t take the time to read.
Whenever a workman had to cut a piece of steel away to remove it, both sides of the cut would have been marked with an ID #. The two sides would have the same number, and taken to a secure location. How much extra time and money would it have taken to mark the pieces as such. Even if you later decide you don’t want to do the reconstruction, the pieces are available. As of now, they are gone, and that is that.
That would not have cost billions.


“Our nation was attacked on 911. I want to know who did it, and how.
Terrorists. They flew planes into buildings.”

No, I want to know everything. That means, listening to firemen, analizing steel from the crime scene.

 

[Manny]

They said explosions and compared it specifically to controlled demolition charges. Some even said explosives.

They used similes. The guy you quoted who was gesturing with his hands? He was referring to the actual building collapse. I'll get you his name when I get home. You talk about investigations -- call FDNY. Call their public relations office. Heck, call their union. Ask them who said what and what they meant.

I would have reconstructed the towers.

Here's how to reconstruct an airplane: First, you rig up a wooden frame in the shape of the particular aircraft. Then you attach the pieces. It's really hard work, especially for the fuselage, because the pieces are often small. But it's possible because all the pieces except for the fuselage are distinct -- from the manual you can figure out where the door goes, for instance.

Now try to reconstruct a 110-story office building. First, you rig up a 110-story wooden frame...

For whatever it's worth, mockups are not always done in plane crashes. In particular they're not done when it's too difficult relative to what one would learn from it. Only a partial mockup was done of Valujet 592, because it was too hard to do the rest once they discovered what caused the crash. The investigation of United 232 saw only a mockup of the aft section and the tail because it was known that that was where the cause was.