9/11 Bombshell:WTC7 Security Official Details

[Q24]

It was merely intended as a joke, and I added the laughing icon to emphasize that point.

Well… I thought it was amusing and nearly wrote it myself.

[Q24]

You know perfectly well that you are using an invalid debating point, there are plenty of questions you cannot just answer yes or no to without being misleading.

The question I am asking is not a riddle, nor is its answer misleading. It is a simple fact that NIST throughout their entire study did not simulate the actual airliner impact damage. Now you can dress that up how you like but the fact is clear.

Does anyone know exactly what the damage was? You could run hundreds of cases without getting an exact match to just the visible part of the damage because there is uncertainty in several of the impact parameters. However, NIST bracketed the damage with their three-case approach, and one of the cases getting a good agreement with both the impact hole and the bowing shows they were on the right track.

If NIST had ran an intermediate case that matched with the photographic evidence of the impact damage they could have had a very good idea what the actual internal damage was. Incidentally, did you know the number of severed columns in the base case for both Towers is doubled in the severe cases? That is an awfully big step between simulations.

If an underestimation of the damage had caused collapse initiation in the models, I wouldn’t be dissatisfied on this point. The fact that NIST had to use an overestimation of the damage for both Towers to show collapse initiation does not prove the airliner impacts in reality could cause collapse.

Edit to add: I find it absolutely hilarious to see you debating Zaus on the "no planes" thread. Zaus may be your enemy, but he is no friend of mine.

Not sure how much of a ‘debate’ I’m going to get there. In my opinion, ‘No plane’ and ‘DEW’ theories are more damaging to the truth movement than your arguments could ever be. You might not realise it but people promoting these theories do indirectly assist the official story.

[flyingswan]

The question I am asking is not a riddle, nor is its answer misleading. It is a simple fact that NIST throughout their entire study did not simulate the actual airliner impact damage. Now you can dress that up how you like but the fact is clear.

Please explain how you alone know what the actual damage was.

If NIST had ran an intermediate case that matched with the photographic evidence of the impact damage they could have had a very good idea what the actual internal damage was. Incidentally, did you know the number of severed columns in the base case for both Towers is doubled in the severe cases? That is an awfully big step between simulations.

If an underestimation of the damage had caused collapse initiation in the models, I wouldn’t be dissatisfied on this point. The fact that NIST had to use an overestimation of the damage for both Towers to show collapse initiation does not prove the airliner impacts in reality could cause collapse.

You still miss the point completely. Any simulation that matched the bowing would also have to match core damage consistent with the bowing, and since the bowing is a danger sign for incipient collapse, any simulation that matched the bowing would have predicted a collapse.

Not sure how much of a ‘debate’ I’m going to get there. In my opinion, ‘No plane’ and ‘DEW’ theories are more damaging to the truth movement than your arguments could ever be. You might not realise it but people promoting these theories do indirectly assist the official story.

It is only a question of degree, just that more people can see the ridiculous assumptions in "no planes" than in "thermite demolition". Neither theory is plausible, but the second sounds more plausible than the first.

[Q24]

Please explain how you alone know what the actual damage was.

When I say actual damage, I am referring to that which is observable in photographic and video evidence. NIST did not run a case which matched with all of the observable evidence, ie both the impact and exit holes. The case that NIST say most closely matched the impact hole did not lead to collapse initiation. The case that NIST say overstated damage at the impact hole is the one they used to show collapse initiation.

You still miss the point completely. Any simulation that matched the bowing would also have to match core damage consistent with the bowing, and since the bowing is a danger sign for incipient collapse, any simulation that matched the bowing would have predicted a collapse.

That ‘impacts caused the bowing’ is a preconceived conclusion. I will try to explain. The point of an investigation is to find causes of events. One of the questions an investigation should be looking to answer is - what caused the bowing? Therefore, in an investigation, we cannot begin with the conclusion that the airliners caused the bowing. It is a question to be answered; not a given fact. Can you understand that?

You mention “any simulation that matched the bowing would have predicted a collapse”. That is true, but from what we know, it is quite possible that a simulation giving perfect match with the impact and exit holes would not produce any bowing at all. That in turn would imply the actual impacts were not the cause of the bowing and further, the collapses.

Is it not a basic requirement of a true investigation that the figures should prove the theory, rather than the theory driving the figures?

Hundreds of cases instead of three is a considerable difference in expense, and no guarantee at the end of it that people like you wouldn't be finding further things to quibble about.

No-one, least of all you, has explained how bowing could be caused by CD.

I have transferred this from the other thread as it fits with what we are talking about here. I am not suggesting NIST should have run hundreds of cases – obviously that is over the top. I don’t see why at least a small number of additional intermediate cases couldn’t have been run to more closely, or perhaps even precisely, match the observable evidence. Perhaps then, as I said above, the closest match with both the impact and exit holes would have been discovered that did not cause bowing or a collapse. I fear that is the outcome that NIST purposefully aimed to avoid.

I have already explained how a controlled demolition scenario could cause bowing – that is incremental damage to the core columns transferring increasing loads to the south wall. To put it another way – you believe impact damage and fire caused the south wall bowing but why should it not be possible that demolition charges could cause the same damage situation?

It is only a question of degree, just that more people can see the ridiculous assumptions in "no planes" than in "thermite demolition". Neither theory is plausible, but the second sounds more plausible than the first.

A thermite initiated controlled demolition is quite plausible, supported by physical evidence and the observed characteristics of the building collapses. Apart from that, you are right. The first time I decided to take a look at the alternative theory, it is certainly fortunate I found a site detailing the Bin Laden/Al Qaeda history rather than a ‘no plane’ page.

[turbonium]

Well… I thought it was amusing and nearly wrote it myself.

Thanks, Q24. Yes - it was just too irresistible to ignore, wasn't it?

[flyingswan]

When I say actual damage, I am referring to that which is observable in photographic and video evidence. NIST did not run a case which matched with all of the observable evidence, ie both the impact and exit holes. The case that NIST say most closely matched the impact hole did not lead to collapse initiation. The case that NIST say overstated damage at the impact hole is the one they used to show collapse initiation.

NIST said that both cases gave "good" agreement with the impact damage, though the base case was better. This hardly rules out the more severe case.

That ‘impacts caused the bowing’ is a preconceived conclusion. I will try to explain. The point of an investigation is to find causes of events. One of the questions an investigation should be looking to answer is - what caused the bowing? Therefore, in an investigation, we cannot begin with the conclusion that the airliners caused the bowing. It is a question to be answered; not a given fact. Can you understand that?

It wasn't preconceived - NIST started from three reasonable sets of impact parameters, and the simulations using one of these sets led to bowing and collapse.

You mention “any simulation that matched the bowing would have predicted a collapse”. That is true, but from what we know, it is quite possible that a simulation giving perfect match with the impact and exit holes would not produce any bowing at all. That in turn would imply the actual impacts were not the cause of the bowing and further, the collapses.

I've given my reasons for rejecting this line of reasoning at length. I find it entirely reasonable based on the differences between the two cases that there were a range of intermediate cases which would have given an even better fit to the impact damage and also predicted the bowing.

Is it not a basic requirement of a true investigation that the figures should prove the theory, rather than the theory driving the figures?

Which is why NIST stuck with their three a priori cases, rather than running lots of cases to get an exact match. If they'd done that, no doubt you would be arguing that you can get any result if you tweak the input parameters enough.

I have transferred this from the other thread as it fits with what we are talking about here. I am not suggesting NIST should have run hundreds of cases – obviously that is over the top. I don’t see why at least a small number of additional intermediate cases couldn’t have been run to more closely, or perhaps even precisely, match the observable evidence. Perhaps then, as I said above, the closest match with both the impact and exit holes would have been discovered that did not cause bowing or a collapse. I fear that is the outcome that NIST purposefully aimed to avoid.

Why don't you take this up with NIST? Ask them if they can run your intermediate case. Explain to them exactly what degree of matching would convince you. Get someone with a reputation, like Quintiere, to back you and they might actually do it.

I have already explained how a controlled demolition scenario could cause bowing – that is incremental damage to the core columns transferring increasing loads to the south wall. To put it another way – you believe impact damage and fire caused the south wall bowing but why should it not be possible that demolition charges could cause the same damage situation?

You have claimed it could, you haven't explained how it could.

A thermite initiated controlled demolition is quite plausible, supported by physical evidence and the observed characteristics of the building collapses. Apart from that, you are right. The first time I decided to take a look at the alternative theory, it is certainly fortunate I found a site detailing the Bin Laden/Al Qaeda history rather than a ‘no plane’ page.

I have already asked you this several times without getting an answer: is there any evidence that a thermite device can cut a full-scale building column? Has it ever been done?

[Q24]

NIST said that both cases gave "good" agreement with the impact damage, though the base case was better. This hardly rules out the more severe case.

If NIST’s computer models are correct, then this does rule out the more severe case. The severe case may have had what NIST describe as “good” agreement but if the base case was a better agreement to the impact hole then clearly the former cannot have been the reality on 9/11.

It wasn't preconceived - NIST started from three reasonable sets of impact parameters, and the simulations using one of these sets led to bowing and collapse.

To say from the start that the bowing is a given effect of the impact and not preconceived is a failure of logic. Yes, I understand there was a damage situation in WTC1 that caused bowing. I understand that through increasing the airliner impact severity and reducing the Tower strength from the base case, NIST reached that required damage situation. To do this, as mentioned, they had to exceed damage levels visible in photographic evidence.

I've given my reasons for rejecting this line of reasoning at length. I find it entirely reasonable based on the differences between the two cases that there were a range of intermediate cases which would have given an even better fit to the impact damage and also predicted the bowing.

Yes, as the severe case caused bowing, I understand your reasoning there would be a range of intermediate cases that also did so. At the same time it is possible there could be a range of additional cases matching the impact damage but not causing bowing. Which of these ranges gives best match to the impact/exit hole is the key. NIST have left this issue outstanding.

Which is why NIST stuck with their three a priori cases, rather than running lots of cases to get an exact match. If they'd done that, no doubt you would be arguing that you can get any result if you tweak the input parameters enough.

In sticking to their three cases, all NIST have proven is that a damage case in excess of reality could cause collapse initiation. I would be far happier if an intermediate case had been found that best matched the impact/exit holes.

Why don't you take this up with NIST? Ask them if they can run your intermediate case. Explain to them exactly what degree of matching would convince you. Get someone with a reputation, like Quintiere, to back you and they might actually do it.

Do you think if I asked NIST nicely they would run a case especially for me?

As much as you declare your satisfaction, I know you do understand that NIST needed to run these intermediate cases to reach a definitive conclusion on the collapse cause. I know you believe NIST were on the “right track” with the results they did finally give. NIST’s objective was to “Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft”. Do you think NIST have achieved this objective?

You have claimed it could, you haven't explained how it could.

It seems very straightforward that weakening of the south side of the core could lead to a load transfer to the south perimeter, producing bowing. Can you describe exactly what detail of explanation you are looking for.

I have already asked you this several times without getting an answer: is there any evidence that a thermite device can cut a full-scale building column? Has it ever been done?

I have never declined to answer any question… that’s your game. The fact structural steel melts at approximately 1,500^oC whilst thermite reaches temperatures of approximately 2,500^oC is evidence of the possibility.

[flyingswan]

If NIST’s computer models are correct, then this does rule out the more severe case. The severe case may have had what NIST describe as “good” agreement but if the base case was a better agreement to the impact hole then clearly the former cannot have been the reality on 9/11.

The evidence also rules out the base case - the actual case must be intermediate.

To say from the start that the bowing is a given effect of the impact and not preconceived is a failure of logic. Yes, I understand there was a damage situation in WTC1 that caused bowing. I understand that through increasing the airliner impact severity and reducing the Tower strength from the base case, NIST reached that required damage situation. To do this, as mentioned, they had to exceed damage levels visible in photographic evidence.

Look at the NIST report again - they start from estimates of the aircraft speed and trajectory, plus a few building parameters that have a bit of uncertainty. They do not start from the bowing. The bowing follows from applying the laws of physics, as incorporated in the simulation codes, to a set of impact parameters chosen beforehand. The mechanism for causing the bowing and collapse was something new in the NIST investigation, differing from the earlier FEMA theory. We thus have a hypothesis that makes a prediction that is confirmed by the evidence, the actual observed bowing. This is not a failure of logic, this is an example of the scientific method in action.

Yes, as the severe case caused bowing, I understand your reasoning there would be a range of intermediate cases that also did so. At the same time it is possible there could be a range of additional cases matching the impact damage but not causing bowing. Which of these ranges gives best match to the impact/exit hole is the key. NIST have left this issue outstanding.

In sticking to their three cases, all NIST have proven is that a damage case in excess of reality could cause collapse initiation. I would be far happier if an intermediate case had been found that best matched the impact/exit holes.

Do you think if I asked NIST nicely they would run a case especially for me?

No harm in asking, or is that another example of the impracticality of you sending an e-mail?

As much as you declare your satisfaction, I know you do understand that NIST needed to run these intermediate cases to reach a definitive conclusion on the collapse cause. I know you believe NIST were on the “right track” with the results they did finally give. NIST’s objective was to “Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft”. Do you think NIST have achieved this objective?

Yes, I'm pretty sure that they've discovered the collapse mechanism.

It seems very straightforward that weakening of the south side of the core could lead to a load transfer to the south perimeter, producing bowing. Can you describe exactly what detail of explanation you are looking for.

We've already seen that your expectation of how structures work are rather wide of the mark. I can't see there being a gradual transfer of load required for the corresponding gradual development of the bowing. I would expect any extra core damage to either be absorbed by the rest of the core, with no wall bowing, or transferred to the wall, leading to immediate collapse.

I have never declined to answer any question… that’s your game. The fact structural steel melts at approximately 1,500^oC whilst thermite reaches temperatures of approximately 2,500^oC is evidence of the possibility.

On the contrary, thermite generally works vertically by melting what lies beneath it. You've given an example of a small-scale device that could cut horizontally through a metal rod, but no evidence of anything larger that could cut the size of column in the WTC. The small-scale device was much larger than the column it cut, so just scaling up your device would seem to give something so big that it wouldn't fit inside the building.

[Zaus]

um... molten metal.

EDIT: for nearly a month afterward

2ndEDIT: at 2000+ degrees.

Edited March 14, 2008 by Zaus

[flyingswan]

um... molten metal.

EDIT: for nearly a month afterward

2ndEDIT: at 2000+ degrees.

So? Plenty of combustibles present, large office buildings contain lots of furnishings and paper. Limited oxygen supply deep in the debris piles. Ideal conditions for a long-lasting fire.

Mine fires can last decades, and that's not just coal mines. Even if the ore being mined isn't combustible, a lot of the abandonned equipment is.

By the way, Zaus, are you actually going to defend any of your points, or is it just hit and run?

Edited March 15, 2008 by flyingswan

[Q24]

The evidence also rules out the base case - the actual case must be intermediate.

This is a point we have agreed on for some time, though more recently I am having some reservations. It is known that the landing gear created the exit hole on the south side of WTC1. In not one of NIST’s cases did the landing gear emerge from the structure, that is despite the severe case showing an amount of other debris exiting the building. This information is stated in the NIST report itself: -

“The amount of aircraft debris found to exit WTC 1 in the global impact analyses varied, as shown in Figure 7-67 and Figure 7-68. However, no portion of the landing gear was observed to exit the tower in the simulations, but rather was stopped inside, or just outside, of the core. In order to simulate the trajectory of specific pieces of aircraft debris, a fairly precise knowledge of the internal configuration of the building was needed. This is especially true with components passing through the core of the building, where some of the most massive building contents and partition walls were present. Uncertainties regarding the internal layout of each floor, such as the location of hallways or walls, could make the difference between debris from a specific component passing through or being stopped inside the tower. In addition, modelling uncertainties and assumptions might play a role in not matching the observable.”

Therefore it is reasonable that had the specifics NIST mention above been fully known and simulated, rather than resulting in “not matching the observable”, it is entirely possible the landing gear would have passed through the structure in the base case, with no bowing, matching photographic evidence of the impact/exit holes extremely closely.

Look at the NIST report again - they start from estimates of the aircraft speed and trajectory, plus a few building parameters that have a bit of uncertainty. They do not start from the bowing. The bowing follows from applying the laws of physics, as incorporated in the simulation codes, to a set of impact parameters chosen beforehand. The mechanism for causing the bowing and collapse was something new in the NIST investigation, differing from the earlier FEMA theory. We thus have a hypothesis that makes a prediction that is confirmed by the evidence, the actual observed bowing. This is not a failure of logic, this is an example of the scientific method in action.

The timeline of the NIST study and your suggestion the estimates were put firmly in place before the simulations does not seem clear. NCSTAR1-2 “Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis” and NCSTAR1-6 “Probable Collapse Sequence” are both dated September 2005. It is possible NIST worked on these areas concurrently, creating different cases until one caused bowing and then presented only the final base and severe case in their study. It is also then entirely possible NIST extended the damage severity of the simulation until a situation was reached where bowing would inevitably occur.

It is clear from reading the NIST report that the bowing was always an area they wished to use for validation of the models. You say “a hypothesis that makes a prediction that is confirmed by the evidence” but in reaching this one observable, the bowing, NIST exceeded the impact hole damage. If only one point of validation can be reached without other areas invalidating the cases then clearly either NIST’s models are not accurate and/or there is another underlying event occurring in addition to the impacts.

I know it is possible other intermediate cases may have given all the matches and answers we are looking for but, without speculating, it is clear the cases NIST do provide are inconclusive of events on 9/11.

No harm in asking, or is that another example of the impracticality of you sending an e-mail?

It is an example of the impracticality of me wasting my time.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that they've discovered the collapse mechanism.

It is good to see an official story follower so convinced as to be “pretty sure”.

We've already seen that your expectation of how structures work are rather wide of the mark. I can't see there being a gradual transfer of load required for the corresponding gradual development of the bowing. I would expect any extra core damage to either be absorbed by the rest of the core, with no wall bowing, or transferred to the wall, leading to immediate collapse.

There is no evidence that the failure of any particular core column should completely overload the south wall causing its collapse, rather than simply putting it under additional stress. We know that during the impacts, when a number of the core columns were severed, this led to an increase in loads to the perimeters - NIST state this. As steel bends, there will be a load range that could cause the bowing but, with a level of strength left and support of the core, does not cause immediate collapse.

Another point we have been over is how the bowing progressed - a continuous gradual movement, a change in steps, or one quick movement? As there is no evidence forthcoming of which is correct, your assumption of “the gradual development of the bowing” is unsupported.

On the contrary, thermite generally works vertically by melting what lies beneath it. You've given an example of a small-scale device that could cut horizontally through a metal rod, but no evidence of anything larger that could cut the size of column in the WTC. The small-scale device was much larger than the column it cut, so just scaling up your device would seem to give something so big that it wouldn't fit inside the building.

The linear thermite charge cleanly cuts the steel rod in only a fraction of a second and I do not believe this level of accuracy or efficiency was required to initiate the building collapses. Given those facts, it appears even the small thermite charge could cause failure to a larger section of steelwork than that demonstrated.

The issue of scaling up the device to work in the Towers is not straightforward as I know you are aware. Obviously, steelwork that is twice the size of that in the demonstration does not require a thermite charge of twice the dimensions. A thermite charge of only twice the dimensions of that in the demonstration could contain 8 times the volume of thermite and a device of only three times the dimensions could contain 64 times the volume! Therefore, I do not believe scaling to be a problem and the issue of how well these thermite charges can perform is more reliant upon design of the delivery system, which even in the small device does appear quite efficient.

Edited March 15, 2008 by Q24

[flyingswan]

This is a point we have agreed on for some time, though more recently I am having some reservations. It is known that the landing gear created the exit hole on the south side of WTC1. In not one of NIST’s cases did the landing gear emerge from the structure, that is despite the severe case showing an amount of other debris exiting the building. This information is stated in the NIST report itself: -

“The amount of aircraft debris found to exit WTC 1 in the global impact analyses varied, as shown in Figure 7-67 and Figure 7-68. However, no portion of the landing gear was observed to exit the tower in the simulations, but rather was stopped inside, or just outside, of the core. In order to simulate the trajectory of specific pieces of aircraft debris, a fairly precise knowledge of the internal configuration of the building was needed. This is especially true with components passing through the core of the building, where some of the most massive building contents and partition walls were present. Uncertainties regarding the internal layout of each floor, such as the location of hallways or walls, could make the difference between debris from a specific component passing through or being stopped inside the tower. In addition, modelling uncertainties and assumptions might play a role in not matching the observable.”

Therefore it is reasonable that had the specifics NIST mention above been fully known and simulated, rather than resulting in “not matching the observable”, it is entirely possible the landing gear would have passed through the structure in the base case, with no bowing, matching photographic evidence of the impact/exit holes extremely closely.

So you can speculate about what is reasonable...

The timeline of the NIST study and your suggestion the estimates were put firmly in place before the simulations does not seem clear. NCSTAR1-2 “Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis” and NCSTAR1-6 “Probable Collapse Sequence” are both dated September 2005. It is possible NIST worked on these areas concurrently, creating different cases until one caused bowing and then presented only the final base and severe case in their study. It is also then entirely possible NIST extended the damage severity of the simulation until a situation was reached where bowing would inevitably occur.

It is clear from reading the NIST report that the bowing was always an area they wished to use for validation of the models. You say “a hypothesis that makes a prediction that is confirmed by the evidence” but in reaching this one observable, the bowing, NIST exceeded the impact hole damage. If only one point of validation can be reached without other areas invalidating the cases then clearly either NIST’s models are not accurate and/or there is another underlying event occurring in addition to the impacts.

I know it is possible other intermediate cases may have given all the matches and answers we are looking for but, without speculating, it is clear the cases NIST do provide are inconclusive of events on 9/11.

...but I can't?

These are all questions you would be better asking NIST rather than me.

It is an example of the impracticality of me wasting my time.

You can spend all this time posting here, where no-one can know the answers you want, but you can't send an e-mail to NIST who have the answers?

There is no evidence that the failure of any particular core column should completely overload the south wall causing its collapse, rather than simply putting it under additional stress. We know that during the impacts, when a number of the core columns were severed, this led to an increase in loads to the perimeters - NIST state this. As steel bends, there will be a load range that could cause the bowing but, with a level of strength left and support of the core, does not cause immediate collapse.

Another point we have been over is how the bowing progressed - a continuous gradual movement, a change in steps, or one quick movement? As there is no evidence forthcoming of which is correct, your assumption of “the gradual development of the bowing” is unsupported.

I don't think you appreciate the difference between bowing caused by the NIST theory and bowing due to load transfer. In the NIST theory, the bowing comes initially from the sagging floors pulling the walls inward - the maximum bowing is at the floor level. If the bowing was due to an increased load without floor sagging, the floors would act to hold the walls in place and the maximum bowing would be between floors. The observed bowing matches NIST's theory, but not yours.

The linear thermite charge cleanly cuts the steel rod in only a fraction of a second and I do not believe this level of accuracy or efficiency was required to initiate the building collapses. Given those facts, it appears even the small thermite charge could cause failure to a larger section of steelwork than that demonstrated.

The issue of scaling up the device to work in the Towers is not straightforward as I know you are aware. Obviously, steelwork that is twice the size of that in the demonstration does not require a thermite charge of twice the dimensions. A thermite charge of only twice the dimensions of that in the demonstration could contain 8 times the volume of thermite and a device of only three times the dimensions could contain 64 times the volume! Therefore, I do not believe scaling to be a problem and the issue of how well these thermite charges can perform is more reliant upon design of the delivery system, which even in the small device does appear quite efficient.

Why do you call it a linear device? All I can see is that a jet of thermite comes out. Double the size of your device and with eight times the thermite you may get a jet double the diameter that can cut twice the thickness, but this will only cut a column double the size.

After all the fuss you made about an arithmetic slip of mine, perhaps you could check again what three cubed comes to.

[Q24]

So you can speculate about what is reasonable...

...but I can't?

Speculation is fine just so long as everyone knows that is all, at best, the NIST ‘investigation’ and the rest of the official story is. It is when individuals claim the official story is supported by incontrovertible evidence that it becomes a lie. Sure the alternative of an inside job on 9/11 relies in part on speculation, but certainly no more so than the official story.

These are all questions you would be better asking NIST rather than me.

You can spend all this time posting here, where no-one can know the answers you want, but you can't send an e-mail to NIST who have the answers?

As you are referring me to NIST and accepting there are issues which, with the information we have, cannot be cleared up, it seems I have a point in disputing the official study of the airliner impacts and building collapses.

I don’t believe NIST would carry out the necessary actions to put all the issues at rest. I will not waste my time asking them. I personally do not have outstanding questions of NIST as I understand why their ‘investigation’ should go the way it did.

I don't think you appreciate the difference between bowing caused by the NIST theory and bowing due to load transfer. In the NIST theory, the bowing comes initially from the sagging floors pulling the walls inward - the maximum bowing is at the floor level. If the bowing was due to an increased load without floor sagging, the floors would act to hold the walls in place and the maximum bowing would be between floors. The observed bowing matches NIST's theory, but not yours.

I could perhaps agree with every word… until the final sentence. Your speculation (see above ) that the observed bowing reached its maximum at the floor level is unsupported. NIST’s analysis of the bowing only gave estimates at the floor levels but not points between. Also, the photographic evidence NIST used to determine the bowing is obscured in large part by smoke. There simply is no evidence the maximum bowing occurred at floor level.

Why do you call it a linear device? All I can see is that a jet of thermite comes out. Double the size of your device and with eight times the thermite you may get a jet double the diameter that can cut twice the thickness, but this will only cut a column double the size.

After all the fuss you made about an arithmetic slip of mine, perhaps you could check again what three cubed comes to.

I call it a linear thermite charge as it discharges thermite linearly – that could be horizontally or diagonally; not just downwards as would be normal with thermite. Doubling the device dimensions to provide 8 times more thermite, would also feasibly allow a more powerful ejection with four times the discharge area and twice the duration – it could cut a column far more than double the size.

Looking at the core column cross sections, I was surprised to find that 34 of the 47 in each Tower were less than 2 inches thick at the impact zones. I believe that providing the devices were positioned correctly and the nozzle was designed to cut wide areas, the devices would not need to be particularly large. I cannot give specifics here but I cannot see it is impossible.

Good spot on the error.

[flyingswan]

Speculation is fine just so long as everyone knows that is all, at best, the NIST ‘investigation’ and the rest of the official story is. It is when individuals claim the official story is supported by incontrovertible evidence that it becomes a lie. Sure the alternative of an inside job on 9/11 relies in part on speculation, but certainly no more so than the official story.

The "inside job" theory needs a lot more in the way of speculation - remember my list of the hypotheses involved in thermite CD?

As you are referring me to NIST and accepting there are issues which, with the information we have, cannot be cleared up, it seems I have a point in disputing the official study of the airliner impacts and building collapses.

I don’t believe NIST would carry out the necessary actions to put all the issues at rest. I will not waste my time asking them. I personally do not have outstanding questions of NIST as I understand why their ‘investigation’ should go the way it did.

So you dispute NIST, but you wont ask NIST for clarification? Very logical.

I could perhaps agree with every word… until the final sentence. Your speculation (see above ) that the observed bowing reached its maximum at the floor level is unsupported. NIST’s analysis of the bowing only gave estimates at the floor levels but not points between. Also, the photographic evidence NIST used to determine the bowing is obscured in large part by smoke. There simply is no evidence the maximum bowing occurred at floor level.

Look at NCSTAR1-6, Fig 6.6. There is clear evidence on the unobscured right hand side of the picture that the maximum bowing is at the 97th floor level, and that the bowing extends over a length of several floors. On your theory, there would only be bowing between floors, with no bowing at the actual floor levels.

I call it a linear thermite charge as it discharges thermite linearly – that could be horizontally or diagonally; not just downwards as would be normal with thermite. Doubling the device dimensions to provide 8 times more thermite, would also feasibly allow a more powerful ejection with four times the discharge area and twice the duration – it could cut a column far more than double the size.

Four times the area is twice the diameter, twice the duration is twice the depth. You are still only cutting a column twice the size.

Looking at the core column cross sections, I was surprised to find that 34 of the 47 in each Tower were less than 2 inches thick at the impact zones. I believe that providing the devices were positioned correctly and the nozzle was designed to cut wide areas, the devices would not need to be particularly large. I cannot give specifics here but I cannot see it is impossible.

That's just one dimension, and you are neglecting the fact that the columns are not flat plates. How about scaling to cut the width of the column and the depth of the web too?

[Q24]

Look at NCSTAR1-6, Fig 6.6. There is clear evidence on the unobscured right hand side of the picture that the maximum bowing is at the 97th floor level, and that the bowing extends over a length of several floors. On your theory, there would only be bowing between floors, with no bowing at the actual floor levels.

The NIST theory supposes the floors acted on the columns and the theory I suggested is just a reversal where the columns would be acting on the floors. With explosives weakening the core columns prior to collapse initiation, it is possible the whole internal structure was distorted and, combined with even minor softening of the trusses due to fire, there is no reason the floors should not be distorted also by the perimeter exerting forces on them.

Four times the area is twice the diameter, twice the duration is twice the depth. You are still only cutting a column twice the size.

That's just one dimension, and you are neglecting the fact that the columns are not flat plates. How about scaling to cut the width of the column and the depth of the web too?

I don’t think it is easy to estimate the size, efficiency or design of the thermite devices used. After seeing the effects of the small scale linear thermite cutting charge I think it is clear that a version even only 5-6 times the dimensions is going to be quite devastating to steelwork and still be easily concealable in elevator shafts, service areas and the like.

What I do know is that you do not even attempt to contemplate a serious argument for this method in your mind. I do know that it is ignorance to say this technique to initiate a demolition is not possible. You may think that is harsh or unreasonable of me to say, but consider – you believe a hydrocarbon diffuse flame waxing and waning from 100^oC to 1,000^oC around the structure could cause collapse, whilst simultaneously claiming a jet of extreme temperature 2,500^oC thermite ejected directly on the columns could not.

[flyingswan]

The NIST theory supposes the floors acted on the columns and the theory I suggested is just a reversal where the columns would be acting on the floors. With explosives weakening the core columns prior to collapse initiation, it is possible the whole internal structure was distorted and, combined with even minor softening of the trusses due to fire, there is no reason the floors should not be distorted also by the perimeter exerting forces on them.

Make up your mind, are you weakening the columns or cutting them? How exactly is a weakened column going to have that effect on the walls? How is a buckled core structure only going to affect one wall of the building?

I don’t think it is easy to estimate the size, efficiency or design of the thermite devices used. After seeing the effects of the small scale linear thermite cutting charge I think it is clear that a version even only 5-6 times the dimensions is going to be quite devastating to steelwork and still be easily concealable in elevator shafts, service areas and the like.

What I do know is that you do not even attempt to contemplate a serious argument for this method in your mind. I do know that it is ignorance to say this technique to initiate a demolition is not possible. You may think that is harsh or unreasonable of me to say, but consider – you believe a hydrocarbon diffuse flame waxing and waning from 100^oC to 1,000^oC around the structure could cause collapse, whilst simultaneously claiming a jet of extreme temperature 2,500^oC thermite ejected directly on the columns could not.

I am not saying it is impossible, I'm saying that no-one has demonstrated that it is possible on that scale. Unless you can demonstrate that it is possible to cut columns that big with devices small enough to fit in the space available in the building, you have a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. As for hiding the devices in the lift shafts, do you have any evidence that all of the lifts were out of order before 911?

I could also point out, as I did to turbonium on the other thread, that putting devices in service areas means that the entire maintenance staff of the buildings had to be conspirators.

Building fires, on the other hand, have a long record of bring down steel-frame structures.

[Q24]

Make up your mind, are you weakening the columns or cutting them? How exactly is a weakened column going to have that effect on the walls? How is a buckled core structure only going to affect one wall of the building?

Explosions or demolition charges prior to collapse would be cutting certain columns. If a core column is cut at an angle, the upper part may attempt to lean outwards from the core transferring loads to the perimeter. If this occurs a number of times it is possible the whole core became distorted though obviously the visual affect of this can only be seen carried over to the perimeter.

Reasons for the bowing occurring in the South wall only, could include the demolition setup and the impact damage. Perhaps demolition charges were placed through the shortest width of the core (from North to South in WTC1) but were not placed on the outermost core columns on the adjacent sides. Or actually, just thinking again, perhaps it is simply due to that fact the North and South sides of the core were longer and consisted of more columns, thus more levels of load transfer achievable in that direction. Impact damage severing and damaging columns on the North side of the Tower would reduce load transfers through the hat truss to the perimeter on that side.

I am not saying it is impossible, I'm saying that no-one has demonstrated that it is possible on that scale.

Hallelujah, truth be know, mark the date – flyingswan accepts possibility of thermite initiating a controlled demolition! Never again shall it be said a controlled demolition must without exception begin with a string of loud explosions! From this point on all discussion can remain relevant to how the devices were placed and concealed!

Unless you can demonstrate that it is possible to cut columns that big with devices small enough to fit in the space available in the building, you have a hypothesis with no supporting evidence.

Evidence for thermite initiated controlled demolition: -

• The sudden onset of the entire upper block collapse
• The virtual symmetry of collapse
• The near freefall speed of collapse
• The visible thermite resembling flow from WTC2
• The high temperature steel corrosion discovered by FEMA
• The iron rich spheres discovered by physicist Steven Jones
• The descriptions of like a “foundry” or “lava” in the debris pile

All supported and explained due to the presence of thermite whilst the official story resorts to multiple contentious individual excuses for each.

As for hiding the devices in the lift shafts, do you have any evidence that all of the lifts were out of order before 911?

I could also point out, as I did to turbonium on the other thread, that putting devices in service areas means that the entire maintenance staff of the buildings had to be conspirators.

Regarding the lift shafts, I do not believe they all had to be ‘out of order’ prior to 9/11. Through routine ‘maintenance’ work of the required shafts one at a time during weekends and/or nights this method of setup would be unremarkable.

Only small maintenance and/or security insiders need be involved in the setup ensuring only certain personnel were cleared to access the required areas. Through concealing the demolition devices, which would be enclosed units, behind, in and around areas such as the walls and columns, it would be of little note to anyone else chancing to pass through the area.

I would be very interested to know if WTC security had contracted in a certain Urban Moving Systems company to assist with refurbishment of any Tower floors.

Building fires, on the other hand, have a long record of bring down steel-frame structures.

Fires, despite there having been many, have no precedent for imitating controlled demolition features in high-rise steel framed buildings.

[flyingswan]

Explosions or demolition charges prior to collapse would be cutting certain columns. If a core column is cut at an angle, the upper part may attempt to lean outwards from the core transferring loads to the perimeter. If this occurs a number of times it is possible the whole core became distorted though obviously the visual affect of this can only be seen carried over to the perimeter.

And the evidence for the core leaning is where?

Reasons for the bowing occurring in the South wall only, could include the demolition setup and the impact damage. Perhaps demolition charges were placed through the shortest width of the core (from North to South in WTC1) but were not placed on the outermost core columns on the adjacent sides. Or actually, just thinking again, perhaps it is simply due to that fact the North and South sides of the core were longer and consisted of more columns, thus more levels of load transfer achievable in that direction. Impact damage severing and damaging columns on the North side of the Tower would reduce load transfers through the hat truss to the perimeter on that side.

Perhaps you have no idea and are just making things up as you go along. That last sentence is interesting, though, it's the reason I used on you when you wanted to know why the collapse started on the south rather than the north side.

Hallelujah, truth be know, mark the date – flyingswan accepts possibility of thermite initiating a controlled demolition! Never again shall it be said a controlled demolition must without exception begin with a string of loud explosions! From this point on all discussion can remain relevant to how the devices were placed and concealed!

On the contrary, read my previous posts. All along I have been saying that you have no evidence that a thermite demolition is possible, and you still don't. This is another of your quibbles where you pretend to misunderstand the English language.

Evidence for thermite initiated controlled demolition: -

• The sudden onset of the entire upper block collapse
• The virtual symmetry of collapse
• The near freefall speed of collapse
• The visible thermite resembling flow from WTC2
• The high temperature steel corrosion discovered by FEMA
• The iron rich spheres discovered by physicist Steven Jones
• The descriptions of like a “foundry” or “lava” in the debris pile

All supported and explained due to the presence of thermite whilst the official story resorts to multiple contentious individual excuses for each.

The trouble is that all this can be explained without invoking thermite, especially the bits where the reason the evidence is supposed to support thermite is far from clear. How is thermite going to give a sudden onset? How does thermite alter the direction and speed of collapse? How on earth is thermite supposed to burn so slowly in the debris?

Regarding the lift shafts, I do not believe they all had to be ‘out of order’ prior to 9/11. Through routine ‘maintenance’ work of the required shafts one at a time during weekends and/or nights this method of setup would be unremarkable.

So you can hide a huge thermite charge in a liftshaft and still leave room for the lift?

Only small maintenance and/or security insiders need be involved in the setup ensuring only certain personnel were cleared to access the required areas. Through concealing the demolition devices, which would be enclosed units, behind, in and around areas such as the walls and columns, it would be of little note to anyone else chancing to pass through the area.

You have evidence that the regular maintenance men were excluded from certain areas?

Anyhow, I thought your theory required charges throughout the building, not just in certain areas.

If the molten cascade was due to thermite, then the charges were huge, unmissable.

I would be very interested to know if WTC security had contracted in a certain Urban Moving Systems company to assist with refurbishment of any Tower floors.

Then perhaps you could research the matter before making the accusation?

Fires, despite there having been many, have no precedent for imitating controlled demolition features in high-rise steel framed buildings.

In spite of what you claim, I see no CD features at all in the towers and only a superficial resemblance in WTC7.

[Q24]

And the evidence for the core leaning is where?

The same place that evidence for NIST's sagging floor pulling in columns is - the realm of theory.

Perhaps you have no idea and are just making things up as you go along. That last sentence is interesting, though, it's the reason I used on you when you wanted to know why the collapse started on the south rather than the north side.

Yes, except you used the reason in relation to damaged floors whereas I use the reason in relation to columns.

On the contrary, read my previous posts. All along I have been saying that you have no evidence that a thermite demolition is possible, and you still don't. This is another of your quibbles where you pretend to misunderstand the English language.

On the contrary, in reference to a thermite initiated controlled demolition, you said, "I am not saying it is impossible, I'm saying that no-one has demonstrated that it is possible on that scale." No backtracking now.

The trouble is that all this can be explained without invoking thermite, especially the bits where the reason the evidence is supposed to support thermite is far from clear. How is thermite going to give a sudden onset? How does thermite alter the direction and speed of collapse? How on earth is thermite supposed to burn so slowly in the debris?

The trouble is that multiple novel and contentious 'explanations' have to be used by the official story where thermite is the simple solution to cover everything.

Thermite causes the sudden onset through simultaneously weakening/cutting through the core columns. I don't understand what you mean about thermite altering the direction and speed of the collapses though the demolition charges after collapse initiation certainly would prevent the tilting motion of the upper blocks from continuing. Thermite at 2,500^oC would be buried and insulated in the debris piles, meaning that weeks later there could still be high temperatures and molten metal.

So you can hide a huge thermite charge in a liftshaft and still leave room for the lift?

From different sources, it appears there were between 95-106 elevators in each Tower, each shaft perhaps looking something like this: -

It appears quite spacious in there if the devices were placed to the sides of the elevator shafts alongside where the core columns would be. Also, the elevator layout for WTC1, shows most of them to be on the South side – this would be another good reason to add for the Southward tilt of the upper block.

You have evidence that the regular maintenance men were excluded from certain areas?

You have evidence there was a 'regular' maintenance team?

Anyhow, I thought your theory required charges throughout the building, not just in certain areas.

Using the elevator shaft banks, service floors, core service areas and vacant floors would provide more than sufficient coverage.

If the molten cascade was due to thermite, then the charges were huge, unmissable.

As it is possible to create a large molten flow from even a small flowerpot of thermite, I do not think a charge would need be 'huge' to produce the amount seen in the molten flow from WTC2.

Then perhaps you could research the matter before making the accusation?

If you remember, I have researched the matter and found the Israeli Mossad agents were arrested on 9/11 for celebrating the Tower collapses and were initially reported with explosives in their van - enough to make an accusation I think. I would find it interesting to know if WTC security records show a visit from their 'front' company, Urban Moving Systems. Unfortunately, this information is unlikely to be forthcoming as records would have been destroyed in the collapses.

Can we imagine for a moment that records were discovered showing the presence of this company in the Towers, perhaps assisting with renovation of a vacant floor, in the weeks or months leading up to 9/11. What would you say if I presented this as evidence for an inside job and possible access for the controlled demolition setup?

In spite of what you claim, I see no CD features at all in the towers and only a superficial resemblance in WTC7.

That is because you are completely and utterly hopelessly blinkered.

[flyingswan]

The same place that evidence for NIST's sagging floor pulling in columns is - the realm of theory.

Ah, you have an engineering simulation that predicts this? Thought not. NIST, on the other hand, do.

Yes, except you used the reason in relation to damaged floors whereas I use the reason in relation to columns.

Same difference - either it's plausible for both of us or neither of us.

On the contrary, in reference to a thermite initiated controlled demolition, you said, "I am not saying it is impossible, I'm saying that no-one has demonstrated that it is possible on that scale." No backtracking now.

I am not backtracking. What about "I'm saying that no-one has demonstrated that it is possible on that scale" don't you understand? As no-one has tried to do this, no-one can say it is impossible, but equally no-one can say it is possible unless they can demonstrate it.

The trouble is that multiple novel and contentious 'explanations' have to be used by the official story where thermite is the simple solution to cover everything.

What is novel and contentious about using standard engineering techniques? How, with detailed technical explanation, does thermite explain the manner of the walls bowing?

Thermite causes the sudden onset through simultaneously weakening/cutting through the core columns. I don't understand what you mean about thermite altering the direction and speed of the collapses though the demolition charges after collapse initiation certainly would prevent the tilting motion of the upper blocks from continuing. Thermite at 2,500^oC would be buried and insulated in the debris piles, meaning that weeks later there could still be high temperatures and molten metal.

Let me rephrase that. How is a thermite CD going to give a faster onset than a normal structural collapse? This is one of your unfalsifiable theories, isn't it? Whether there is a slow onset with developing bowing or a fast onset with no earlier clues, it must be evidence for CD.

You say that the symmetry and near free-fall speed of the collapse are evidence for thermite. Why exactly, when normal engineering methods also predict such a collapse?

Why should thermite charges maintain such high temperatures in the debris? Once they've been used, they will cool down. Only continuing fires in the pile will maintain high temperatures over long periods.

From different sources, it appears there were between 95-106 elevators in each Tower, each shaft perhaps looking something like this: -

It appears quite spacious in there if the devices were placed to the sides of the elevator shafts alongside where the core columns would be. Also, the elevator layout for WTC1, shows most of them to be on the South side – this would be another good reason to add for the Southward tilt of the upper block.

That's interesting. If the service areas are as open as that, how do you keep maintenance men from spotting charges from a long way off?

You have evidence there was a 'regular' maintenance team?

You seriously suggest that buildings that big didn't employ full-time maintenance staff? How many eyewitnesses are described as WTC maintenance workers?

Using the elevator shaft banks, service floors, core service areas and vacant floors would provide more than sufficient coverage.

So anyone with clearance to go into those areas was part of the conspiracy? William Rodriguez?

As it is possible to create a large molten flow from even a small flowerpot of thermite, I do not think a charge would need be 'huge' to produce the amount seen in the molten flow from WTC2.

I suggest that you look a lot closer at the two flows and really think about the difference in scale. By my estimate, at least several hundreds of kg of metal are in that cascade, other people have estimated tonnes. Thermite can only melt roughly its own mass of steel.

If you remember, I have researched the matter and found the Israeli Mossad agents were arrested on 9/11 for celebrating the Tower collapses and were initially reported with explosives in their van - enough to make an accusation I think. I would find it interesting to know if WTC security records show a visit from their 'front' company, Urban Moving Systems. Unfortunately, this information is unlikely to be forthcoming as records would have been destroyed in the collapses.

Can we imagine for a moment that records were discovered showing the presence of this company in the Towers, perhaps assisting with renovation of a vacant floor, in the weeks or months leading up to 9/11. What would you say if I presented this as evidence for an inside job and possible access for the controlled demolition setup?

I also remember that the explosives were only a rumour, never real evidence, and you appear to be trying to start another rumour without evidence here.

That is because you are completely and utterly hopelessly blinkered.

A characteristic I appear to share with everyone who disagrees with you, particularly if they have engineering expertise, while your own unfalsifiable theories and obvious confirmation bias are naturally the signs of an open mind.

[Q24]

I also remember that the explosives were only a rumour, never real evidence, and you appear to be trying to start another rumour without evidence here.

I would like to get this out of the way so I can understand your thinking on the whole way you view 9/11 evidence. It is just a question based on a purely hypothetical situation: -

Can we imagine for a moment that records were discovered showing the presence of Urban Moving Systems in the Towers, perhaps assisting with renovation of a vacant floor, in the weeks or months leading up to 9/11. What would you say if I presented this as evidence for an inside job and possible access for the controlled demolition setup?

Would you excuse it as 'one of those things' or would it raise suspicion? Would it convince you that something peculiar was definitely going on?

[flyingswan]

I would like to get this out of the way so I can understand your thinking on the whole way you view 9/11 evidence. It is just a question based on a purely hypothetical situation: -

Can we imagine for a moment that records were discovered showing the presence of Urban Moving Systems in the Towers, perhaps assisting with renovation of a vacant floor, in the weeks or months leading up to 9/11. What would you say if I presented this as evidence for an inside job and possible access for the controlled demolition setup?

Would you excuse it as 'one of those things' or would it raise suspicion? Would it convince you that something peculiar was definitely going on?

As you have completely failed to establish any connection between UMS and explosives, I would not consider it significant.

The way you build supposition upon supposition with no evidence at all certainly shows a lot about your way of thinking.

[Q24]

As you have completely failed to establish any connection between UMS and explosives, I would not consider it significant.

The way you build supposition upon supposition with no evidence at all certainly shows a lot about your way of thinking.

There is somewhat of a link between Urban Moving Systems and explosives as the initial news report, even if unconfirmed and indeed before its retraction, described the company van as containing enough explosives to blow up George Washington Bridge. Still, forgetting about the explosives, it is interesting you wouldn’t find Israeli Mossad agents using a front company and celebrating the collapses of significance even if, hypothetically, they had been proven to be in the Towers.

I am using hypothetical scenarios and supposition deliberately here as to determine what level of evidence would raise your suspicion. The last example was obviously too weak then, so how about...

Mossad agents are detained on 9/11 for celebrating the Tower collapses. They are found and confirmed without doubt by the FBI and media to have a van full of explosives, demolition-like charges in fact, and building plans of the Towers and WTC7 to which the Mossad agents deny all knowledge of how it came to be in their possession. From WTC security records and eyewitnesses it is discovered the Mossad agents accessed the premises numerous times in the months leading up to 9/11. None of this is in dispute yet the Mossad agents are released back to Israel with the excuse given that they were caught up in the situation but actually had nothing to do with the attacks.

This is completely hypothetical I know, but think about it - under those circumstances would you be accepting of a covert operation and controlled demolition?

[flyingswan]

There is somewhat of a link between Urban Moving Systems and explosives as the initial news report, even if unconfirmed and indeed before its retraction, described the company van as containing enough explosives to blow up George Washington Bridge. Still, forgetting about the explosives, it is interesting you wouldn’t find Israeli Mossad agents using a front company and celebrating the collapses of significance even if, hypothetically, they had been proven to be in the Towers.

I am using hypothetical scenarios and supposition deliberately here as to determine what level of evidence would raise your suspicion. The last example was obviously too weak then, so how about...

Mossad agents are detained on 9/11 for celebrating the Tower collapses. They are found and confirmed without doubt by the FBI and media to have a van full of explosives, demolition-like charges in fact, and building plans of the Towers and WTC7 to which the Mossad agents deny all knowledge of how it came to be in their possession. From WTC security records and eyewitnesses it is discovered the Mossad agents accessed the premises numerous times in the months leading up to 9/11. None of this is in dispute yet the Mossad agents are released back to Israel with the excuse given that they were caught up in the situation but actually had nothing to do with the attacks.

This is completely hypothetical I know, but think about it - under those circumstances would you be accepting of a covert operation and controlled demolition?

Still no, because of all the other reasons for rejecting the CD hypothesis. Unless there is any shred of evidence that it actually was a CD, and I find all your arguments on the subject unconvincing to say the least, it is pointless to hypothesise about who set up such a CD.