[W:57: 1585]Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

mike2810 · Dec 27, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
The term sir is "spoofed". The radar was spoofed that day, and the result is that erroneous information is displayed. Fake targets, if you will. That's how the FAA trains radar controllers.

If yours and Geoffrey's story says 4 airplanes were hijacked, it is incumbent on you to prove your claim. In a rational world....

Here is a scenario for you T. Someone has never read the official report on 9/11. They happen to read one of the alternative explanations for 9/11. Shouldn't the alternative explanation prove they are correct? As I have stated many times each explanation should stand on its own merits.

I know you will keep saying the official report cannot be proven. Unfortunate for you the facts don't support your diverse combined explanations.

You are correct, I should of used spoofed rather than faked. That would have been more technically correct. It is interesting how you and others continue to say well the official report is not proven as proof your position is correct. That is really a poor defense of what you believe.

SanderO · Dec 27, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

There are no proofs... There is nothing to prove. What we out here (me) have all sorts of "observations" from which data can be derived. You can model what happened using the observations and understanding of engineering, the architectural and engineering plans of the buildings, materials science, fire science and of course physics. You cannot PROVE the model is true nor can you prove it false unless the observations and derived data and engineering and science are incorrect.

As far as planes being hijacked... there appears to be so much corroborating "evidence"... it's hard to imagine that the plane's did not exist, or they used stand ins, and the radar data was fiddled with and so on.

That being said. It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with ANYONE about what happened on 9/11 if you can't agree upon and accept the basic facts and observations. You can claim everything was staged like a TV show... special effects and all. But everyone knows that TV shows and movies are an illusion... one that we CHOOSE to BELIEVE. But you can't prove it true of false. It's a show... We are told that and accept it.

I have never read a coherent reasonably compete 911 truther account which explains/accounts for ALL the observations and gets the engineering and science right. Mostly they don't believe their own eyes... and don't believe nor trust the USG or and Media organization... except when it serves their needs.

Thoreau72 · Dec 28, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

mike2810 said:
Here is a scenario for you T. Someone has never read the official report on 9/11. They happen to read one of the alternative explanations for 9/11. Shouldn't the alternative explanation prove they are correct? As I have stated many times each explanation should stand on its own merits.

I know you will keep saying the official report cannot be proven. Unfortunate for you the facts don't support your diverse combined explanations.

You are correct, I should of used spoofed rather than faked. That would have been more technically correct. It is interesting how you and others continue to say well the official report is not proven as proof your position is correct. That is really a poor defense of what you believe.

Hypotheticals can be very useful in a rational discussion, for sure. However, beyond a certain point and in many cases hypotheticals can be useless and distracting.

It's not that I believe the official narrative is wrong, it is certain that the official narrative is wrong. My personal knowledge of various elements like cell phones and aviation is helpful in understanding the many failures of the official narrative, and I understand that others might not have that knowledge. I know that others have the same knowledge I do, and I know that some of us seem to possess a bit more common sense than others.

Neither you nor the government can prove the official narrative, and that is part of the reason why the Commission noted 60+ times that "we found no evidence" for various elements of that narrative.

That statement by the Commission means nothing to you, but that's just you. Denial of facts such as the molten iron and absence of consistent aircraft debris is about all a person can do in dealing with cognitive dissonance. Rather than a rational discussion, just go ahead and deny certain inconvenient facts. That is the modus operandi of the dissonant.

Quag · Dec 28, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
Hypotheticals can be very useful in a rational discussion, for sure. However, beyond a certain point and in many cases hypotheticals can be useless and distracting.

It's not that I believe the official narrative is wrong, it is certain that the official narrative is wrong. My personal knowledge of various elements like cell phones and aviation is helpful in understanding the many failures of the official narrative, and I understand that others might not have that knowledge. I know that others have the same knowledge I do, and I know that some of us seem to possess a bit more common sense than others.

Neither you nor the government can prove the official narrative, and that is part of the reason why the Commission noted 60+ times that "we found no evidence" for various elements of that narrative.

That statement by the Commission means nothing to you, but that's just you. Denial of facts such as the molten iron and absence of consistent aircraft debris is about all a person can do in dealing with cognitive dissonance. Rather than a rational discussion, just go ahead and deny certain inconvenient facts. That is the modus operandi of the dissonant.

You have no knowledge of aviation just made up fantasies about being a pilot

Still waiting for our resident "flight instructor" to explain why ground effect makes it hard to fly a plane at high speed near the ground.

mike2810 · Dec 28, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
Hypotheticals can be very useful in a rational discussion, for sure. However, beyond a certain point and in many cases hypotheticals can be useless and distracting.

It's not that I believe the official narrative is wrong, it is certain that the official narrative is wrong. My personal knowledge of various elements like cell phones and aviation is helpful in understanding the many failures of the official narrative, and I understand that others might not have that knowledge. I know that others have the same knowledge I do, and I know that some of us seem to possess a bit more common sense than others.

Neither you nor the government can prove the official narrative, and that is part of the reason why the Commission noted 60+ times that "we found no evidence" for various elements of that narrative.

That statement by the Commission means nothing to you, but that's just you. Denial of facts such as the molten iron and absence of consistent aircraft debris is about all a person can do in dealing with cognitive dissonance. Rather than a rational discussion, just go ahead and deny certain inconvenient facts. That is the modus operandi of the dissonant.

It is so interesting how you refuse to acknowledge that any explanation should stand on its own merits. I have asked many times over the years for you to provide information. You refuse. My experience in fire, aviation, knowledge of first responders methodology, accident investigation and working with law enforcement provided me an insight to investigation reports that some do not have. It is interesting on how some can bet fooled by those who pander to those who see a conspiracy in every major event.

Thought maybe you would provide a information and be willing to discuss your explanation in detail. I was wrong.

SanderO · Dec 28, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I don't believe the "supporters" of the official explanation assert that there are no errors or omissions. However these are minor and do not change the thrust of the explanations... only the details.

I can't comment on the calls made from planes as to whether it was possible or not. I would like to read something on this from the cell phone companies. I was personally concerned with the explanation for the building collapses and they all did not need CD to produce what was observed.

gerrycan · Dec 28, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
I was personally concerned with the explanation for the building collapses and they all did not need CD to produce what was observed.

When you say you were "personally concerned", I sincerely hope you aren't claiming to have had any input whatsoever into these reports, but rather had concerns with the veracity of the output. Given, amongst other things, your latest claim that the core splices were weak because the splice plate was of lesser dimensions than the columns they connected, any claim by you to have the required engineering ability to have any input into this type of forensic engineering would frankly be laughable.

I really hope that you meant the latter re your concern for the veracity of the reports.

Maccabee · Dec 28, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
911 attacks were a conspiracy. Among the conspirators were the men who hijacked the 4 planes that morning. Like likely had support... financial and tactical. How crazy is it that many 911 truthers believe there were no hijackers... some believe the passengers and crews were fake, that the planes that struck the towers were not the commercial flights we were told they were... and some even claim the planes were holograms, or decoys to cover up the actual CD which ranges from mini nukes, to all sorts of "thermites" which cut the steel in locations not specified. Whatever happened was clearly the work of multiple people conspiring.

Some of the claims are very hard to swallow such as the military was told to stand down and do nothing. There is no evidence of such commands. And further it should be noted that there was no policy to intercept and shoot down commercial flights. Hijackings were usually dealt with by negotiations of demands etc. We still have no policy of intercept and shoot down. Post 911 the policy has been beefed up airport security and no weapons on board and sky marshals.

And if 7wtc was a target... why did't they hit that one with another plane?

The reality is that the hijackers had no idea of the outcome of their hijackings... whether they would hit their chosen targets and that if they did those buildings would collapse.

What is more interesting is why so many seemingly intelligent people fall for the nonsense of the 911 truth movement which denies engineering and physics and the reality of what actually happened? Why when there are perfectly rational technical explanations do truthers bury their heads in the sand or act willfully ignorant? I suspect their beliefs are rooted in a deep-seated distrust and hatred for the US gov and the media both of which ALWAYS lie about everything and are covering up an agenda of world domination, constant militarism and so forth. They can't conceive or simply deny that there would naturally be consequences to US policy which has been termed "blow back". Why wouldn't oppressed people fight back against their perceived oppressors... something that has gone on all throughout history? Islamic terrorism makes no sense to 911 truthers. This thinking is very hard to understand and accept as rational. There is a total absence of critical thinking and lots of willful ignorance in play.

As a former 9/11 truther, the main reason I believed in it was because the evidence seemed to fit at the time. I don't think I had a distrust of the government when I first heard of the theory. Basically, I was presented with the theory, the "evidence" seem to fit, and I accepted it. That was my gateway drug, so to speak, to all sorts of conspiracy theories. From JFK, to Sandy Hook being a hoax, the theories I believed in ranged from "yeah, that could be the case but there isn't any evidence for it" to "you are down right crazy and should be institutionalized to a psych ward." My major flaw was not listining to both sides of the argument.

SanderO · Dec 28, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

gerrycan said:
When you say you were "personally concerned", I sincerely hope you aren't claiming to have had any input whatsoever into these reports, but rather had concerns with the veracity of the output. Given, amongst other things, your latest claim that the core splices were weak because the splice plate was of lesser dimensions than the columns they connected, any claim by you to have the required engineering ability to have any input into this type of forensic engineering would frankly be laughable.

I really hope that you meant the latter re your concern for the veracity of the reports.

The splices were not as strong as the section itself. I am referring to resisting lateral forces. If 2 concentrated loads were applied at different points in the column... and the same two forces were applied to two columns separated by the typical splice.... There is no doubt that in the latter the failure would occur at the splice before it occurred in a solid column.

gerrycan · Dec 28, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

You've clarified the actual point that I was making perfectly.

SanderO said:
The splices were not as strong as the section itself.

I am presuming here that you're trying to say that the "splice plates", taken in isolation were not as strong as the column sections. Which is ridiculous, but we'll get to that.

SanderO said:
I am referring to resisting lateral forces.

The cores, while not designed to take any lateral load at all, would have resisted lateral stress transmitted by the impact differently in either tower. The N tower was hit on the N face, which was a long span floor face, meaning that the core columns were opposing that stress in their strong axis. The S tower on the other hand was hit on the South face (short span floor), which means that the lateral blow they received was along their weak axis.

Which axis the cores were stressed on would have far more to do with their ability to resist than any supposedly "weak" splices that were there.

SanderO said:
If 2 concentrated loads were applied at different points in the column... and the same two forces were applied to two columns separated by the typical splice.... There is no doubt that in the latter the failure would occur at the splice before it occurred in a solid column.

No. In the latter example presuming that the forces would be applied at the same time there would actually be less damage transmitted to the splice in between the application points of the force, and more to the splices directly above and below the 2 impact points. What is important there is the balance of forces on the splice.
The overall force in the example below would have more purchase on the top and bottom splices than the middle one, because the whole column between the 2 "F" points would initially try to move left, and in doing so would transmit more overstress to the top and bottom splices than would be experienced by the middle splice, which is being pushed equally from above and below.

S
H
H <------ F1
H
S
H
H <------ F2
H
S

H= Column S= Splice

Thoreau72 · Dec 29, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

mike2810 said:
It is so interesting how you refuse to acknowledge that any explanation should stand on its own merits. I have asked many times over the years for you to provide information. You refuse. My experience in fire, aviation, knowledge of first responders methodology, accident investigation and working with law enforcement provided me an insight to investigation reports that some do not have. It is interesting on how some can bet fooled by those who pander to those who see a conspiracy in every major event.

Thought maybe you would provide a information and be willing to discuss your explanation in detail. I was wrong.

Your memory fails you Mike. I've presented and we've discussed those deals many times. You deny facts and that means we really have nothing to discuss except riding motorcycles.

SanderO · Dec 29, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I am not referring to IMPACT. I am referring to the situation where there are braces expanding (from being heated) and pushing laterally against the column... probably at 3 floor locations... as the columns below remain in their original plan position with no lateral stresses. The outcome would be the heated beams all sag or buckle because the column doesn't budge at all... If the braces on the opposite side of the column have collapsed for any reason, it is reasonable to project the the expanding beams will either cause the column to buckle (at the braces) or to break free at the splices... which have a smaller cross section than the column itself.

The column to column splices were not designed to resist lateral forces but more for erection purpose to keep the columns axially aligned... once the braces (floor beams) were installed the column were held by them. Columns of course are what transfers axial loads to the foundations.

There were various splices plates found in the debris which show bolts ripped off and plates sheared from excessive stress while the main steel element was not deformed meaning meaning the weak part failed first.

++++

Note

When both tops descended they could not crush the columns they were supported on. So somehow the total number of columns above was reduced with perhaps the load redistributed to fewer columns which then may have buckled. Maybe.

It's also possible that there was a lateral displacement of the top section which, if the splices did not keep the upper and lower columns aligned... there would be reduction in bearing area and this could lead the crippling or buckling.

The upper columns were mostly WF w/ the perimeter being box sections made of welded plates no more than 1/2" and depending on the floor level. You can see it doesn't take much lateral displacement to destroy the bearing area required.

mike2810 · Dec 29, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
Your memory fails you Mike. I've presented and we've discussed those deals many times. You deny facts and that means we really have nothing to discuss except riding motorcycles.

My memory is just fine. Seems I recall you rejecting some facts presented to you.
If you mean I rejected your "facts" of mini neutron bombs, Yep.

9/11 is old news. You keep accepting whatever you want T. I am sure Veterans Today and others appreciate your support.

eace

Quag · Dec 29, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

mike2810 said:
My memory is just fine. Seems I recall you rejecting some facts presented to you.
If you mean I rejected your "facts" of mini neutron bombs, Yep.

9/11 is old news. You keep accepting whatever you want T. I am sure Veterans Today and others appreciate your support. eace

HD doesnt do evidence all he cares about is can this be blamed on the ebil US govt. if yes then anything to support that claim is true and anything that doesn't is false.

mike2810 · Dec 29, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Quag said:
HD doesnt do evidence all he cares about is can this be blamed on the ebil US govt. if yes then anything to support that claim is true and anything that doesn't is false.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head. As confident HD is in his beliefs, I am in mine. The difference is I the evidence and facts on my side.

gerrycan · Dec 30, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
View attachment 67246886 View attachment 67246887

Core Column 704 wasn't a 14WF53 on those floors. It was a 14WF74 to floor 89 and 14WF68 on 89 and 90.
Between floors 95 and 98 it was a 14WF53, so if you change the floors noted on your diagram it would make more sense, apart from your supposed displacement obviously.

Also there were no plates for 704 anywhere.

gerrycan · Dec 30, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

You took all the columns to be A36 when trying to get an overall FOS ?

gerrycan · Dec 30, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Where you allow for the corners of the building, presumably you are noting the corner panels here. You have got the number of columns per face wrong (along with their dimensions and material strength). Below the tree level there were 19 trees transitioning to 57 perimeter columns with 2 additional columns, *one at either side between the corner panels. Making 59 per face in addition to the corner panels, and 21 below.

SanderO · Dec 30, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

gerrycan said:
......

Thanks for the correct Gerry... doesn't hardly change my point. If you look at 1wtc... the top descended and it could only do that if the aggregate axial capacity was decreased and rather symmetrically as the descent was almost straight down.

Or there was a lateral displacement of the entire top structure leading to loss of bear and crippling of the columns. I believe there WAS a small period of FF or close it and it wasn't a very slow buckling situation.

In the loss of capacity scenario we would have seen buckling almost all around the building in the staggered panels. I don't recall see that. Or maybe the cross sectional area was eroded almost symmetrically in the entire array of remaining columns post plane destruction.

My guess is that the fires led to beam expansion inside the core where most of the fires were raging. Where columns had collapsed from the plane strike those above were held in place by hanging from the hat truss. The column splices were not designed as hangers and likely began to fail. Heated beams expanded and pushed columns toward the "structural hole" where the plane had destroyed columns. I suspect the entire frame above the plane strike "hot zone" was warping and stressing and failing the steel connections... column splices, beam stub knife connections and so on.

A key to the failure was the collapse of the antenna just before the entire top descended. This is a tell tale sign that the center of the hat truss had failed and the remaining perimeter core columns became over loaded along with the facade. I suspect there were multiple columns pushed out of axial alignment and then descent ensued.

I have no calculations and no proof. This hunch is driven by what I observed.

gerrycan · Dec 30, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
Thanks for the correct Gerry... doesn't hardly change my point. If you look at 1wtc... the top descended and it could only do that if the aggregate axial capacity was decreased and rather symmetrically as the descent was almost straight down.

Or there was a lateral displacement of the entire top structure leading to loss of bear and crippling of the columns. I believe there WAS a small period of FF or close it and it wasn't a very slow buckling situation.

In the loss of capacity scenario we would have seen buckling almost all around the building in the staggered panels. I don't recall see that. Or maybe the cross sectional area was eroded almost symmetrically in the entire array of remaining columns post plane destruction.

My guess is that the fires led to beam expansion inside the core where most of the fires were raging. Where columns had collapsed from the plane strike those above were held in place by hanging from the hat truss. The column splices were not designed as hangers and likely began to fail. Heated beams expanded and pushed columns toward the "structural hole" where the plane had destroyed columns. I suspect the entire frame above the plane strike "hot zone" was warping and stressing and failing the steel connections... column splices, beam stub knife connections and so on.

A key to the failure was the collapse of the antenna just before the entire top descended. This is a tell tale sign that the center of the hat truss had failed and the remaining perimeter core columns became over loaded along with the facade. I suspect there were multiple columns pushed out of axial alignment and then descent ensued.

I have no calculations and no proof. This hunch is driven by what I observed.

The steel specs look to be the main issue. Here's the detail on the corner panel for Perimeters 159 and 201 at floor 96 for the N tower NE corner. 90 Ksi steel. I think these end columns were high strength for their full height.

I agree about the core dropping first though. Also the exterior panels of the N tower N face that are opposite to and inside the core line initially move independently of those panels to the sides of them, indicating a N face failure centred around CC504 and 505 and didn't initially extend to CC501 and 508, where the panels moved later.

SanderO · Dec 30, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Gerry there was likely not enough or effective load redistribution to buckle the perimeter columns but the connections are another story. As I stated above the weak point would not be the rolled or box sections but the plates and bolts connecting them Evidence of this is that these panels broke free... when they did at the connection to adjacent panels. That's the tell where the weakness was. This also the weak point in the core - connections... failed under tension stresses.

The antenna drop is another tell... the core beneath is could not carry its 360 ton load... nor could the hat truss redistribute it. The center of the core was structurally "hollowed out" leaving the perimeter core columns to hold up the all the floor plates and the core loads.

hado117 · Dec 30, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
Gerry there was likely not enough or effective load redistribution to buckle the perimeter columns but the connections are another story. As I stated above the weak point would not be the rolled or box sections but the plates and bolts connecting them Evidence of this is that these panels broke free... when they did at the connection to adjacent panels. That's the tell where the weakness was. This also the weak point in the core - connections... failed under tension stresses.

The antenna drop is another tell... the core beneath is could not carry its 360 ton load... nor could the hat truss redistribute it. The center of the core was structurally "hollowed out" leaving the perimeter core columns to hold up the all the floor plates and the core loads.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DOUvyAp4MI

SanderO · Dec 31, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

hado117 said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DOUvyAp4MI

spam and irrelevant

hado117 · Dec 31, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
spam and irrelevant

we'll take care of it

gerrycan · Jan 2, 2019

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
Gerry there was likely not enough or effective load redistribution to buckle the perimeter columns but the connections are another story.

While we are on the topic of your opinions on perimeter columns, can you explain how you managed to produce a very low factor of safety for the perimeter columns in your analysis having inadvertently doubled the mass of the perimeter columns by supposing that they had a uniform plate CSA ?

Here's what I think you did wrong. Let me know where you think I am mistaken.......

In you analysis, you produce a FOS for the perimeter columns based on a presumption of consistent wall thickness of the column plates. In doing so you overestimated the front and back plates of the column by an average factor of over 2.5 throughout the height of the building. This would double the mass of steel in EVERY perimeter column and yet you have managed to get a ridiculously low factor of safety.

So which specific perimeter column did you base your analysis on ?

Here's a fairly typical perimeter column from floor 9 - 107. This is for North face column 121A (21 columns in from the NE corner).

What you have done in your analysis is apply a "plate 1" dimension to "plate 2" and "plate 3", and in doing so, inadvertently reinforced the structure to a ridiculously high level. Then from that you somehow produced a low factor of safety.

[W:57: 1585]Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

Attachments