9/11: Is this photo consistent with a progressive collapse?

[lee h oswald]

Here's a picture of the North Tower going down.


Would anyone care to say that this looks like a 'progressive collapse'?

[Mick]

I would.

Of course the actual collapse is hidden by the debris cloud and ejecta. But yes, after considering the various things involved, it seems consistent with a building that size undergoing progressive collapse. A vast amount of potential energy is being released in a very short space of time. Some of that will naturally end up as kinetic energy in directions other than straight down.

It looks odd, as it's not the type of thing anyone has ever seen before. It would be interesting to hear what people would expect a progressive collapse of the WTC towers to look like, if not that.

(I've edited the thread title to more accurately reflect the post topic. I'd appreciate it if people could stick closely to discussing this photo until we can narrow down exactly what the science based objections are).

[lee h oswald]

I would.

Of course the actual collapse is hidden by the debris cloud and ejecta. But yes, after considering the various things involved, it seems consistent with a building that size undergoing progressive collapse. A vast amount of potential energy is being released in a very short space of time. Some of that will naturally end up as kinetic energy in directions other than straight down.

It looks odd, as it's not the type of thing anyone has ever seen before. It would be interesting to hear what people would expect a progressive collapse of the WTC towers to look like, if not that.

(I've edited the thread title to more accurately reflect the post topic. I'd appreciate it if people could stick closely to discussing this photo until we can narrow down exactly what the science based objections are).

No. You have edited my writing for the last time without it being flagged. That's about 45 times you've interfered one way or another. Please re-instate the thread 9/11 an Inside Job? Or put the name that I started this thread with back where it was put. 9/11 an Inside Job? Pt 2 was the title. Please put it back.

[Mick]

No. This title accurately reflects the post.

This is a debunking site. We debunk individual proposed pieces of evidence. We are now debunking this photo.

Explain why it can't be a photo of progressive collapse.

[MikeC]

I don't see anything on it that is not consistent with a progressive collapse - if there's something there perhaps you could point it out? The arrow & circle don't seem to be of anything particular.

[Mick]

The arrow is pointing at the beams. The theory is that they are too far horizontally from the building.

I'd invite anyone to consider what would happen to a 10 foot long steel beam if you dropped it 100 feet, and it hit something solid, side on, at an angle?

I would also invite anyone to take a pen, hold it at a bit of an angle, and drop it on the edge of your desk a few times. See where it ends up. Scale this up.

Oh, and note that all the ejected steel beams are likely from the exterior wall, so are already lined up with the edge of the building. Since the floor collapse slightly slower than free fall, it's inevitable that some falling beams will hit something fairly solid at some point, and hence fly away from the building, as seen in the photo.

[Mick]

Also, looking at the above photo, it seems like large sections of the skin of the building have pivoted away somewhat intact. But have also partially disintegrated while doing so. That would serve to transport various individual free-falling beams some distance from the building without imparting much horizontal velocity.

[Spongebob]

Another image, what is still visible at the top?



...and how far has it already dropped?

[Spongebob]

Judy Woods uses these types of photos as "evidence" that the towers simply "disappeared"

POOF!

Gone...

As if the steel simply 'turned to dust'...


No. Really.

[Mick]

This video explains the conspiracy theory:



It's incorrect, as it relies on the girders being "ejected" from the building by some kind of explosion, rather than the more likely falling and bouncing.

Here's a video that shows how things that fall do not always end up directly below the point they start from.



In fact, the the beams being projected a large distance from the building is HIGHLY INDICATIVE of progressive collapse, as the "bounces" required for the beams to fly out like that would not happen in the case of controlled demolition, which essentially liquifies the building by separating it into multiple smaller pieces.

Progressive collapse of the WTC was a series of extraordinarily high energy impacts of free falling debris hitting the still-solid floors and walls below. A goodly portion of the debris will bounce off the edges as we see in the photo. And again, the girders would have come from the walls, so would be lined up to bounce off like we see.

[Unregistered]

I also think it is likely that as the building collapsed, and each floor pancaked onto the next, the outer beams would buckle every floor or so. Many of these "buckles" would involve the verticals bending and kinking outwards. It would not take more than a few floors worth of collapse before the momentum and velocity of the mass falling would likely "throw" sections of girder outward as each kink reached its maximum "accordion" bend. Considering the bending to essentially 90 degrees, the outward momentum of each section, and the fact that the joint above each kinking section is connected to a disintegrating mass, it isn't a leap to think that girders could be thrown quite far by this effect.

This video explains the conspiracy theory:



It's incorrect, as it relies on the girders being "ejected" from the building by some kind of explosion, rather than the more likely falling and bouncing.

Here's a video that shows how things that fall do not always end up directly below the point they start from.



In fact, the the beams being projected a large distance from the building is HIGHLY INDICATIVE of progressive collapse, as the "bounces" required for the beams to fly out like that would not happen in the case of controlled demolition, which essentially liquifies the building by separating it into multiple smaller pieces.

Progressive collapse of the WTC was a series of extraordinarily high energy impacts of free falling debris hitting the still-solid floors and walls below. A goodly portion of the debris will bounce off the edges as we see in the photo. And again, the girders would have come from the walls, so would be lined up to bounce off like we see.

[Mick]

And another thing I just though of (but probably was part of the debunking years ago):

If an explosion is powerful enough to throw a 2 ton girder 600 feet horizontally, surely that SAME explosion would also be powerful enough to propel smaller objects SEVERAL MILES in all directions?

[Jay Reynolds]

The picture is far beyond a progressive collapse. It has been chosen by CT's because the building is rapidly headed down at this point.

[Mick]

Yeah, I noticed that in most of the videos they prefer to show the building AFTER collapse has been initiated. It's the initial collapse that really shows you what it going on though.

[lee h oswald]

Yeah, I noticed that in most of the videos they prefer to show the building AFTER collapse has been initiated. It's the initial collapse that really shows you what it going on though.

Yup, that's right - steel being ejected like toothpicks is just them bouncing, and this picture is not really an accurate portayal of the reality of what happned? Is that about right? Oh, and of course - if it can throw steel beams 600ft then surely it would throw other things 'miles'. Yes, it did - it was called 'dust'. Remember the fireman - the one who was actually there on the day, saying that a tiny part of a telephone key pad was the only recognizable piece of debris - but, obviously, that's absolutely consistent with a 'progressive collapse', isn't it?

[SR1419]

Yup, that's right - steel being ejected like toothpicks is just them bouncing,

Funny Lee...what are you "implying" here...

That pile is a pile that's been collected and piled by machinery.

Can you proof of that statement? Where is your evidence?

It is by any rational definition a large pile.

How about the hundreds of documented eyewitness accounts...all telling us of bombs, further explosions, etc ad nauseam.

Actually- there were NO "eyewitness" accounts of a bomb. Lots of people heard loud noises and perhaps explosions that sounded like what they thought was a "bomb"- and given the context of the moment it is easy to understand why they thought that. That does not mean it was a bomb- just that it sounded like that. Explosions and loud reports could have been from many things from combustible materials in the building - oxygen tanks etc..to falling elevators to compressed air shooting out near the speed of sound as the building collapsed.

...but there were no eyewitness accounts of bombs that I am aware of.

[lee h oswald]

Funny Lee...what are you "implying" here...

I'm implying that the towers' destruction was an explosive event. What's funny about that?

Actually, I'm wrong, I'm not implying it, I said it a while back, it's pretty explicit actually. Go find that quote

Can you proof of that statement? Where is your evidence?

It is by any rational definition a large pile.

Why don't you ask Mick if I'm right? Maybe that'll settle you down a bit, eh?

It is by any rational definition a large pile.

You really need to think about what you say before you say it.

Actually- there were NO "eyewitness" accounts of a bomb. Lots of people heard loud noises and perhaps explosions that sounded like what they thought was a "bomb"- and given the context of the moment it is easy to understand why they thought that. That does not mean it was a bomb- just that it sounded like that. Explosions and loud reports could have been from many things from combustible materials in the building - oxygen tanks etc..to falling elevators to compressed air shooting out near the speed of sound as the building collapsed.

...but there were no eyewitness accounts of bombs that I am aware of.

Do I really need to go and find the proof of this for you? Aren't you able to do it yourself? You really are not aware of much of what you might not like to hear, are you? You really need to expand your research and your mind. If anyone was paying you to do this, you'd be sacked.

[lee h oswald]

Funny

Actually- there were NO "eyewitness" accounts of a bomb. Lots of people heard loud noises and perhaps explosions that sounded like what they thought was a "bomb"- and given the context of the moment it is easy to understand why they thought that. That does not mean it was a bomb- just that it sounded like that.

...but there were no eyewitness accounts of bombs that I am aware of.

Funny is it?

So which is it? NO "eyewitness" accounts or no eyewitness accounts...that I am aware of?

Here's a couple of eyewitnesses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IYlEVCpG_0

But they're just firemen, just evacuated from one of the towers, just saying what they witnessed. Obviously they are traumatised; they don't know what they're saying. What would they know?

Read up here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/a...radeCenter.pdf

Excerpt/overview:

Content from external source:

The Body of Evidence
According to Jim Dwyer of the New York Times, the FDNY oral histories were
“originally gathered on the order of Thomas Von Essen, the city fire commissioner on Sept. 11,
who said he wanted to preserve those accounts before they became reshaped by a collective
memory.”[2] The oral histories constitute about 12,000 pages of testimony by 503 FDNY
firefighters, emergency medical technicians and paramedics collected from early October, 2001
to late January, 2002. Mr. Von Essen’s prophetic act has given us a remarkably rich body of
narrative material.

And another:

Content from external source:

Initially, the city of New York refused to release this material, but after a lawsuit by the
New York Times and some of the 9/11 victims’ families the city was ordered to release them.
The New York Times then posted them on its internet site, where they have been available (with
some deletions) to the public since August, 2005.[3]
As we learn from the oral histories themselves, the interviews took place in various
FDNY offices and were conducted by a variety of FDNY officers. Sometimes only the
interviewer and the interviewee were present, while at other times additional persons were
present. Locations, dates, times, and names of those present are all meticulously recorded.
It is impossible to tell simply by reading the recorded interviews if the atmosphere in
which the interviews were conducted was coercive in any way, but I have found no evidence of
this. In many cases the interviewer simply asks the interviewee to recount what he or she
experienced on 9/11. Thereafter, some interviewers intervene frequently with questions, while
others are largely silent. Interventions typically seek to establish details of times and locations, of
the actions of various chiefs and firefighters, and of the progress of operations. Interviewers
usually do not show any special interest in the topics central to my concerns—the collapses of
the Towers and the use or non-use of explosions in these collapses--but their curiosity and
attention are sometimes crucial to the eliciting of critical information.[4] There are very few
cases where the interviewer may be said to have “led” the witness toward the explosion
option.[5]

I sincerely hope this opens a new avenue of research.

[SR1419]

Here's a couple of eyewitnesses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IYlEVCpG_0

But they're just firemen, just evacuated from one of the towers, just saying what they witnessed. Obviously they are traumatised; they don't know what they're saying. What would they know?


I sincerely hope this opens a new avenue of research.

I read through all of that years ago...


Actually- there were no "eyewitnesses"- they did not see bombs go off...they heard explosions and experienced debris.

You are assuming and/or implying that because there were "explosions" that it was a bomb.

Is it possible that there were explosions and loud reports caused by things other than a "bomb"?

For example- What would the result be if an damaged elevator dropped 50 floors to the ground? or if a broken gas line exploded? Or if any of the numerous combustible materials in a modern day office building...er...combusted?

What would you expect to hear as a 100+ floor building begins to collapse?

In my previous research I have read through the FD oral reports...no one reported seeing a bomb go off.

Hearing an explosion or a "loud bang" is not the same thing

Read through the selected quotes in the 9/11 journal- not a one says they saw a bomb...they all heard explosions and loud noises.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...s_full_01.html

[lee h oswald]

First up - I did not begin this thread, so take my name off it please. I started this thread to continue with the debate at the thread 9/11 an Inside Job? The thread you blocked for what reason exactly? Because you don't like to have someone with ability to argue up against you? You don't like it too well when you get picked up on easily demonstrable lies and deceit? So you ban, threaten, attempt coercion. It ain't pretty. Take a step back, mate.
You, Mick, chose the title, so remove my name and put yours on it. It's called telling the truth.

The levels of self delusion here are epic, I suppose I'm not surprised. Didn't one of you mention cognitive dissonance a while back? But that couldn't apply to you, could it? No. How could it? Why exactly did you choose to censor the old thread? Because you don't actually want anyone debating you, what you want is to control it all.

Why did you edit Jay's post? For 'politeness'? Put it back. Have you heard of Voltaire? I may not agree with what Jay has to say, but he has every right to say it. Freedom of expression is critical. You appear to prefer control freakery of the highest order. You make a mockery of what you claim to do here. You put me in mind of the kid who takes his ball home so no-one can play. 'It's myball!'

You don't appear to recognize the seriousness of your behaviour. On another thread, Belfort Group Case Orange, you attempted to coerce me into making a point, the point you wanted me to make, like a performing seal; and then you might consider throwing me a herring - oh yeah, or ban me for a month if I didn't do my trick within three posts, that was the other option. Where did you get the moral authority to edit, delete, demand in this way? Because it's my ball?

Saul Bellow was certainly right when he said: A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is great.

That you can say this with a straight face about the 9?11 Commission Report: I think it's a reasonable account of what happened that day really speaks volumes. I urge anyone to read it and ask themselves if this comment could be attributed to someone interested in 'truth'. The fact that some of the evidence was garnered through torture is implicitly sanctioned by this statement. The fact that a 47 floor steel and concrete building, wtc 7, fell in its own footprint in 6.6 seconds at 5.20pm on 9/11 is not given one word in that report, not one, also tells you it is very obviously not a reasonable account of 'what happened that day' at all. I imagine the vast majority of people would agree - but you won't find any of them here. What you will find is an organ grinder and his monkeys suffering from the worst cases of cognitive dissonance I have ever borne witness to.

It really does beggar belief that you cannot see what is in front of you; your need for illusion is vivid. I wish you every luck in rerversing this malady.

Take my name off this thread. Re-activate the thread 9/11 an Inside Job? And start behaving like what you claim to be. After all, fascism begins at home, does it not?

[Mick]

You don't appear to recognize the seriousness of your behaviour. On another thread, Belfort Group Case Orange, you attempted to coerce me into making a point, the point you wanted me to make, like a performing seal; and then you might consider throwing me a herring - oh yeah, or ban me for a month if I didn't do my trick within three posts, that was the other option.

You have one remaining post to make your point.

You may make any point you wish, so long as it answers the question. If you don't explain your point, then I'll have to assume you are trolling, and ban you for a month.

[Mick]

Sorry lee, three strikes and you are out. You may appeal this at [email protected], otherwise your ban will expire On Feb 3rd, 2012, at around this time. If you make any additional posts, it will result in a permanent ban with no read access.

All you had to do was explain your point about clouds.

[Jay Reynolds]

lee, don't ever demand anything for me again. I admit the portion of my comment whch was deleted was a violation of the politeness policy. You do that to me. So, I will attempt to rephrase it.

Imagine yourself five, ten, fifteen or even twenty years hence.
You are looking at yourself in the mirror wondering why you spent ten, fifteen, twenty or even thirty years arguing that 911 was a conspiracy. Your cohorts are getting older and always they are fewer and fewer, most of them seem quite mad.
As a whole, people don't even listen anymore, and time has debunked more than metabunk ever could.
There has been no "smoking gun" uncovered, not one conspirator or unwittng dupe has ever come forward showing evidence of a coverup, a demolition, a holographic projection of an airplane. Thousands of "Truthers" have, however, moved on with their lives.
Wouldn't that be a sad waste?
Remember, you've already used up a decade, you are halfway to twenty years.

To put it bluntly, lee, get a life.

[Spongebob]

lee, don't ever demand anything for me again. I admit the portion of my comment whch was deleted was a violation of the politeness policy. You do that to me. So, I will attempt to rephrase it.

Imagine yourself five, ten, fifteen or even twenty years hence.
You are looking at yourself in the mirror wondering why you spent ten, fifteen, twenty or even thirty years arguing that 911 was a conspiracy. Your cohorts are getting older and always they are fewer and fewer, most of them seem quite mad.
As a whole, people don't even listen anymore, and time has debunked more than metabunk ever could.
There has been no "smoking gun" uncovered, not one conspirator or unwittng dupe has ever come forward showing evidence of a coverup, a demolition, a holographic projection of an airplane. Thousands of "Truthers" have, however, moved on with their lives.
Wouldn't that be a sad waste?
Remember, you've already used up a decade, you are halfway to twenty years.

To put it bluntly, lee, get a life.

Good point. They have had over a decade so far with nothing to show for it.

The only thing that does become clearer is that the official theory becomes more realistic as time marches on. Not the other way round.

[Mick]

And back to the original photo again, this video was posted in the other thread, but it's relevant here. Take these progressive collapse videos, and imagine them scaled up to WTC size.



Again, yes, it looks like a progressive collapse of a 110 story building, about half way collapsed.

[Spongebob]

Look at the antenna:



What moves first? Then follow the collapse...

[Stupid]

Nice video.
I see the top collapsing downward. This pushes the ejected heat below and outside into the open air (oxygen) which results in a "backflash" of sorts, where the heat energy meets a requirement of fire (air/oxygen) and results in a brief fireball.

As far as the "ejected beams" and other material is concerned, sure....if the mass is compressed downwards, one of the expected areas for it to travel is outwards...because it has nowhere else to go, but "out".
It's as if you poured a mix of dry powder and twigs on to a single point....it will not stay on that point, it will expand outwards. (often with great outward velocity)

[Spongebob]

Nice video.
I see the top collapsing downward. This pushes the ejected heat below and outside into the open air (oxygen) which results in a "backflash" of sorts, where the heat energy meets a requirement of fire (air/oxygen) and results in a brief fireball.

As far as the "ejected beams" and other material is concerned, sure....if the mass is compressed downwards, one of the expected areas for it to travel is outwards...because it has nowhere else to go, but "out".
It's as if you poured a mix of dry powder and twigs on to a single point....it will not stay on that point, it will expand outwards. (often with great outward velocity)

Thanks.

It also looks like whatever structure was supporting the antenna (beneath) collapsed before the rest of the roof?

I also see the top floors begin to collapse slightly before the top 'block' falls into the crash floors?

It is an interesting video...

[geeknews]

hello! Greetings to all.
I was watching the video with implosions and are very similar.
Excuse the language, English is my high school.
In the event of collapse, the following structures support the weight of the top? I think so.
Why not fell on its side?
Mick Intereressante this your website!
Thanks and more





World Trade cover:

[Mick]

Those videos are very different to wtc1&2, as the videos show controlled demolition from the bottom. But I'm not clear what your question is.

[Spongebob]

Do you think he is asking why the two towers did not lean over and fall sideways?


A far more alarming question could be asked if one examines the first video around 00:43 !

Look closely at the bottom, right to left!

There are "orbs" taking an "interest" in this controlled demolition. Perhaps aliens?

[Unregistered]

The evidence of the shooting of three falls is crystal clear. In all three cases, the collapse occurs as between the upper floors and ground floor there was nothing that offered resistance.

This is a surprising anomaly that any architect or engineer.
My opinions.
is what I meant.

[Mick]

In WTC 1 and 2, there WAS resistence from each floor, just not enough to significantly slow the fall.

Consider a car (the top of the building), with a foot on the accelerator (gravity), driving into a line of people spaced 10 feet apart (the other floors). Each person hit by the car offers some resistance, but does not really change the speed of the car. Indeed, the car continues to accelerate.

Now consider the case with WTC1&2. Each floor actually ADDS to the car, making it bigger and more powerful, as the acceleration is due to gravity.

Ultimately analogies and visual comparisons are not good. Do the math.

And those videos are are different to what happened at WTC 1&2. See instead:

[geeknews]

Thank you Mick!
It is a solid explanation.

[Mick]

Is this photo consistent with progressive collapse? It looks like an explosion!



Actually, it's just another example of Verinage - the demolition technique where one floor is collapsed WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES (using hydraulic jacks), and the weight of the upper floors completes the demolition:


source: http://www.ferrari-demolition.fr/flashinfos.htm

Samedi 05 décembre 2009 - 14H30 : Démolition par verinage de 3 tours R+15 dans le quartier des Prés Saint-Jean à Chalon-sur-Saône (Saône-et-Loire, 71)
[Saturday, December 5, 2009 - 2:30 p.m.: Demolition by jacking 3 turns R 15 in the district of Saint-Jean Meadows in Chalon-sur-Saone (Saône-et-Loire, 71)]

More photos:
http://photostp.free.fr/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=4368

[geeknews]

Estava lendo esses links abaixo...
Bem interessante!




http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0711/banovic-0711.html


http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

[PCWilliams]

I just created this video. Fits this topic well:

[Mick]

I just created this video. Fits this topic well:

Excellent video Paul, thanks. It's quite striking just how similar it is, even on this much smaller scale.

[PCWilliams]

Excellent video Paul, thanks. It's quite striking just how similar it is, even on this much smaller scale.

Thanks Mick, i appreciate the kudos. I agree, it is striking. Even the way debris jettisons out from the sides of the building. Scale this up to almost 1,400 feet and i think we have a match.

[Unregistered]

Excellent video Paul, thanks. It's quite striking just how similar it is, even on this much smaller scale.

Thanks for the link but you are only proving the truthers Correct.
OBVIOUSLY to demolish a building with this technique Requires Preparation -probably weeks.
We can only conclude that WTC Security shut down for at least a week before 911 so some Arabs with Box Cutters could set up huge hydraulic rams prior to the impacts.

Again- not very well thought out "debunkery".