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

**lee h oswald** · January 2nd, 2012, 11:41 AM

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

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

**Mick** · January 2nd, 2012, 12:08 PM

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** · January 2nd, 2012, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by 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).

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** · January 2nd, 2012, 12:16 PM

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** · January 2nd, 2012, 12:23 PM

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** · January 2nd, 2012, 12:44 PM

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** · January 2nd, 2012, 01:06 PM

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** · January 2nd, 2012, 02:14 PM

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** · January 2nd, 2012, 02:20 PM

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.

**Spongebob** · January 2nd, 2012, 02:28 PM

Another image, what is still visible at the top?

Name: North Tower explosion.jpg
Views: 893
Size: 82.8 KB

...and how far has it already dropped?

**Mick** · January 2nd, 2012, 03:53 PM

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** · January 2nd, 2012, 04:17 PM

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** · January 2nd, 2012, 04:24 PM

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** · January 3rd, 2012, 10:19 AM

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** · January 3rd, 2012, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by lee h oswald

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.

**lee h oswald** · January 3rd, 2012, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

**Mick** · January 3rd, 2012, 10:36 AM

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** · January 3rd, 2012, 10:48 AM

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.

**Mick** · January 3rd, 2012, 02:56 PM

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** · January 3rd, 2012, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

**Spongebob** · January 5th, 2012, 12:45 PM

Look at the antenna:

What moves first? Then follow the collapse...

**Stupid** · January 6th, 2012, 10:49 AM

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** · January 7th, 2012, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by 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)

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** · January 7th, 2012, 07:11 PM

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** · January 7th, 2012, 07:24 PM

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** · January 8th, 2012, 12:39 AM

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 · January 8th, 2012, 04:55 AM

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** · January 8th, 2012, 06:46 AM

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** · January 8th, 2012, 07:45 AM

Thank you Mick!
It is a solid explanation.

**Mick** · January 8th, 2012, 08:34 AM

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** · January 9th, 2012, 01:26 PM

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** · March 29th, 2012, 01:43 PM

I just created this video. Fits this topic well:

**tryblinking** · April 1st, 2012, 08:53 AM

I wondered (if it hasn't been mentioned before) if there's a good scientific site specific to debunking 9/11 conspiracies similar to ContrailScience for the chemtrail hoax?

**Mick** · April 1st, 2012, 10:27 AM

9/11 myths is pretty good.
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Main_Page

And this is a good list of various sites.
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

**Mick** · April 1st, 2012, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by PCWilliams

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.

**Steve** · April 1st, 2012, 11:30 AM

Great video Paul, well done. Here's a link to a recent court case of Havlish vs Iran that proved Iran's involvement and guilt in the planning of 911. For some reason the 911 Truthers have avoided even commenting about this very important recent case.
http://www.iran911case.com/

**PCWilliams** · April 1st, 2012, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Mick

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.

**PCWilliams** · April 1st, 2012, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Steve

Great video Paul, well done. Here's a link to a recent court case of Havlish vs Iran that proved Iran's involvement and guilt in the planning of 911. For some reason the 911 Truthers have avoided even commenting about this very important recent case.
http://www.iran911case.com/

Why hasn't this been widely reported? Is this for real? I'm having a hard time squaring this ruling with the total lack of coverage it has received. I'm going to spread this around.

**Mick** · April 1st, 2012, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by Steve

Great video Paul, well done. Here's a link to a recent court case of Havlish vs Iran that proved Iran's involvement and guilt in the planning of 911. For some reason the 911 Truthers have avoided even commenting about this very important recent case.
http://www.iran911case.com/

Originally Posted by PCWilliams

Why hasn't this been widely reported? Is this for real? I'm having a hard time squaring this ruling with the total lack of coverage it has received. I'm going to spread this around.

The ruling is a "default judgement", the judge ruled against Iran because Iran did not opt to defend itself. In the case there is presented what appears to be significant (but mostly circumstantial, or third hand) evidence that Iran provided aid to al Qaeda, and is therefore liable for damages, and since they did not defend themselves, then there was a default judgement against them. The ruling is more a point of law than anything.

The actual claims are greatly disputed, see:

Content from external source

In fact, after US complaints about al Qaeda presence in Iran in late 2001, Tehran detained nearly 300 al Qaeda operatives, and gave a dossier with their names, passport pictures and fingerprints to the United Nations. Iran also repatriated at least 200 of those detainees to the newly formed government of Afghanistan.

US Ambassador Ryan Crocker revealed last year that, in late 2001, the Iranians had been willing to discuss possible surrender of the senior al Qaeda officials it was detaining to the United States and share any intelligence they had gained from their investigations as part of a wider understanding with Washington. But the neoconservative faction in the administration rejected that offer, demanding that Iran give them the al Qaeda detainees without getting anything in return.

Iran's crackdown on al Qaeda continued in 2002-03 and netted a number of top officials. One of the senior al Qaeda detainees apparently detained by Iran during that period, Saif al-Adel, later told a Jordanian journalist that Iran's operations against al Qaeda had "confused us and aborted 75 percent of our plan." The arrests included "up to 80 percent" of Abu Musab al Zarqawi's group, he said, and those who had not been swept up were forced to leave for Iraq.

In further negotiations with the Bush administration in May 2003, Iran again offered to turn over the senior al Qaeda detainees to the United States in return for the MEK captured by US forces in Iraq. The Bush administration again refused the offer.

By 2005, a "senior US intelligence official" was publicly admitting that 20 to 25 top al Qaeda leaders were in detention in Iran and that they were "not able to do much of anything."
In 2008, one US official told ABC news that administration officials had not been raising the al Qaeda issue publicly, because "they believe Iran has largely kept the al Qaeda operatives under control since 2003, limiting their ability to travel and communicate."

But in the world of the right-wing Islam-hating extremists and others pushing for confrontation with Iran, reality is no obstacle to spinning tales of secret Iranian assistance to al Qaeda.