Mackey's 9/11 Physics is Smoke & Mirrors

[bryan]

Ryan Mackey has argued that just the fuel stored in the wings of a Boeing 767 travelling at around 700 ft/s - even without taking into consideration the structure of the plane - would have enough momentum and energy to break the core columns of a WTC twin tower. He uses data from NIST to calculate the pressure and impulse of an imaginary 'slug of fuel', then plots the results against NIST's own pressure-impulse curves for the core columns. His conclusion is that "fuel alone can plausibly fail the core columns", and therefore fuel alone "certainly can fail perimeter columns".


Some Basic Physics of 9/11
(Ryan Mackey)

http://911myths.com/images/f/f0/911physics_big.pdf (pdf download)


To estimate the volume of fuel impacting a column, Mackey uses 14" as the width of the column and assumes that the 'slug of fuel' has a height of 16" and a length of 120".


Width of perimeter column = 14" (NCSTAR1-1 pg. 10)

Height of wing section ~ 16”, Length of wing section ~ 120”
(NCSTAR1-2B pg. 86) (see figure on next page)

(Mackey, page 19)


The "figure on next page", reproduced from the NIST paper, is actually the wrong diagram, so we have to go to the original to check the dimensions of the fuel tank. If we look at NCSTAR1-2B page 86, we see that each wing of a Boeing 767 has 35 ribs, numbered outwards so that rib 1 is next to the fuselage and rib 35 is near the tip of the wing. The main fuel tank is located between rib 3 and rib 31 and, because of the taper of the wing, the length of rib 3 is 166" while the length of rib 31 is only 46". Mackey is averaging the length of the fuel tank to find the length of his 'slug of fuel'.


NCSTAR1-2B
(NIST)

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-2B%20Chap%201%20thru%208.pdf (pdf download)


This averaging-out of the material properties of the aircraft is a common feature of all the technical papers claiming to show the maths behind the plane impacts. Averages are used because it's the only way they can build a model where the entire plane goes into the building. Even if the concept of a 'slug of fuel' was in any way useful, it's obvious that a column hit by rib 14 would come under more stress than a column hit by rib 31. For the model to be meaningful, a separate calculation would need to be done for each column.

But Mackey's con-trick doesn't stop there.

NIST go on to say that the main fuel tank in each wing is split approximately into two halves by rib 18, which is a 'baffle rib'. This baffle rib allows fuel to flow from the part of the tank nearest to the wing tip (outboard) into the part that's nearest to the fuselage (inboard), but not in the opposite direction. According to the airline companies and NIST, it's reasonable to suppose that there was no fuel in the outboard part of the main fuel tanks when flight 175 crashed into the south tower, which means that around half the length of each wing contained no fuel.


Notice that the main tank capacity inboard of baffle rib 18 is approximately the same volume as the fuel on board each aircraft at the time of the impact.


High loads on the wings due to the extreme flight regime at the time of impact would also cause fuel to flow inboard by increasing the dihedral angle of the wing. Since the baffle ribs restrict fuel from flowing outboard, it is reasonable that all fuel that could flow inboard was actually inboard at the time of impact.

For simplicity, it was assumed that all fuel had moved inboard at the time of impact. Since the fuel tank capacity at the outboard baffle rib and the fuel onboard are approximately the same, a good first estimate was that the main tanks were inboard of baffle rib 18 at the time of impact. A small amount of fuel was out board of this rib for AA flight 11.

(NIST, page 88)


With this in mind we can examine the images of the holes and try to account for the damage to the columns according to the planes theory. Apparently, the parts of the wings that were loaded with fuel pushed in whole sections of columns, shearing the bolts that connected one section to another, while the parts of the wings that were carrying no fuel at all sliced through individual steel columns.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhatAirplanes/Whatwing.jpg

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhatAirplanes/WhatImpact.jpg

(click to enlarge)


In other words, fuel was not responsible for breaking columns. Mackey's calculations have no relevance to the real world. It's smoke & mirrors.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Be honest, bryan.

Did you write this yourself, or did you quote it from somewhere?

[tabea_blumenschein]

Averages are used because it's the only way they can build a model where the entire plane goes into the building.

How did you (or whoever wrote that sentence) determine this to be a fact?

Do you have your own mathematical model? I'd love to see it if you do.

[bryan]

How did you (or whoever wrote that sentence) determine this to be a fact?


As it happens, it was you who directed me to the papers authored by Wierzbicki, Karim & Hoo Fatt, and Mackey. When I read them I realized they all relied on calculating some kind of average force exerted by the high-mass wing area and then assumed that all the columns would come under more or less equal stress. If you know of any technical papers that don't follow that method, please point me in the right direction and I'll gladly peer-review them. Meanwhile, don't pretend we haven't discussed this issue before.


Be honest, bryan.

Did you write this yourself, or did you quote it from somewhere?

Can I take this as a compliment? :)

[tabea_blumenschein]

As it happens, it was you who directed me to the papers authored by Wierzbicki, Karim & Hoo Fatt, and Mackey. When I read them I realized they all relied on calculating some kind of average force exerted by the high-mass wing area and then assumed that all the columns would come under more or less equal stress. If you know of any technical papers that don't follow that method, please point me in the right direction and I'll gladly peer-review them. Meanwhile, don't pretend we haven't discussed this issue before.

Can I take this as a compliment? :)

If you are the author, you may indeed take that as a compliment. I wasn't sure it was you because you didn't say "mackey mouse physics" even once.

The NIST/Mackey model is the one we've been discussing elsewhere, so that's the one I'll start with.

Off the top of my head, there are at least four simplifications in these two models that act as large negative biases:

The models consider impact with a core column, rather than a perimeter column. The models consider the impact of a small section by itself, disconnected from the rest of the plane. Mackey models the impactor as a fluid, which eliminates material strength as an aggravating factor. Mackey also takes the impactor to be homogenous, which means the amount of mass impacting per unit time remains constant and doesn't "spike" at certain times.

Even with these negative biases, both models predict pressures and impulses way beyond what is needed to destroy the column.

Unless you can come up with some huge corrections that have somehow escaped me, there's nothing that would put the results in doubt.

As I pointed out on the other thread, the results of the Mackey and NIST models agree very well. The predicted pressures are similar, and the predicted impulses agree within a factor of two. When you get similar answers using two different models, that usually means that they're both close to the right answer.

[matrix911]

When you get similar answers using two different models, that usually means that they're both close to the right answer.

not to go off topic, but then by your logic, you'd agree that no plane hit he pentagon or iow, the SOC flight path is impossible?

[bryan]

Off the top of my head, there are at least four simplifications in these two models that act as large negative biases:

The models consider impact with a core column, rather than a perimeter column. The models consider the impact of a small section by itself, disconnected from the rest of the plane. Mackey models the impactor as a fluid, which eliminates material strength as an aggravating factor. Mackey also takes the impactor to be homogenous, which means the amount of mass impacting per unit time remains constant and doesn't "spike" at certain times.

Even with these negative biases, both models predict pressures and impulses way beyond what is needed to destroy the column.

Unless you can come up with some huge corrections that have somehow escaped me, there's nothing that would put the results in doubt.

As I pointed out on the other thread, the results of the Mackey and NIST models agree very well. The predicted pressures are similar, and the predicted impulses agree within a factor of two. When you get similar answers using two different models, that usually means that they're both close to the right answer.

The point made by the OP is that the model has no practical application whatsoever. Here's a challenge for you:

Examine the damage to the columns in the images of the 'plane holes' and identify which columns are likely candidates for having been broken due to pressures and impulses from the fuel alone. Keep in mind that full sections of columns and spandrels were removed in the central area of each hole, and that the fuel tanks were empty outward of rib 18 of each wing. Judging by the damage seen in the images with the planes overlaid that I posted, I'd say that most, if not all, the broken columns are in the areas hit by the sections of wing that were carrying no fuel at all.

[tabea_blumenschein]

not to go off topic, but then by your logic, you'd agree that no plane hit he pentagon or iow, the SOC flight path is impossible?

Excuse me? I don't understand.

[tabea_blumenschein]

I'm frustrated with this topic, so I'm going to stop talking about it. When someone in the truth movement puts out a mathematical model that shows NIST, Mackey and the others are wrong, let me know. I don't care what's being modelled, or what simplifications or assumptions are made, as long as they are reasonable.

Until then, I'm done with this.

[noewhan]

I don't know if this fits here, but what do pple make of this?

Proof of NO Controlled Demolitions - South Tower 9/11 RARE - YouTube

Showing just 1 side / section doesn't really debunk everything, in my opinion.

[bryan]

I don't know if this fits here,

I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

[bryan]

I'm frustrated with this topic, so I'm going to stop talking about it. When someone in the truth movement puts out a mathematical model that shows NIST, Mackey and the others are wrong, let me know. I don't care what's being modelled, or what simplifications or assumptions are made, as long as they are reasonable.

Until then, I'm done with this.

The last resort of the plane-believers is to go home and take their ball with them when they realize the game is slipping away. Tabea blumenschein, christophera and secondsun in particular are masters of the 'spoiled brat' technique.

You've been pushing Mackey's Hardfire presentations on this forum since the time when 'goldengoose' himself was allowed to post here. A scientist who publishes a theory or a model expects to be peer-reviewed and the peer-reviewers are not required to put forward theories or models of their own. I don't need to produce my own mathematical model. If I can show that Mackey's model is meaningless, irrelevant and positively-biased, then Mackey needs to go back to the drawing board. At the same time, if you want to keep quoting Mackey as an authority here, you need to defend his model against valid criticism. If you still believe Mackey's model has any relevance to the WTC plane crashes, answer my question and point out which columns might have been broken by pressures and impulses from fuel alone.


Let me suggest a more meaningful, relevant and negatively-biased model that Nist, Mackey, Karim & Hoo Fatt, or Wierzbicki could build as their next project.

1. Using known data from the specifications of a Boeing 767, construct a computer model of approximately the outer half of one of the wings (from rib 18 to rib 35), based on the material strength of the skin, ribs, stringers, beams, and (empty) fuel tank, taking into account the taper of the wing.

2. Using known data from the building plans of the twin towers, construct a computer model of the section of wall that would be impacted by the above section of wing, based on the material strength of the columns, spandrels, windows, cladding, floor truss assemblies and concrete floors.

3. Fly the wing into the building.

4. Observe what happens.


Such a model might provide necessary - but not sufficient - proof that in theory a passenger jet could have penetrated the building in the way it appears to do in the videos of the south tower hit. A similar model, based on the material strength of the nose, cockpit and front section of fuselage, would also be necessary.

[tabea_blumenschein]

You've been pushing Mackey's Hardfire presentations on this forum since the time when 'goldengoose' himself was allowed to post here. A scientist who publishes a theory or a model expects to be peer-reviewed and the peer-reviewers are not required to put forward theories or models of their own. I don't need to produce my own mathematical model. If I can show that Mackey's model is meaningless, irrelevant and positively-biased, then Mackey needs to go back to the drawing board. At the same time, if you want to keep quoting Mackey as an authority here, you need to defend his model against valid criticism. If you still believe Mackey's model has any relevance to the WTC plane crashes, answer my question and point out which columns might have been broken by pressures and impulses from fuel alone.


Alas, my curiosity has gotten the better of me. I'm probably going to regret jumping back into this.

Here are a few questions for you:

1. In what way is a model of liquid impacting a core column, as opposed to a construction of solid materials impacting a much lighter and less robust perimeter column "positively biased"?

2. Do you agree that you'd need to find a huge correction in Mackey's impulse/pressure figures before his results are called into question?

3. Are you arguing that a wing section constructed of solid materials is less capable of breaking a perimeter column than a slug of liquid? If so, why?

4. Mackey's impulse results were about 2x those of NIST's. This suggests that the average density of the wing sections in NIST's models was 400 kg/m^3, or 1/2 the 800 kg/m^3 density of Mackey's jet fuel. Do you agree with this figure?

5. Since the density of aluminum is 2700 kg/m^3, we can estimate that a wing section with an average density of 400 kg/m^3 is over 85% empty space, assuming it is constructed entirely of aluminum. Do you agree?

You have a day or two to post your replies.

~

Answering the question in your last sentence, any one of them.

[bryan]

1. In what way is a model of liquid impacting a core column, as opposed to a construction of solid materials impacting a much lighter and less robust perimeter column "positively biased"?

A negatively-biased model would take the weakest section of the aircraft and fly it into the corresponding area of the wall. If the aircraft breaches the wall in that area, it's reasonable to suppose that the stronger sections of the aircraft would also breach the wall. Mackey's model takes an abstract feature from the aircraft and imagines it colliding with an abstract feature from the core of the building.



2. Do you agree that you'd need to find a huge correction in Mackey's impulse/pressure figures before his results are called into question?

The model itself is meaningless and the figures are irrelevant.



3. Are you arguing that a wing section constructed of solid materials is less capable of breaking a perimeter column than a slug of liquid? If so, why?

I'm arguing that any model should be based on what is supposed to have happened in reality, not on some abstract, theoretical event. In the videos of the south tower impact, I don't see a 14" wide 'slug of liquid' collide with a 14" wide piece of core column. I see what appears at first glance to be around 50' of aluminium fuselage push its way through steel and concrete without a hint of deformation, then I see a pair of aluminium wings slice through steel columns like a hot knife through butter. Mackey was forced to take the abstract route because if he built a model based on the real world, he'd never be able to prove that the physically impossible could happen.



4. Mackey's impulse results were about 2x those of NIST's. This suggests that the average density of the wing sections in NIST's models was 400 kg/m^3, or 1/2 the 800 kg/m^3 density of Mackey's jet fuel. Do you agree with this figure?

5. Since the density of aluminum is 2700 kg/m^3, we can estimate that a wing section with an average density of 400 kg/m^3 is over 85% empty space, assuming it is constructed entirely of aluminum. Do you agree?

I'm not interested in the average density of a wing. I want to know the forces exerted on each individual column by the corresponding section of the aircraft, and I want the horizontal steel spandrels and the concrete floors behind them to be taken into account in the calculations of the strength of the wall.

[bryan]

Here's a good picture for people who think the front end of the plane was shredded between the columns. Look in the area where the three red arrows are and see how big the gaps are between the columns and spandrels. The holes in the wall would be clogged up in no time and the fuselage would fold up.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87929.jpg

[tabea_blumenschein]

A negatively-biased model would take the weakest section of the aircraft and fly it into the corresponding area of the wall. If the aircraft breaches the wall in that area, it's reasonable to suppose that the stronger sections of the aircraft would also breach the wall. Mackey's model takes an abstract feature from the aircraft and imagines it colliding with an abstract feature from the core of the building.

Is there a section of the aircraft that's weaker than a slab of liquid? Is there a section of the wall that's stronger than a core column?

The model itself is meaningless and the figures are irrelevant.

I'm not surprised you avoided answering this question.

I'm arguing that any model should be based on what is supposed to have happened in reality, not on some abstract, theoretical event. In the videos of the south tower impact, I don't see a 14" wide 'slug of liquid' collide with a 14" wide piece of core column. I see what appears at first glance to be around 50' of aluminium fuselage push its way through steel and concrete without a hint of deformation, then I see a pair of aluminium wings slice through steel columns like a hot knife through butter. Mackey was forced to take the abstract route because if he built a model based on the real world, he'd never be able to prove that the physically impossible could happen.

All models are simplifications to some degree or other.

Looking at NIST's results again, you would have to explain how they overestimated the pressure exerted by a factor of 6 (going by the "120 inch loading" curve and the 430 mph pressure/impulse estimates) and the impulse by one or two orders of magnitude.

Personally, I'd be very surprised if NIST's results were off by more than 10 percent.

I'm not interested in the average density of a wing. I want to know the forces exerted on each individual column by the corresponding section of the aircraft, and I want the horizontal steel spandrels and the concrete floors behind them to be taken into account in the calculations of the strength of the wall.

Some of the "big shots" in the truth movement claim physics or engineering backrounds.

Ask them to figure it out.

The "official story" supporters have shown their work.

It's time for the truth movement to do likewise.

~

I knew I was going to regret jumping back into this discussion. :(

[secondsun]

Tabea` asked Bryan...

5. Since the density of aluminum is 2700 kg/m^3, we can estimate that a wing section with an average density of 400 kg/m^3 is over 85% empty space, assuming it is constructed entirely of aluminum. Do you agree?

...Bryan replied...

I'm not interested in the average density of a wing....

...Tabea`!... what Bryan really meant was he has`nt got a clue what you are talking about!

...but to be fair... its beyond me also!

[secondsun]

3. Fly the wing into the building.

4. Observe what happens.



...Bryan!.... just for the record and also because i have not the time to search... can you please remind me as to what you thought made the two gashes high lighted!.... thanks in advance!!

http://i44.tinypic.com/esudqb.jpg

[tabea_blumenschein]

Tabea` asked Bryan...



...Bryan replied...



...Tabea`!... what Bryan really meant was he has`nt got a clue what you are talking about!

...but to be fair... its beyond me also!


Well, maybe when bryan next visits this thread, he'll be nice enough to explain it to you.

* evil grin *

[bryan]

...Tabea`!... what Bryan really meant was he has`nt got a clue what you are talking about!

...but to be fair... its beyond me also!

Well, maybe when bryan next visits this thread, he'll be nice enough to explain it to you.

* evil grin *

Let me explain.

When I want people to see how ridiculous the idea of a progressive crush-down of the twin towers is, I tell them to imagine watching 94 floors disappear in around 16 seconds at the very most. That's an average of over 5 floors a second or 0.2 seconds for each floor. Tabea Blumenschein argues that it's not meaningful to talk about an average rate of collapse for the towers, because the velocity of the descending collapse front was not absolutely constant.

When it comes to the planes penetrating the buildings, Tabea Blumenschein and all the others who've done the maths suddenly love averages! For example, as Karim & Hoo Fatt say in their paper Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
(page 3):


Wierzbicki and Teng calculated an equivalent thickness for the wing as 122 mm by assuming the wing and engine masses were uniformly distributed over the entire span length.

http://home.comcast.net/~fszwtnj/impactwtc.pdf


Using a similar methodology, Ryan Mackey has worked out the average density of the fuel and assumes the figure is relevant to the whole aircraft even though half the fuel-tank was empty at time of the alleged impact according to NIST. Mackey's fuel doesn't even need a container - it just flies through the air on its own and destroys anything that gets in its way.


...Bryan!.... just for the record and also because i have not the time to search... can you please remind me as to what you thought made the two gashes high lighted!.... thanks in advance!!

I've no way of knowing what made the gashes. If you think it was a plane, you should be able to answer the following question: how did the wing tips damage the two outer columns? The wings of a 767 point backwards, so the part nearest the fuselage would hit the wall first. As the plane moved into the building, the columns would be broken one at a time by the leading edge of the wing, till finally the wing tip broke the last column. But the last few columns are not broken, only damaged. So how did the end of the wing reach the wall and damage the cladding so that the damage was perfectly aligned to the rest of the hole? What happened to the parts of the wings that didn't cut through the columns?

Still sitting on the hi-res copy or did you inadvertently send it to the recycle bin?

[secondsun]

I've no way of knowing what made the gashes. If you think it was a plane, you should be able to answer the following question: how did the wing tips damage the two outer columns? ...... What happened to the parts of the wings that didn't cut through the columns?

Still sitting on the hi-res copy or did you inadvertently send it to the recycle bin?

...you can see from the picture the wing tips did`nt damage the two outer columns!... they just inflicted `the gashes`in the cladding!

...any shattered wing parts that did`nt enter the building would have fallen to the ground.... obviously!

...and yes i still have the high res` copy!... i have created a file named Bryan Pic and put the pic` in there,on the D drive in the photograhps folder, so its easier for you to find!... though i think the original is on one of the two Western Digital old drives in the computer bits box under the stairs... and they are obviously a bit harder for you to access!... hope this helps!?

[bryan]

...you can see from the picture the wing tips did`nt damage the two outer columns!... they just inflicted `the gashes`in the cladding!

The fourth column from the left looks like it's been broken by a section of the wing close to the tip, where there was no fuel, no engine and no landing gear.



...any shattered wing parts that did`nt enter the building would have fallen to the ground.... obviously!

Can you show me any of these parts falling to the ground in the videos? Here's a copy that has 9 or 10 frames between nose and tail passing through the wall:

WTC Impacts - WTC2 Hezarkhani HD - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPeNkZz4mmU


If you copy the video from your cache, you can flick through it one frame at a time.



...and yes i still have the high res` copy!... i have created a file named Bryan Pic and put the pic` in there,on the D drive in the photograhps folder, so its easier for you to find!... though i think the original is on one of the two Western Digital old drives in the computer bits box under the stairs... and they are obviously a bit harder for you to access!... hope this helps!?

This is interesting. I've looked all over the internet for decent-quality pictures of the holes and I've never been able to find any. You'd think a few New Yorkers would have got their telephoto lenses out in the hour or so between the plane crashes and the building collapses.

Now it turns out you have a hi-res copy of the south tower hole but you reduced the quality before posting it here. Can you post the full image in actual pixels or link to a site where it can be downloaded?

[bryan]

...and yes i still have the high res` copy!... i have created a file named Bryan Pic and put the pic` in there,on the D drive in the photograhps folder, so its easier for you to find!... though i think the original is on one of the two Western Digital old drives in the computer bits box under the stairs... and they are obviously a bit harder for you to access!... hope this helps!?

How come a humble taxi driver from Essex is the only person in the world to be in possession of a hi-res photo of the south tower hole? Why would this person make a lo-res copy of the plane-hole to post on the internet then throw out the original on an old hard drive? How come a person who is dedicated to finding the truth can't be bothered to rummage under the stairs and find this important piece of evidence again so he can share it with his fellow truthseekers?

[noewhan]

Impossible Plane Speed with "Boeing" - YouTube


Interesting, but I'm still unsure.

[secondsun]

The fourth column from the left looks like it's been broken by a section of the wing close to the tip, where there was no fuel, no engine and no landing gear.

...that still leaves 3 that were not!

Can you show me any of these parts falling to the ground in the videos? Here's a copy that has 9 or 10 frames between nose and tail passing through the wall:

...can you say with 100% certainty that none of the fragments of debries seen in this picture are shredded plane parts?

http://i41.tinypic.com/23qt92.jpg

...or this one?

http://i41.tinypic.com/xcu1lg.jpg

How come a humble taxi driver from Essex is the only person in the world to be in possession of a hi-res photo of the south tower hole?

...not my fault its been taken down!!!!!!!!!!!!

...do a Google image search for `north_tower_hole`!.... the link is `NOT FOUND`!

...NOT MY FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bryan]

...that still leaves 3 that were not!

The mystery is not how 3 columns WEREN'T broken. We want to know how the 4th steel column WAS cut by a flimsy piece of wing from a section where there was no fuel in the tank.



...can you say with 100% certainty that none of the fragments of debries seen in this picture are shredded plane parts?

...or this one?

You're changing the subject. The question is why no plane parts broke off and fell to the ground as the plane was going into the building.




...not my fault its been taken down!!!!!!!!!!!!

...do a Google image search for `north_tower_hole`!.... the link is `NOT FOUND`!

...NOT MY FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your image shows the south tower hole, not the north tower hole. Try another search.


In case people are wondering what this is all about, I'll summarise the story so far:

A few months ago secondsun posted the image below:

http://i44.tinypic.com/esudqb.jpg

At first glance it looks like the insert is a magnified copy of a small part of the main image, but if you zoom in on the main image, you get a very grainy picture with nothing like the detail of the insert. When I pulled him up on this, he said the insert is actual pixels and he used photoshop to layer it over a reduced-quality copy of the main image. Me and a few other people would love to see a picture of the entire hole at the same resolution as the insert, but unfortunately secondsun has lost the original and it's no longer available for download anywhere on the internet.

It's still not clear how secondun managed to get hold of this hi-res image that can't be found anywhere else. What IS clear is that he only wanted us to see the far left-hand side of the hole in any detail because he thought it suited his agenda.

[matrix911]

The mystery is not how 3 columns WEREN'T broken. We want to know how the 4th steel column WAS cut by a flimsy piece of wing from a section where there was no fuel in the tank.




You're changing the subject. The question is why no plane parts broke off and fell to the ground as the plane was going into the building.




Your image shows the south tower hole, not the north tower hole. Try another search.


In case people are wondering what this is all about, I'll summarise the story so far:

A few months ago secondsun posted the image below:


At first glance it looks like the insert is a magnified copy of a small part of the main image, but if you zoom in on the main image, you get a very grainy picture with nothing like the detail of the insert. When I pulled him up on this, he said the insert is actual pixels and he used photoshop to layer it over a reduced-quality copy of the main image. Me and a few other people would love to see a picture of the entire hole at the same resolution as the insert, but unfortunately secondsun has lost the original and it's no longer available for download anywhere on the internet.

It's still not clear how secondun managed to get hold of this hi-res image that can't be found anywhere else. What IS clear is that he only wanted us to see the far left-hand side of the hole in any detail because he thought it suited his agenda.

hmmmm

can't wait to hear SS's response ;)

[secondsun]

...( matrix is still logged on and stewing!... good! )

... :cool:

[secondsun]

The mystery is not how 3 columns WEREN'T broken. We want to know how the 4th steel column WAS cut by a flimsy piece of wing from a section where there was no fuel in the tank.



...the mystery is how 3 columns received gashes to the cladding if no plane hit them!

...and i would have to argue whether the 4th column was completly cut!

http://i33.tinypic.com/2h5jsm1.jpg

...you can see the column has what looks like a partial cut but the 5th column has not been cut... you can see the 4th column looks to still be partially attached... unlike the 8th column which is severed totally!... the 6th and 7th columns are too obscured by the cladding to tell!

[1776]

...the mystery is how 3 columns received gashes to the cladding if no plane hit them!

...and i would have to argue whether the 4th column was completly cut!

http://i33.tinypic.com/2h5jsm1.jpg

...you can see the column has what looks like a partial cut but the 5th column has not been cut... you can see the 4th column looks to still be partially attached... unlike the 8th column which is severed totally!... the 6th and 7th columns are too obscured by the cladding to tell!

You're a SHILL. You are a DIS-INFORMATION agent. How obvious can you be? YOu keep repeating yourself over and over with the same bullshit. Anyone can spot this, do you really think you're fooling anyone?

[secondsun]

You're changing the subject. The question is why no plane parts broke off and fell to the ground as the plane was going into the building.

...no i`m not!... you asked!


Can you show me any of these parts falling to the ground in the videos?

...i said can you prove there is no plane parts in the debris seen falling from the Tower in the images i posted... its the same thing but different angles!


...the wing tips could have sheared off and fell to the ground or they could have been still partially attached by their trailing edges and continued into the building... how can anyone be shure!?

...we have been denied all the evidence!

[secondsun]

...well i have left it a few days now and i presume Bryan does`nt want to argue over whether or not the 4th column was completely cut!? post #29

...so to continue he said...


Your image shows the south tower hole, not the north tower hole. Try another search.


...i have this pic` that seems to bother you so much saved in two files!... one of which is saved as previously quoted.... north_tower_hole ...not my fault, whoever saved this file, as `north` as opposed to south!... but if you search for that file in Google you will or should get a link to Investigate 911 which has been removed... so not my fault again and no conspiracy on my part!

...the second file of the same pic` is saved as... 127764819_f23b152ca7_o

...again if you do a search for this pic` file name you will get the same thing!...its been removed!

....again not my fault and no conspiracy on my part!

...hope this helps?