Study concludes explosives used on 911

a reply to: SyxPak

Why the act of being open minded. More honest to clearly state a position for debate.

a reply to: neutronflux

There is no manual. It comes from researching the debate that had raged for 15 years. Reading AE911 and movement material. Also using skeptic sites, meta bunk, NIST reports, Jone's paper. Watching video of debates, and videos of Jones, Gauge, and Wood. And drawing from years of knowledge from various service and technical roles.


Sad you don't take the time to wade pass all the sensationalized 9/11 movement sites to find real interaction at metabunk, redit, and skeptic sites. Try to get access to published WTC journal articles via college libraries and see the poor quality of most open journals. There is a reason there is google search and google scholarly search.

a reply to: SyxPak

Granted YouTube makes access easy. But to ignore the hard to find NIST videos of WTC steel inspection. And the not so hard to find news segments and documentaries on the personal that hand shifted through WTC debris for remains, personnel effects, and evidence. Items persons of the movement are more than willing to ignore to push there false narratives. Then act every time you present the extensive investigation as it was the first time it's ever been presented. Especially in the context it's the same arguments over and over again for the LAST TEN years......

I did ignore person's like DR Wood. People that try to milk the 9/11 cow as the old conspiracy theories fail with new outlandish theories. She is crazy, but quick to point out the flaws with CD? She has developed a following created by the absence of truth in CD theories.

Which truther has the truth?

AE911, Infowars, Gauge, Jones, Wood, or Veteranstoday nuke theories?

a reply to: neutronflux

Granted I am behind the times on 911. I admit that. I will give You kudos for You last post. It was at least humane and made sense.
As I stated recently, I am done here. And as You stated more recently, " it's the same arguments over and over again for the LAST TEN years......" Quoted from You two posts above this post...
ETA: And that is a lot of the slag on the top o' the pot isn't it? Who can We trust/believe?
So Yah. Gotta take care of some Biz, so Later. Syx...

NVRMND...

a reply to: SyxPak

You're better off if you have something more worth while. It was directed to me, but true about most people on both sides of the debate that will not let a thread go, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

If you are patience, you can google any questions? Or search AE911 and metabunk that will reveal the age old debate with links that go back to previous information and threads. It is sad how many times the same arguments are carried out over and over again with no gaining in real truth. Just remember the government hides it's incompetence. And if the persons making a living off the 9/11 movement actually reveals the truth, they are out of a job. I guess the government and the movement are both like psychologists. If they heal the patient, they are no longer neede.....

If you want to play the conspiracy game, please make two quick case studies. Both involve smart open minded people that wanted to believe in something. But showing the need for vetting and a bit of skepticism.

Cottingley Fairies
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Houdini and the Supernatural
www.thegreatharryhoudini.com...


More broad, but still underscores the age old story of trust, fact, faith, evidence, and hoax.

The more things change, history still repeats itself. Or something.....

originally posted by: SyxPak
a reply to: pteridine



Let's say You are right in that the fires caused problems. If the steel failed at those fire points, then above that, (and the whole rest of the floor of beams, for whatever reason as they were not even warmed up from fire failed), that part of the building would have fallen towards the weak spot, and continued to fall to the ground in that direction. Toppling off over the side of the rest of the structure. The whole building would not have collapsed under that point. Partial sections directly under the falling section may have been damaged. But not to the complete failure point. SIMPLE physics should tell You that! Science DOES say that. Even common sense should tell You that.

So just to make You happy, I left out the usual extra ! and ?'s.

Thank You for trying to make ME feel bad, for the way I use our language.(As a tactic to try to run Me into the ground.) Sorry but I am already grounded! I type the way I talk. Yes with real emotions and feelings. Thank You for trying to confuse the meaning of My post. That didn't work either. (Go to plan 'B' now...)

NONE of that worked!!!!!! Or did it?????? Like Just WOW!!!!!!
(Did I just see 666?)

Have a Grand Day. I'm done here. Syx...

X-raying welds for voids and inclusions is a common NDT method when doing critical welds. It is good that you understand metallurgy so that when you see the strength-temperature plots for steel you will see how much strength is lost with a temperature rise associated with a building fire. The steel didn’t have to melt; it failed under load. When many supports are removed and the remaining steel is heated by burning, it fails.
“All materials become weaker when they get hot. The strength of steel at high temperature has been defined in great detail and it is known that at a temperature of 550°C, hot rolled structural steel will retain 60% of its room temperature load capacity. This is important because, before the introduction of limit state design concepts, permissible stress was used as a basis for design. In this approach, the maximum stress allowed in a member was about 60% of its room temperature strength. This led to the commonly held assumption that 550°C was the highest (limiting) temperature that a steel structure would withstand before collapse. Research has shown, however, that the limiting temperature of a structural steel member is not fixed at 550°C but varies according to two factors, the temperature profile and the load. “ www.steelconstruction.info...
This link pittsburgh.cbslocal.com... shows the result of burning plastic pipe on a bridge being repaired. Note that the steel beam, which was under load, was close to failure after a short duration fire.
I understand that you think you understand demolitions, but your experience is limited. Thermite is not usable because it cannot be timed. There is no silent explosive because the effects of explosives are the result of shock waves, which come with a distinct noise. The buildings failed at the impact points and gravity was responsible for the speed of collapse. Given that each floor failed in under 200 milliseconds, clearing each floor with explosives would have been more than obvious. In an uncontrolled demolition, one kicks the supports out from under and lets the target fall. Here, the attackers would have had to know that causing several floors to fail at once would start a collapse and then managed to start the collapse at the impact point.
Your idea that the buildings would just drop a failed section is incorrect. The steel is not completely detached from the main building. It can no longer support the load but it is still a large mass that is attached to the structure.

As to the language tweak, I hope you are not too hurt. If you want to be taken seriously, just write without drama queen phraseology and punctuation

originally posted by: ccbears
Some of these people are just to bull headed to even talk to...they think and what to hear what the news tell them...MAYBE JUST MAYBE some day they will wake up..and see the real truth on all this..i have seen so many videos on this and other info on this as well...and why just why cant they all see the truth on how it really happen...Bush wanted a war so he blames another country for doing it..funny he wasnt in any hurry to do any thing about as he was reading at a school the time this happen...it seemed to me he didnt even care and maybe he was happy for it happening..he has said he was going to finish what his dad coudlnt..so think about that one...GROW THE HELL UP PEOPLE AND SEE THE REAL PICTURE HERE..JUST WOW...YOU DONT EVEN WANT TO REPLY TO ME AS I WILL GO OFF ON YOU BIG TIME....SEE ME AS A PERSON WHO CAN SEE THE TRUTH OR NOT SEE ME AT ALL..AND TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH I DONT EVEN POST AT TO MANY PLACES...SO THIS IS REALLY THE FIRST ONE THAT GOT ME PRETTY PI$$ED OFF..JUST LOOK AT THOSE PICTURES MAYBE THEN YOU WILL SEE THINGS IN ANOTHER WAY...

You are completely wrong.

What happened to Informer?

a reply to: pteridine

I can channel informer for you.

-That is only your opinion

And

-Can you cite a source

-With a hint of peer review

Cheers

a reply to: neutronflux

Thanks. I feel better, now.

So basically the answer is that the initial explosions that started the building collapsing were too quiet and the mics weren't good enough to pick them up, even though the building wasn't falling yet, but then they picked up all the subsequent explosions while the building was coming down? Wait til I tell my grandkids.

a reply to: face23785

Soundcheck. One... two... three... anyone listening?

Don't forget to mention the firemen you experts like to ignore so much. Wait... you're way better informed and their opinion is simply redundant for the spin. 15 years of embraced ignorance, that's at least some foundation after all. I feel ya.

Carry on, folks! You keep pushing a very good OP and who am I not to applaud you for that. Any further questions for the grandkids?

a reply to: face23785

Let see, 1000 pound bomb at the 1993 WTC bombing did not do any damage that threaten to collapse the Tower.

Noise heard in lobby explained by crashing elevators who's cables were sheared by the jet impact.

I have posted cited source saying the smallest effective charge would at least create a detonation of 140 db. The explosive device has to have enough power to create a pressure wave to shear how large of a column in the basement? Which needed to be drilled and packed with demolitions and required a detonation system. No special device is going to break the laws of physics and create a pressure wave that powerful without the resultant sound energy/wave.

Why do you need to soften the basement when the movement clearly states it was a top down CD requiring explosive devices perfectly timed floor to floor to achieve the witnessed collapse speed.

Large portions of vertical columns left standing after all tower floors collapsed. So in the false narrative of explosive devices, they sure did not do crap to the vertical columns.

The 1993 1000 pound bomb did not create seismic activity which could be picked up by the nearest seismic monitoring station 30 miles away. How big would a bomb have to be?

The central core of a tower was 88 feet by 138 feet. How many large concrete reinforced or steal columns would have to be sheared to soften a tower?

You need to present a clear and arguable theory instead of throwing ideas around hoping something sticks after 15 years.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: face23785

Soundcheck. One... two... three... anyone listening?

Don't forget to mention the firemen you experts like to ignore so much. Wait... you're way better informed and their opinion is simply redundant for the spin. 15 years of embraced ignorance, that's at least some foundation after all. I feel ya.

Carry on, folks! You keep pushing a very good OP and who am I not to applaud you for that. Any further questions for the grandkids?

Sanity check one two one two

One, prove the sound in the lobby was not the sound of crashing elevators falling to their doom.

Two, quote a firefighter saying they heard demolitions setting off.

Three, I have cited sources stating the smallest effective device would produce a detonation of 140db.

a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall


Thank you, lol. I was just thinking about NIST's f***ery when it came to the building 7 models. Ignore our two second collapse vid of a seven second collapse. Ignore the fact that we had to change or remove elements of building 7's real structure to make our model work. Its ok guys, we totally know what we are doing lmao...

originally posted by: SilentBob86
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall


Thank you, lol. I was just thinking about NIST's f***ery when it came to the building 7 models. Ignore our two second collapse vid of a seven second collapse. Ignore the fact that we had to change or remove elements of building 7's real structure to make our model work. Its ok guys, we totally know what we are doing lmao...

How long do you think it took to collapse and more importantly WHEN do you start to time it

a reply to: wmd_2008

well, i would imagine you would want a model showing all 7 seconds of collapse. Also, why did NIST remove sections of the buildings internal structure for the models. Come on, releasing the programming and data they used to make the model would endanger public safety....come on, for real?!?!?!?!!?