Anonymous goes "full 9/11 Truther"

a reply to: neutronflux

Why do you think the damaged WTC towers would be able take and support more than the equivalent in mass

Yet look at the damage a simple wrecking ball can cause

We don't need a wrecking ball, we got nerd balls

a reply to: neutronflux

let me get this straight - you just posed several sources claiming they removed about a million tons of debris on 9/11.

the twin towers weighed roughly 500,000 tons each.

every single WTC prefix building was obliterated that day.

...in your opinion, it looks like they got it all?

a reply to: AttitudeProblem

Thank you.

Neutron, please pay close attention to these clips posted.

Newtonian physics don't change with different materials being used, however tall, short, heavy or light.

That's the beauty of Newton's physical laws. That's precisely why they're *laws.* Using these principles can accurately deduce and convey the outcome of any earthly physical process.

When 30 floors fall on 80, they meet the resistance of the bottom 80 floors of reinforced steel columns. The wrecking ball example posted in Problem's response is precisely what should have happened in the event of a natural, asymmetrical collapse. Fire, or no fire. Plane, or no plane.

Do you take issue with this?

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: neutronflux

let me get this straight - you just posed several sources claiming they removed about a million tons of debris on 9/11.

the twin towers weighed roughly 500,000 tons each.

every single WTC prefix building was obliterated that day.

...in your opinion, it looks like they got it all?

The towers were 1 million tons total. Ok. I did not commented on total debris.

One, I only commented on the steel.

Two, the figure I quoted for the WTC PILE was 1,400,000 plus tons. That might have been just for one land fill. Unclear?

Three, why would a fire damage building that is 95 percent space that just got pushed down by its falling top floors not push into itself with gravity pulling straight down. The building is not like a solid tree that cannot fall into itself driven by uneven loading in its top.

Four, parts of the WTC towers did eject way from building center during collapse. How big was the Tower's debris field in acres?

Five, you have not refutated the physics I quoted from the NIST question / answers, nor the link to the MIT paper.

Six, what percentage of steel was pulverized at the WTC.

Seven, what percentage of steel was needed to be pulverized to cause the collapse of the towers.

Eight, what was the mechanism of pulverization and the energy needed.

Nine, the picture you posted of the WTC pile clearly showd large pieces of mangled steel columns and beams.

Ten, Mohr countered Gage in their debate long lengths of columns were left in the pile. Not short sections as believed by Gage.

If you want to rant, I am out of here. If you actually start debating, come up with a specific mechanism, source, and energy requirement for pulverization, then it's a dialogue to stick around for.

If you don't clearly state cause and source, there is nothing to debate.

a reply to: neutronflux

nobody's ranting. at least not on my end i've been very concise and to the point with you.

so now you're stating that parts of the world trade center "ejected?" when buildings collapse, do they typically eject their inner building materials?

are you willing to commit to the statement that the debris left in the image i posted is consistent with a fire collapse of 220 floors of steel columns?

it's clear that you have questions. you can PM me if you'd like to continue this discussion.

a reply to: facedye

Another rant with no stance on facts. I have never claimed the towers fell in their own footprints nor at free fall speed.


To make this clear, you actually mean steel was evaporated?

a reply to: neutronflux

are you willing to commit to the statement that the debris left in the image i posted is consistent with a fire collapse of 220 floors of steel columns?

a reply to: facedye

It's a pile of steel and debris after a building collapse.

What context are you trying to trap me into.

Note: I quoted earlier from NIST the towers could only take the impact of six active falling floors. That's is why I phrased in terms of more than six floors.

I think the initiation of the WTC collapse was due to fire that lead to a portion in each tower of more than six top floors falling at least one floor height into the static remaining floors with enough force due to potential energy to over come the strength of the deranged building to crush it like a aluminum can.

The deficient fire insulation as outline in the outcome of the WTC bombing, damage insulation being a moot point, lead the floor steel to sag. The sag pulled on the connections to the columns beyond design force and direction. The precursor is seen in the video of the outside of the towers bowing inward. Also, columns are to remain vertical to ensures full resistance to strain. Bowing or bends, other than a true architectural arch, greatly reduces a columns ability to resist strain. So added that to steel worked on by fire, the bowing, bending, additional strain and force due to changes in geometry on the floor to column connections to fail. There may have been some twisting strain at the floor to column connections too. This failure lead to portions of more than six floors to fall.

Over simplified, but as condense as I can make it.

So.... WTC insulation not properly applied. Floor steel not adequately protected from heat. Floor steel tries to push out into columns, cannot. Floor sags, pulls at connectors to columns. Outside of tower pulled inward. Who knows what the strain applied to the floor to column connections is as the sagging floor steel starts to cool and contract. The strain fails the floor connections. More than six floors fall on each tower from above where the columns are bent inward. Towers are crushed with gravity pulling straight down on the falling floors acting like a piston as the stored potential energy is released.


Then add in no sprinkler system. So multiple safer system failures.

Not properly protected from fire by insulation.
Building deranged by being hit by jets.
Uncontrolled fires due to nonworking sprinkler systems.
Fire crews had at least two building fires with deficient utilities.

Maybe it was the cooling and contracting of sagging steel that was the main issue.

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: neutronflux

are you willing to commit to the statement that the debris left in the image i posted is consistent with a fire collapse of 220 floors of steel columns?

By the way. Nice large standing section of building not pulverized. Did that standing section show any indication of energy pulverization, or just wear from strikes and abrasions.

originally posted by: facedye
When 30 floors fall on 80, they meet the resistance of the bottom 80 floors of reinforced steel columns.

You really have no idea, 30 floors fell on a few floors, not the whole 80.

Then the 30 floors, plus the few fell on a few more floors

Then the 30, plus a few, plus a few, fell on a few more.

etc.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

abit late aint they - common knowledge for years

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
a reply to: Jchristopher5

abit late aint they - common knowledge for years

Better late than never!

The world is snoring, and momentarily one of the OS-pumpers will be along to tell us why we, and anonymous, are crazy conspiracy theorists. Nonetheless, they pump a really wild conspiracy theory as fact.

More ranting and innuendo with no facts.

What does questioning the official narrative have to do with there being no evidence of controlled demolition of the WTC towers.

originally posted by: neutronflux
More ranting and innuendo with no facts.

What does questioning the official narrative have to do with there being no evidence of controlled demolition of the WTC towers.

If you want watch the recent Anonymous videos they have presented the following evidence that the offical story is a lie:

The offical story of the "sudden and unexpected collapse" of building 7 says it collapsed due to office fires. Since such a collapse is unprecented with modern skyscrapers, it's total, symmetrical collapse could not have been predicted. Yet...Anonymous restated the fact that it's collapse was predicted on the BBC BEFORE it happened, by some 25 minutes. It is proven with the time stamp on the videos, that also show building 7 standing, as the reporter is discussing its collapse.

Please, the offical story is a cover job. And a wacky conspiracy theory to boot!

They also touch on meltd steel. While not acknowledged in your official story, there are pictures and testimonies which indicate there was, in fact, melted steel. That lie is a very costly one to OS-pumpers.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Same arguments for the 15 years that have been debunked over and over again.

The term melted was misused for the term plastic or pliable steel. Like a blacksmith shaping metal on an anvil.

Prove the official narrative is based on the WTC buildings being brought down due to the liquidifcation of structural steel. Until then, don't use things out of context that work against the credibility of your narrative.

a reply to: neutronflux

It's not "my narrative". I watched the videos and that was some of the evidence they had mentioned, as I referenced in my post.

So, don't make this about me. Take it up with anonymous, if you disagree.

a reply to: hellobruce

really bruce?

the top part of the building only fell on a few floors? not the whole 80?

if there are 80 floors beneath the 30, how does this work?

if i drop 30 quarters onto 80 quarters, do the 30 only fall onto 30 below them? ...when there's 80 of them there?

what model or proof can you show us to substantiate this claim?

a reply to: neutronflux

you still haven't answered my question.

a reply to: neutronflux

It's almost like the Terrorists knew people would like you would defend the official story. It has more holes than swiss cheese.

I sure don't see 6 floors of Building 7 falling and causing a pancake. Looks pretty much like the whole damn thing.

I don't understand to this day why countless New York reports of Explosions heard, even in the god damned basement, prior to planes hitting, have been explicitly cut from National television.
www.youtube.com...

I lived in New York, and can personally testify the reports from there are nothing like the hypnotic drone that went to the rest of the country. It's very select and was mass distributed in carefully scripted manners to nearly the entire country, with the exception of New York.

originally posted by: hellobruce

Well, all the "truth" movement is interested in is money, that is the whole purpose of it, to take money from the gullible. Richard Gage made $75,450 in 2009 from his truther nonsense!

Truthers are not interested in the truth, they prefer to push silly conspiracy theories like thermite was found, or mini nuclear weapons were used, or beam weapons from space, or silent explosives....

Nice generalisation mate.

I don't believe the "official story" but I certainly don't believe in mini-nukes, or space beams or nonsense like that. Well done on getting sucked into that nonsense and generalising all of us with the same tainted brush.

No I don't make a cent out of my beliefs either.

You need to check your ridiculous accusations mate. But you won't, because you've deluded yourself into believing that all "truthers" believe the most outlandish theories and it suits you to believe this because you like getting on a soapbox and shouting it to anyone who will listen. It gives you pleasure, and it's quite sickening.