Anonymous goes "full 9/11 Truther"

a reply to: facedye

I more than adequately answered you questing.

And you wrong about the distribution of floor weight. When the upper floors fall, releasing their stored potential energy beyond building design, the static floor below fails at its weakest point, the floor steel to column connections. A floor connections cannot magically resistance more strain than it can physically handle. What does Newton's law have to do with yield strength of floor connections?

a reply to: imjack

What do you want to debate? The collapse of WTC was internal. Starting at one end and traveling the width of the building. The internal collapse left the outer walls unsupported. Then the outside of the build collapsed.

Or do you just want to rant and use innuendo!

a reply to: facedye

You going to start giving some facts and evidence? As in the definition of pulverization? The mechanism of pulverization? The amount the WTC towers were pulverized? The needed minimal amount to cause the towers to collapse in terms of pulverization? The energy required.

I clearly outlined my understanding of the WTC towers collapse.

Now, you need to state something for debate. Or you just going to rant on.......

a reply to: neutronflux

When has this ever happened before Fire Departments were able to respond? It's ludicrous. The distribution to the damage is also inconsistent with the fall pattern. Unless you set a fire in the middle of the building, and even then it's not always assured, you will have some zones with increased heat and damage before others are structurally compromised. It should have fallen slanted. It was definitely blown out at the foundation. Thanks for ignoring the comment and YouTube video about the explosion in the basement so facelessly.

Especially building 7.

And the endless Physics meme isn't even all the evidence required to prove there is a conspiracy when thousands of financial put-offs on not just the airlines, but the companies that had headquarters in the building instantly made thousands of people millions of dollars. Why put-offs even financially exist is mind boggling enough, however the increase in numbers that day was unbelievable and with extreme precision.

a reply to: imjack
Are the explosions accompanied by a 140 db sound wave on video indicative of a demolition charge. Or the quiet and no flash explosives of Richard Gage claims.

How many charges did it take for WTC 7?

No shrapnel. No columns or steel worked on by demolitions or thermite. No blasting cap or charge fragments.

I don't know what to tell you, but there is no evidence of controlled demolition other than sensationalized YouTube videos.

Sorry.

a reply to: imjack

Here is a link detailing how the insurance company took the owners to court over WTC 7.

www.metabunk.org...

Aegis tried to stop the payout.

The strongest case the insurance company could make, WTC 7 was not properly designed.

a reply to: neutronflux

LOL I love it when you people say "no evidence" when there is literally evidence. You can't even say weak evidence? Brainwashed to the max.

a reply to: imjack

No. People were close enough to witness explosions that in you opinion were cutting columns. The conspiracists arguments are columns on each floor had to be cut for all three buildings to fall at the speeds witnessed? If it was only one charge per floor? At least 108 charges for tower one? At least 108 charged for tower two? At least 45 charges for building 7.

So, from the git go, a minimum of more than 250 charges used to cut columns. To fulfill the narrative of free fall speed only possible by removing the resistance of each floor by demolitions.

But, no audio of demolitions setting off in 911 videos?

No persons, or remains, sustaining injuries from demolitions cutting steel. Shrapnel. No shrapnel from charges raining out of the collapsing buildings.

Mohr in his debate with Gage clearly stated WTC columns were long and mangled. The columns were not in short segments as argued by Gage.

The hand inspection of WTC debris had no evidence of cut columns by thermite nor demolitions. No fragments of blasting caps. No fragments of shape charges.

The WTC steel revealed no holes or prep required for a building explosives demolition.

There is no evidence of controlled demolition.

What do you think gave rise the the false narratives of lasers and dustification? To fill a vacuum.

a reply to: imjack

prove there is a conspiracy when thousands of financial put-offs on not just the airlines, but the companies that had headquarters in the building instantly made thousands of people millions of dollars. Why put-offs even financially exist is mind boggling enough,

You do not have a clue.
You need to research the put options on sites other than conspiracy sites.
Then get back with us on it.

a reply to: neutronflux

You bring up an interesting point with the lack of explosions that cut steel.
My question to you is : why didn't we see any bent support beams? If steel was "weakened by jet fuel fires ", then surely these beams didn't just snap like twigs. There would be bent steel everywhere. Photos please.

Also if both you and samkent can weigh in on the point I made earlier that out of the thousands of file cabinets that were inside both towers before the collapse, none were recovered. None. But somehow tons of paper was flying around. Please explain why this is.

The point isn't the put-options that made millionaires, it's that they were triggered. Someone knew to #ing sell everything and there is proof of that.

A question for those familiar with NYSE operations and procedures:

It appears that NYSE trading on weekdays commence at 0930 so does that mean the 'put options' in question had to be set up by closing time (1600) on the previous trading day at the latest?

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

From NIST NCSTAR 1-3
5.1 THE RECOVERY OF WORLD TRADE CENTER STRUCTURAL STEEL
Beginning in October of 2001, nearly a year prior to the start of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) Investigation, members of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) –
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), members
of the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY), and Professor A. Astaneh-Asl of the
University of California, Berkeley (with support from the National Science Foundation), began work to
identify and collect World Trade Center (WTC) structural steel from the various recovery yards where
debris, including the steel, was taken during the WTC site clean-up effort. Dr. J. Gross, a research
structural engineer at NIST and a member of the FEMA/ASCE Building Performance Study, was
involved in these early efforts.
There were four major sites where debris from the WTC buildings was shipped during the clean-up effort:
• Hugo Neu Schnitzer, Inc., Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island, New Jersey,
• Hugo Neu Schnitzer East, Inc., Claremont Terminal in Jersey City, New Jersey,
• Metal Management, Inc., in Newark, New Jersey, and
• Blanford and Co. in Keasbey, New Jersey.

youtu.be...
youtu.be...
youtu.be...
youtu.be...
youtu.be...
youtu.be...
youtu.be...

a reply to: neutronflux

no, you didn't.

one more time, and try to not respond with an essay that has nothing to do with anything.

does this look like a sufficient pile representing at least 220 floors of steel columns? please respond yes or no. you can give me the reason as to why you think yes or no, but let's have you commit to a solid answer.

many facts, pieces of evidence and contingencies that you've asked for have been posted here - you have either been deflecting direct questions outright, or gave convoluted rebuttals that don't revolve around a central point.

so please, make it a yes or no, and then provide as much reasoning as you'd like. are you willing to commit to the statement that this debris field accurately accounts for 220 floors of steel columns? why, or why not?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: facedye

I more than adequately answered you questing.

And you wrong about the distribution of floor weight. When the upper floors fall, releasing their stored potential energy beyond building design, the static floor below fails at its weakest point, the floor steel to column connections. A floor connections cannot magically resistance more strain than it can physically handle. What does Newton's law have to do with yield strength of floor connections?

so 30 floors fall on 1-6 floors beneath them individually?

are these ~6 floors suspended in mid air? do they have absolutely no support from the ~75 floors and basement floors beneath them?

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

There would be bent steel everywhere. Photos please.

Are you saying you can't type "bent steel wtc" into google ?

a reply to: samkent

are you saying 220 floors of steel columns were recovered from the WTC site, and the majority of them were bent?

are you also saying that 30 floors fell on 6 floors? disregarding the fact that there are another ~75 floors of reinforced, thicker steel below them?

please, enlighten us with sources for your claims.

a reply to: facedye

are these ~6 floors suspended in mid air? do they have absolutely no support from the ~75 floors and basement floors beneath them?

Have you not looked beyond conspiracy sites for construction diagrams ?
All 110 floors were suspended at their edges.
One support at the inner core.
The other at the exterior wall.
No center supports in between as in normal steel girder construction.
Plus ALL the floors (except the mechanical floor half way up) used the same floor trusses and had the same load capacities.

So if floor 79 had a load higher than it could withstand it would fail.
But then floor 78 would have the same (if not more) weight and it would fail.
And so on.

a reply to: samkent

you're wrong. the steel was thicker on the bottom half of the building.

The strength of the steel and thickness of the steel plates decreased with height because they were required to support lesser amounts of building mass on higher floors.

WTC Construction

So if floor 79 had a load higher than it could withstand it would fail.
But then floor 78 would have the same (if not more) weight and it would fail.
And so on.

to every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. your logic here violates this law.

what do you mean "and so on?"

after the kinetic energy of 30 floors rips through 30 floors of the standing material, upheld & equal to 80 floors of thicker steel in potential energy, how is there enough kinetic energy for the entire building to be reduced to rubble? what is the force acting on and pushing through the bottom 40-50 floors of the building?

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: samkent

are you saying 220 floors of steel columns were recovered from the WTC site, and the majority of them were bent?

are you also saying that 30 floors fell on 6 floors? disregarding the fact that there are another ~75 floors of reinforced, thicker steel below them?

please, enlighten us with sources for your claims.

You do understand the building is not solid right. The only thing holding the floors to the columns are brackets. When 30 floors fall onto the next floor, it's the floor to column connections that are yielding. Taking the force of the fall. Not the columns until the energy is transferred via the floor connections to column. If the floor connections yield / shear, the energy is never transferred.


What happens when you drop a 100 pound mass object on to an empty soda can vs a solid aluminum cylinder of the same dimensions from 9 feet?

I am really sorry you don't understand static load vs falling load. Potential energy. Force due to accelerate. As the area a force is pushing on decreases, pressure increases. Yield and shear strength. Floor connections are no really made for twisting forces.
U
The upward resistance of the column vs the ability of floor connections to resist a falling load.

It's sad you limit yourself to conspiracists talking points and don't think and research for the truth.

Using your logic, and the figure a WTC tower weights 500,000 tons, you could safely put 490,000 tons on the top floor of WTC 1!


What was the load rating for a WTC floor?