Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You need to stop and come back to reality, and cite actual facts. Stop creating false arguments.

The buildings were damaged, and had a significant number of vertical columns removed by jet impacts.


You know, the steel columns that take the load of the floors and transfers the loads to the foundations.

Yes, everybody is quite aware that the buildings were damaged.

The 'vertical columns' you refer to are actually the 'exterior columns', which were not critical to the overall structural integrity of the building. It was the massive central CORE columns that supported it.

Those are the facts here.

What do you believe was a 'significant number' of exterior columns? And how would you consider it any sort of 'fact'? 'Significant' to what? To you?

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: turbonium1

Lets at least get some figures correct each concrete floor slab weighed approx 1000 tons the amount of structural steel in one of the twin towers was around 90,000 tonns.

As stated before and for you benefit because obviously YOU don't look at or understand information given this is how the floor slabs are connected to the structure.

The ends of the floor trusses rested on and were bolted to the steel angle cleats in the above image.
Each floor is designed to support it's own weight and equipment people etc on a floor plus a saftey margin.

The FLOORS below the collapse area where the same apart from the 3 service floors.

In simple terms so YOU can understand each floor is designed to support the load on that floor & that floor ONLY.
Each floor was supported by the wall steel and the core steel.
So guess what floors can fall internally.

The floors cannot fall internally without removing nearly every one of the supports, all around the perimeter columns, and all around the central core columns, within. And the connections have to be removed at the same time, to fall as one whole floor, or it will only fail partially, where support is gone first, and so on..

You don't grasp that your theory is utterly worthless, because you have no proof. You keep saying this, and that, is what happened, over and over again.

Any of this can be proven, or not. It has no distinctions, no exclusions, no exceptions, or anything different which rules it cannot be proven, or replicated, or scientifically explained by known physical laws.

Why do you think nobody, not one single 'expert', has ever PROVEN this claim?

All physical events follow the same laws of physics.

Do you understand that we can demonstrate how a previously built, intact structure...removing some supports, causes a failure, and maybe partial collapse? Using scale models, within a physics classroom?

You have a totally fabricated claim, that cannot be proven, and never will. Because it doesn't exist.

a reply to: turbonium1

This is what you originally posted

www.abovetopsecret.com...

None of the steel collected by NIST was weakened by fires to the point of any failure.

So why do you keep claiming steel was exposed to fires which caused failure, from fires that NEVER caused any steel to weaken to the point of failure?

Then it change into this.

You didn't even answer anything I asked, or said, in my last post. I asked if you knew what the steel samples showed. The steel collected by NIST. Specifically, they were instructed to seek out, and collect, any steel that has been, or perhaps was, exposed to fires, and any damaged steel. Impact damage and fires were already the official causes of both collapses. They only looked for any evidence to support their pre-determined conclusion, that fire and impact damage caused both collapses, nothing else.

Do you understand metallurgy at all.

True or false. Fire doesn’t have to damage steel to cause structural steel to weaken. It weakens steel, makes it more workable, to the point its more susceptible to a physical failure like bending or buckling.


So please define what you mean by fire damage. What should the metal “damaged” by fire exhibit?

True or false, the fires at the WTC were hot enough to cause the steel to weaken.

True or false, steel at the towers showed signs of physical damage.

By the why, this is what I answered to your NIST steel rant.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: turbonium1

ws680.nist.gov...
Page 220 starts the Metallographic analysis of elements exposed to fire.

This is what is on page 220
Metalgraphoc analysts of elements exposed to fire.
ws680.nist.gov...

Want to make any more false claims.

a reply to: neutronflux

Then I started this.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to: turbonium1

And quote where I ever said the vertical columns that buckled failed do to heat. The bowing caused the load of the upper stories to be no longer transmitted to the foundation. The stain of the load was “caught” in the bowing. When the load was transferred off the foundation to the geometry of the bowing, the vertical columns buckeled.

Like to create anymore false arguments..

a reply to: turbonium1

Why would they not look for other causes?

What othe causes would you like them to have looked for.

Please link to the video that showed the audible evidence that explosives were used. Can you cite medical cases were individuals eardrums were burst from the pressure waves from cutting charges. Any demolitions shrapnel recovered with human remains, from injured people? Any demolitions shrapnel blown into the walls of neighboring buildings, into the streets, cars? ( You claim lateral ejection by explosives? No shrapnel to go along with steel weighting tons being thrown about?) Any evidence of an over pressure event while the buckling occurred? Windows blown out? The audible boom of an explosive with enough power to cut steel? Any evidence in the metallurgy?

Or should they have tested for the mythical fizzle no flash explosives that somehow made the towers “fall in their own footprints”, but had the power to cause lateral ejection without the indicative audible pressure wave that goes hand in hand with a pressure wave that would cause latter ejection?

Exactly what should they have tested. Randomly tested over a 1,000,000 tons of building debris for explosives. Why? How would that be meaningful.

Can you point to demolitions shrapnel that could have been logically tested for explosives vs the random testing of 1,000,000 tons of steel?

a reply to: turbonium1

Any moron knows if terrorists were involved, there is a strong possibility of explosives. Because they JUST TRIED TO BOMB THE TOWER A FEW YEARS AGO.

Great logic. Tell that to they guys that use cars. Goes with another great statement from you...

It's pure nonsense.


What about proving it is even possible?

Nothing built can replicate the collapse, and never will.


Could you ever build a structure, and then collapse it, the same

Still waiting on you to provide evidence there ever was a top down high rise CD over 50 floors by fizzle no flash explosives to show its even possible. Your own logic makes CD at the towers impossible in your fantasy world.......

a reply to: turbonium1

You understand floor connections were sheared from being overloaded.

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers

app.aws.org...

Analysis of the connections supporting the composite floor system of the WTC towers showed that at and below the im- pact floors, the greater majority (above 90%) of the floor truss connections were either bent downward or completely re- moved from the exterior column. This was probably related to the overloading of the floors below the impact region after col- lapse initiation. Depending upon weld joint geometry, detachment of the main load-bearing seats was a result of either fracture in the heat affected zone of the base material (standoff plate detached from spandrel) or through the weld metal (seat angle detached from standoff plate). Failure in both cases was assumed to be a result of a shear mechanism as a result of overloading from floors above impacting those below. There did not appear to be a significant change in distribution of failure modes of the floor truss connections when comparing those connections inside vs. outside of the impact region or those ex- posed to pre-collapse fires and those that were not.

a reply to: turbonium1

And what did the weld study also conduct? Failure modes of floor connections between heat effected zones, and non-heat effected zones.

Any more false agreements.

And we haven’t even gotten to the NIST reports are actually a collection of research and peer reviewed papers.

Compilation of Scientific Literature that Directly Cites to and Support's NIST's WTC 7 report's methodologies and conclusions
www.reddit.com...

Was the NIST report on the World Trade Center towers peer-reviewed?
www.quora.com...


To add to what AE 9/11 Truth hides, there is a whole world of research that is not freely available on the internet that is ignored by the truth movement.

The truth movement hand feeds you exactly what they want you to believe. While not telling you of the larger world of peer reviewed papers concerning the WTC.

Stop believing in the AE 9/11 Truth propaganda dude.....,.

a reply to: turbonium1

The 'vertical columns' you refer to are actually the 'exterior columns', which were not critical to the overall structural integrity of the building. It was the massive central CORE columns that supported it.

WRONG - As Usual ......

The exterior wall columns formed an integral part of the load bearing supports

The columns supported about 60 % of the building structure and were responsible for resisting the wind loads

The perimeter columns were designed to provide support for virtually all lateral loads (such as wind loads) and to share the gravity loads with the core columns

Of course had you done any research would have known this ........

a reply to: turbonium1

Lets start first of all total mule fritters, bull cookies or plain old BS if you prefer.

The structure was a system gravity load mainly taken by core columns, walls the wind load on the structure and the truss sytem for the floors helped transfer loads and with stability.

You commented on the another picture I posted showing details of the connections to the wall/core columns so what about this one



A TOP down collapse all the way to ground level something truthers say can never happen please comment on that DON'T avoid it

Physics classroom you say just fkn

At school ALL my science subjects were physics or related to physics such as applied mechanics then engineering science so when in the physics class with friends we would look at problems such as this.



Then in Engineering Science we would be looking at problems like this.



Solving loads at either support and on all truss members. Left school did civil engineering part time while working in the design/drawing office of a STRUCTURAL steelwork company. Then on to doing things like site testing of components sometimes to destruction and dealing with architects and more importantly STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS none of whom ever claimed CD like you.

Look at the videos where do you think most of the falling mass landed, yes on the floor below a DYNAMIC LOAD, we see whats called the spire in videos showing core columns stripped of floor slabs.

The floors COULD fall intenally because of the design plain & simple.

Do you think 40-50,000 tons of material falling in the South Tower collapse would not destroy the lower structure.

If YOU think the top section of the North Tower could not get ground level I will refer you to the pictue at the top of the post.

If you want an idea of FORCES in the process I can link you to a site for impact loads something people like YOU avoid doing.

As for scale models they can show a method of collapse but will never show a true accurate representation of a full size building collapse. Long before CGI if models were used in films even the most accurate were obviously models.

Look at the Square Cube Law.

Or here Size effect on structural strength

Some qoutes

conventional strength of materials predicts that a large beam and a tiny beam will fail at the same stress if they are made of the same material. In the real world, because of size effects, a larger beam will fail at a lower stress than a smaller beam.

Then, however, the failure probability, which is required to be 10 to − 6 and actually does have such values for normal-size structures, may become for very large structures as low as 10 to− 3 per lifetime. Such high failure probability is intolerable as it adds significantly to the risks to which people are inevitably exposed. In fact, the historical experience shows that very large structures have been failing at a frequency several orders of magnitude higher than smaller ones.

Being a keyboard warrior like yourself repeating BS you pick up or assumptions you make through lack of experience doesn't go well.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Why would they not look for other causes?

What othe causes would you like them to have looked for.

Please link to the video that showed the audible evidence that explosives were used. Can you cite medical cases were individuals eardrums were burst from the pressure waves from cutting charges. Any demolitions shrapnel recovered with human remains, from injured people? Any demolitions shrapnel blown into the walls of neighboring buildings, into the streets, cars? ( You claim lateral ejection by explosives? No shrapnel to go along with steel weighting tons being thrown about?) Any evidence of an over pressure event while the buckling occurred? Windows blown out? The audible boom of an explosive with enough power to cut steel? Any evidence in the metallurgy?

Or should they have tested for the mythical fizzle no flash explosives that somehow made the towers “fall in their own footprints”, but had the power to cause lateral ejection without the indicative audible pressure wave that goes hand in hand with a pressure wave that would cause latter ejection?

Exactly what should they have tested. Randomly tested over a 1,000,000 tons of building debris for explosives. Why? How would that be meaningful.

Can you point to demolitions shrapnel that could have been logically tested for explosives vs the random testing of 1,000,000 tons of steel?

You really think they shouldn't look for any possible causes, because it's not required, it's too much work, nobody heard any explosives, or saw any explosives, and blah, blah, blah!!

That's ridiculous, on any level.

All the evidence has to be studied, no matter how much, how difficult, or how long it takes. What is the POINT of an investigation if it leaves out so much of the available evidence?

Nobody knows whether or not any other causes were involved, because there's evidence which wasn't even looked at.

To destroy evidence is a crime, and that's what happened here. You support the crime, which is very telling, indeed...

a reply to: turbonium1

Nobody knows whether or not any other causes were involved, because there's evidence which wasn't even looked at.

Show us the evidence that wasn't looked at.

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: turbonium1

The 'vertical columns' you refer to are actually the 'exterior columns', which were not critical to the overall structural integrity of the building. It was the massive central CORE columns that supported it.

WRONG - As Usual ......

The exterior wall columns formed an integral part of the load bearing supports

The columns supported about 60 % of the building structure and were responsible for resisting the wind loads

The perimeter columns were designed to provide support for virtually all lateral loads (such as wind loads) and to share the gravity loads with the core columns

Of course had you done any research would have known this ........

That's absurd.

It was designed to withstand impact from airplanes. You seriously think they'd design 60% of the support to be exposed to direct impact, when the core columns were NOT exposed to any impact? Nonsense.

Any evidence of your claim, or is it just the same old bs, as usual?

a reply to: turbonium1

You do understand that the floor trusses were only supported at either end. They attached to the structure only at two points. They were attached at vertical interior columns you call core columns and the other end to the outer vertical columns.

Simplified. The long floor truess were only supported at the ends. They tied only into the outer vertical columns and the interior vertical columns.

If the exter vertical columns are not structural, what was holding the load of the floor trusses on the ends opposite where they tied into the interior vertical columns? What were the floor trusses tied to on the exterior side of the towers that supported their load.

by turbonium1
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The 'vertical columns' you refer to are actually the 'exterior columns', which were not critical to the overall structural integrity of the building. It was the massive central CORE columns that supported it.

Such an ignorant statement shows that you don’t even understand how the loads in the towers were distributed. You have proven you have no understanding of the twin towers and lack total credibility.

It is tragically comic to watch you gloat in prideful ignorance.

a reply to: turbonium1

Another false argument by you.

You do understand the core columns were also damaged by the jet impacts. And there is a high probability core columns failed.

Aircraft Impact Damage


citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...;jsessionid=5186A591468840A7CA6719E5D359B3D4?doi=10.1.1.367.491&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Depending which case considered in Table 2 will be valid, the number of destroyed
core columns in South Tower will vary between minimum of 7 and maximum of 20. It should be noted that the prediction for the North Tower would be different for two reasons. First, the impact velocity is smaller and hence the kinetic energy induced by the airplane is less. Second, the airplane impacted the tower on different side correlating with the core structure orientation, so that the energy dissipated by these longer floors was larger. Taking the each of the factors above into consideration, the predicted number of damaged core columns in the North Tower will vary between 4 and 12. There will be an enormous difference between the ways in which the global collapse was initiated in both towers. Effect of the local damage on the global collapse of each tower is discussed next.

a reply to: turbonium1

This is you

You really think they shouldn't look for any possible causes, because it's not required, it's too much work, nobody heard any explosives, or saw any explosives, and blah, blah, blah!!

There was no audio signature indicative of a cutting charged setting off with a resultant pressure wave capable of cutting steel.

There was no reported injuries from an over pressure event associated with a charge setting off.

No indication of an over pressure event from charges setting off as in windows blown out.

There was no demolitions shrapnel recovered from adjacent buildings, cars, the street, human remains, or injured persons. Or from jet parts and human remains recovered from building tops.

The hand shifting of WTC rubble recovered over 18,000 pieces of human remains. 6,000 could fit in a test tube. No blasting cap fragments, no shape charge fragments, no demolitions shrapnel, no fragments of detonators, and no CD ignition system remains.

Testing and metallurgical examination showed no signs of steel being worked on by demolitions.

What were they supposed to test for explosives again. Randomly sample 1,000,000 tons of ruble for explosives? Again, how would that have any meaning? Test for the mythical fizzle no flash explosives?

a reply to: turbonium1

In short, there is no video, physical, or audible evidence of explosives at the WTC. The evidence of thermite was a complete fabrication and outlines the Truth Movement is not credible.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: turbonium1

Nobody knows whether or not any other causes were involved, because there's evidence which wasn't even looked at.

Show us the evidence that wasn't looked at.

Tons of steel, removed before they EVEN STARTED ANY INVESTIGATION!

If you've ever seen an investigation of a serious crime, of a murder, the scene of a murder is preserved at once, because it's crucial to preserve evidence of any sort of murder.

They have preserved acres of land as 'crime scenes'. They have even spent many years, investigating a murder.

All of the evidence of a murder is looked at. Not ignored, destroyed, or sold as scrap.

Then we have an 'investigation' that only picks evidence it likes, while you make up all sorts of excuses, which defend them in their criminal actions......for some strange reason..


Your allegiance is a folly, in the end..

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

This is you

You really think they shouldn't look for any possible causes, because it's not required, it's too much work, nobody heard any explosives, or saw any explosives, and blah, blah, blah!!

There was no audio signature indicative of a cutting charged setting off with a resultant pressure wave capable of cutting steel.

There was no reported injuries from an over pressure event associated with a charge setting off.

No indication of an over pressure event from charges setting off as in windows blown out.

There was no demolitions shrapnel recovered from adjacent buildings, cars, the street, human remains, or injured persons. Or from jet parts and human remains recovered from building tops.

The hand shifting of WTC rubble recovered over 18,000 pieces of human remains. 6,000 could fit in a test tube. No blasting cap fragments, no shape charge fragments, no demolitions shrapnel, no fragments of detonators, and no CD ignition system remains.

Testing and metallurgical examination showed no signs of steel being worked on by demolitions.

What were they supposed to test for explosives again. Randomly sample 1,000,000 tons of ruble for explosives? Again, how would that have any meaning? Test for the mythical fizzle no flash explosives?

You assume testing steel for fire exposure is also testing the steel for anything else, at the very same time?

A test is not a catch-all for everything else, too...

They didn't EVEN LOOK for evidence of explosives, but of course, they'd surely have found evidence of any explosives, when testing for fire exposure! And that's how we know explosives weren't used, at all!

Nonsense.


Why would explosives be absolutely ruled out, impossible to even consider in any way, right after they had collapsed?

They know what caused the collapses and what was never involved, long before any investigation of the collapses!!

How would anyone know if explosives were PLANTED in the towers, but failed to detonate, at the time? That's assuming your argument is that they knew explosives didn't detonate at all, which would be absolutely impossible for anyone to know, since dust clouds obscured so much of it.

The point is that nobody would know if bombs were planted in the towers, failed to work.

One thing they know for sure is that no explosives were involved, while nobody could have possibly known whether or not bombs were planted in the towers, at that time.

It's not possible to know it.

Which means they were simply lying about it.

Figure it out....

a reply to: turbonium1

False arguments by you.

Let’s start real small again..,,

What evidence would the AE 9/11 Truth claimed fizzle no flash bombs leave?

One, link to a single piece of video / or audience that is evidence of CD.( the original claim by the truth movement was the towers fell at the rate of free fall speed and through the path of greatest resistance. But have been proven false and truth movement lies.)

Two, the WTC debris recovery one site was worked my engineers, local law enforcement bomb squads, and crews with demolition experience. Human remains and evidence when found was recovered by hand. No evidence of CD.

Three. WTC ruble and steel was taken to lay down yards. Steel set aside for analysis. Debris was ran through conveyor belts and searched by hand. Over 18,000 pieces of human remains recovered, hundred of watches, hundreds of ID cards, no evidence of CD.

Four, out of all the WTC injuries and human remains recovered; no injuries related to demolitions setting off. No human remains recovered with demolitions shrapnel.

Again, what load supporting members were the floor trusses connected to on the exterior of the towers?