For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

originally posted by: libertytoall

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: libertytoall
Not to mention all the firestop spray broke off the beams from the vibration of the impact. I don't really know anything though I'm a structural engineer.

I doubt you would know. We hire fire stopping engineers for fire stopping and we hire structural engineers to tells what we already know lol

I'm the inspector for all of them. I'm sure I do know what I'm talking about.

No you don't. I have to provide you with the tested ULC assemblies and you just cross check my paperwork.

Do you design tested assemblies or Do you just come by and take pictures of assemblies tested and choses by others?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I posted various videos of collapse initiation. Produce a theory to supersede inward bowing and buckling as outlined in this thread....

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

Then cite supporting evidence and sources....

No, I want to see the structural failure from the inside. I want to see the beams and supports fail and push out of the way quick enough to bring 100 stories down in 10 seconds.

a reply to: MALBOSIA



I didn't cherry pick anything. I picked three collapse video with relative quickness and somewhat at random.


m.youtube.com...

This video shows the collapse first expelled smoke, took a heart beat for dust to become noticeable, and dust production increased gradually the first few seconds.

originally posted by: libertytoall

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: libertytoall
Not to mention all the firestop spray broke off the beams from the vibration of the impact. I don't really know anything though I'm a structural engineer.

I doubt you would know. We hire fire stopping engineers for fire stopping and we hire structural engineers to tells what we already know lol

I'm the inspector for all of them. I'm sure I do know what I'm talking about.

Structural engineers here do not provide LoA's for fire stopping. Fire stopping engineers provide those. And after initial design each trade had to provide shop drawings stamped by their own engineers so the architects contracted engineer is a formality and all the liability is shifted to each trade engineers for their disaplin. These shop drawings are approved by the design consultants and their engineers but in the end they are stamped and submitted by trade engineers. At

At least that is how it works here in Canada where buildings don't catch fire and implode on themselves.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: libertytoall

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: libertytoall
Not to mention all the firestop spray broke off the beams from the vibration of the impact. I don't really know anything though I'm a structural engineer.

I doubt you would know. We hire fire stopping engineers for fire stopping and we hire structural engineers to tells what we already know lol

I'm the inspector for all of them. I'm sure I do know what I'm talking about.

No you don't. I have to provide you with the tested ULC assemblies and you just cross check my paperwork.

Do you design tested assemblies or Do you just come by and take pictures of assemblies tested and choses by others?

I test and or inspect steel, masonry and commercial block, fireproofing, carpentry, concrete, asphalt, grout, mortar, soil compaction, and various other structural needs. Test shear studs etc.. Don't tell me I just show up and take pictures when last week I swung a sledge hammer more than 8000 times to test welds. I use nuclear gauges for soil compaction tests. I use a concrete compression machine to test the psi meets spec. I have more than 16 years experience in structural engineering. I know what I'm talking about and I know people who inspected the world trade center before and after. They back up the claims that the firestop broke off the beams. Good luck convincing me otherwise.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: libertytoall

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: libertytoall
Not to mention all the firestop spray broke off the beams from the vibration of the impact. I don't really know anything though I'm a structural engineer.

I doubt you would know. We hire fire stopping engineers for fire stopping and we hire structural engineers to tells what we already know lol

I'm the inspector for all of them. I'm sure I do know what I'm talking about.

Structural engineers here do not provide LoA's for fire stopping. Fire stopping engineers provide those. And after initial design each trade had to provide shop drawings stamped by their own engineers so the architects contracted engineer is a formality and all the liability is shifted to each trade engineers for their disaplin. These shop drawings are approved by the design consultants and their engineers but in the end they are stamped and submitted by trade engineers. At

At least that is how it works here in Canada where buildings don't catch fire and implode on themselves.

That's why they hire me to oversee the entire job and take on the entire liability. I'm the engineer for the entire job and I sign off on the entire job. I'm certified in about 9 different areas.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

You will not answer true or false to if the towers floors had a specific load rating.

You will not answer true or false if exceeding the load rating will result in damage.

I posted videos of inward bowing and buckling.

You will not create a theory of what you witness from the video to supersede inward bowing and buckling.

The videos show during the inward buckling there was nothing being expelled. Just the vertical columns being drawn in with no audible cue.

Once the upper portion of the building starts downward is smoke expelled.

Then after a second does the dust production kick in.

From watching videos of building collapse as a result of earthquake damage, the dust production is about the same magnitude.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA



I didn't cherry pick anything. I picked three collapse video with relative quickness and somewhat at random.


m.youtube.com...

This video shows the collapse first expelled smoke, took a heart beat for dust to become noticeable, and dust production increased gradually the first few seconds.

Your obfuscating.

The images I posted earlier show dust and debris forming instantly and 15-20 floors above the impact zone.







I now these stills might confuse you. They can't be found in the OS textbook. I took them myself from a FOIA video that was released.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You will not answer true or false to if the towers floors had a specific load rating.

You will not answer true or false if exceeding the load rating will result in damage.

I seriously have to answer That? The question must be loaded because every element of those towers has a rating.

I posted videos of inward bowing and buckling.

You will not create a theory of what you witness from the video to supersede inward bowing and buckling.

The videos show during the inward buckling there was nothing being expelled. Just the vertical columns being drawn in with no audible cue.

Once the upper portion of the building starts downward is smoke expelled.

Then after a second does the dust production kick in.

From watching videos of building collapse as a result of earthquake damage, the dust production is about the same magnitude.

None of that is true when you look at the pictures I posted. Outward explosions is quite easily disable and the tower has not begun to fall yet.

It wasn't easy getting those. I had to rapid click very quickly to catch each frame so I wish you would pay them some attention.

originally posted by: libertytoall

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: libertytoall

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: libertytoall
Not to mention all the firestop spray broke off the beams from the vibration of the impact. I don't really know anything though I'm a structural engineer.

I doubt you would know. We hire fire stopping engineers for fire stopping and we hire structural engineers to tells what we already know lol

I'm the inspector for all of them. I'm sure I do know what I'm talking about.

Structural engineers here do not provide LoA's for fire stopping. Fire stopping engineers provide those. And after initial design each trade had to provide shop drawings stamped by their own engineers so the architects contracted engineer is a formality and all the liability is shifted to each trade engineers for their disaplin. These shop drawings are approved by the design consultants and their engineers but in the end they are stamped and submitted by trade engineers. At

At least that is how it works here in Canada where buildings don't catch fire and implode on themselves.

That's why they hire me to oversee the entire job and take on the entire liability. I'm the engineer for the entire job and I sign off on the entire job. I'm certified in about 9 different areas.

Yes your the consultant. Never hear much from you.

If your taking responsibility for the whole project then why do you require each shop drawing to be stamped by each trade engineer.

I think you take the credit. Not the responsibility. But at least I got some fight out of you.

Do you do steel stud shop drawings? We could always use another engineer. We have 6 firms running flat out and I'm always hounding them for answers. They take too long.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Your use of the picture is not in any context.

It doesn't even have the time stamp to give how far into the collapse the picture was taken.

Find it odd you use the same photos with no context of time vs finding and posting a video to support your statement.

Here again are the videos I picked.

WTC close up of South Tower buckling
m.youtube.com...

9/11: North Tower Collapse (Etienne Sauret)
m.youtube.com...

South Tower Falls, shot front of Trinity Church.
m.youtube.com...

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...

During the inward buckling there is nothing being expelled. When the upper portions of the buildings first drops, smoke is first expelled. After a second dust production starts and increases.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Your use of the picture is not in any context.
It doesn't even have time stamp to give how far into the collapse the picture was taken.

Find it odd you use the same photos with no context of time vs finding and posting a video to support your statement.

Here again are the videos I picked.

WTC close up of South Tower buckling
m.youtube.com...

9/11: North Tower Collapse (Etienne Sauret)
m.youtube.com...

South Tower Falls, shot front of Trinity Church.
m.youtube.com...

During the inward buckling there is nothing being expelled. When the upper portion of the building drop smoke is first expelled. After a second dust production states and increases.

So your saying I fabricated those photos and either way you do not see any activity? They are posted in sequence if that helps.

None of your videos show the opposite side of the first building that collapsed at the moment of initiation. If you find one and it proves my stills are fabricated then let me know.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
This has probably been posted before - I've no idea what to search for - and it deserves to be posted again.

So what about the liquid metal pouring out of the building, or the pools of liquid metal in the debris?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

False argument, quote where I said fabricated? How do you equate no context with fabricated.

Can you post video evidence of ANYTHING being expelled during inward bowing and buckling of the vertical columns becore the upper portion of the towers started to descend?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

False argument, quote where I said fabricated? How do you equate no context with fabricated.

Can you post video evidence of ANYTHING being expelled during inward bowing and buckling of the vertical columns becore the upper portion of the towers started to descend?

LMAO. Holly cow. That just completely broke your brain eh? Go consult with your team and see if you can come back with anything that resembles and argument. PM me when your ready to discuss.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

It appears that you're arguing for some massive explosion that occurred to initiate the collapse with this 'appeal to dust' argument, am I following you correctly?

originally posted by: AnonymousMoose

originally posted by: FyreByrd
This has probably been posted before - I've no idea what to search for - and it deserves to be posted again.

So what about the liquid metal pouring out of the building, or the pools of liquid metal in the debris?

You have liquid metal from one tower, located near a battery room, how long before the tower collapse.

Again..... the WTC ruble was smoldering in a similar manner in which charcoal used to be produced. Water was used to control fires as removing ruble would create a fresh oxygen supply and result in fires popping up. When water contacts molten metal, it causes a steam / molten metal explosion.

There is no evidence the pile was ever hot enough to support molten steel.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

False argument, quote where I said fabricated? How do you equate no context with fabricated.

Can you post video evidence of ANYTHING being expelled during inward bowing and buckling of the vertical columns becore the upper portion of the towers started to descend?

LMAO. Holly cow. That just completely broke your brain eh? Go consult with your team and see if you can come back with anything that resembles and argument. PM me when your ready to discuss.

This is how you reply to the request to provide video evidence of when dust production began?

So you cannot produce a quote where I said you fabricated a photo.

You confused no context with fabrication.

You would rather rant than produce video evidence of anything being expelled during inward bowing and buckling.

You will not provide video evidence when dust production began.

You reference photos with no context of time. When was the photos taken in relation when the inward bowing began? In relation to the buckling? The time stamp into the collapse?

You cannot cite a theory to supersede inward bowing and buckling.

You will not answer true or false if the floors of the WTC had specific load capacities.

You will not acknowledge what would have happened if those load ratings were exceeded.

The curvature of the wall shows about 30 stories above crash zone had shattered less than 2 seconds into the collapse.

Angular momentum of the tipping top vanished. Only the disappearance of the moment of inertia through the disintegration of the top can explain this.

The top shattered before falling into intact structure.

The volume of the dust clouds produced by the collapses indicates heat energy far in excess of gravitation energy.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

"Indicates heat energy far in excess of gravitation energy"?

You might want to explain that one.

What are you saying, implying, whatever...happened at the moment the collapse started?