For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

a reply to: liejunkie01

Thank you for the endless fight against ignorance and the false arguments of the ironically named truth movement!

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

For the thousandth time.....

The conspiracy is probably the deviations from the best practices of using concrete cores and deviations from building codes.

Yes, I heard the whole "the mafia did it" bit. No charges laid as of yet. Not a peep from MSM or activists on that front. We will see, I suppose.

It was documented the WTC fire insulation was substandard and needed up graded before 9/11. The insulation knocked down by the jet impacts did not help.

Yes, the missing insulation picture



Given the impact of a commercial jet liner, for the most part, I think we can forget any hopes that passive fire protection is still in place and functioning, with or without the pretense of missing insulation. You rub against that stuff and it falls off... right down your back... and it's itch as fu...

The towers had long floor trusses with no mid supports along their spand.

ya but those just hold up people and furniture. Dont try and hold a building up with those. That's a terrible idea!!

The jet fuel ran down the elevator shafts, causing the spread of fire at a rate and intensity the towers were not designed for.

Whoa!! Did you see that happen?? You must have been close!! Kudo's to You!!

All I (and NIST) saw were images of the jet fuel exploding into a huge fire ball.

The jet impacts took out or damaged outer columns and core columns causing the load to shifted to the vertical columns that still had structural integrity.

The jet impacts cut vital services, elevator cables, and fire water.

Yeeeaah, I couldn't tell you if that was right or wrong. We known the outside corner was cut off the one building. That was clear. But the building came straight down as though the opposite side, with seemingly much less weight on it, annihilated all support beneath it, at the same rate as the side that seemingly had all the weight. I dunno.

How would a complex detention system survive.m?

I have NO idea about every kind of specialized explosive that has been developed to tell you what kind of capabilities or resilience a specific one could have. But I don't think anyone who does is privy to tell us either so that is inconclusive to me.

The fire heated up the steel.

Okay, but we are down to office furniture and wall partitions that NIST placed willy-nilly to achieve the heat dispursment in order for their model to work, sorta?

The steel of the floor trusses weekend and tried to expand in length. The expanding floor trusses that were boxed in by good columns could not expand in length, so they droopped down. Upon cooling, the floor trusses contracted. Thus causing inward bowing leading to buckling of vertical columns in areas corresponding to the fires and jet impacts.

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

Once buckled, the falling upper stories of the towers overloaded and sheared the floor connections to vertical columns. Floors that could only withstand the dynamic load of six falling floors or less.

The floor system totally collapsed. But large lengths of core columns were left standing on end for whole seconds after the complete collapse of of the floor system.

Ok, that all sounded great and I don't doubt that type of failure is achievable, given the circumstances. But it is theory.

I don't know what happened. I know the investigations were limited and there is way more unknown than is known. Hiding behind the fact there was no conventional explosive wiring found at the scene and conventional explosives could not be reliable after the impacts, does not rule out unconventional explosives.

Like I said in an earlier post. Correlation does not imply causation. The OS is a government sponsored conspiracy theory.

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I see a structurally damaged building that is beginning to collapse.

And how!!

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes, I have been called worse.

A shill and many other names.

I have personally done many hours of research on the towers. I have even went as far as to attempt to calculate the weight of each floor on my own. I have put countless hours in identifying the bolts size and shear strength that connect the trusses to the supporting beams amongst many other aspects of the buildings structure. I have also had numerous talks with my welding instructor while attending a two year welding technologies course.

I actually tend to get tired of the same old arguments and name calling antics that I usually end up giving the subject a rest for a while.

It is nice to see posters such as yourself using logic and looking beyond the ignorance that so many posters like to adhere to.

Keep up the intellectual fight.

Speaking of ignorance...

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I see a structurally damaged building that is beginning to collapse.

And how!!

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

All I (and NIST) saw were images of the jet fuel exploding into a huge fire ball.

Red arrow.



1:13

a reply to: neutronflux

Numerous reports of structural instability before collapse

FDNY Assistant Chief Joseph Callan: "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower.

Callan: "For me to make the decision to take our firefighters out of the building with civilians still in it, that was very tough for me, but I did that because I did not think the building was safe any longer, and that was just prior to 9:30.

EMS Division Chief John Peruggia: "I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building's stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.

I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the command post where Chief Ganci was located. Told him where it was across the street from number 1 World Trade Center. I told him "You see Chief Ganci and Chief Ganci only. Provide him with the information that the building integrity is severely compromised and they believe the building is in danger of imminent collapse." So, he left off in that direction."

Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall.

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the pending collapse of the building,'' said Sivaraj Shyam- Sunder, who heads the institute, at a press briefing in New York. "Any time that information could have been communicated faster to the emergency responders in the buildings, it would have helped save lives."

According to Shyam-Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam-Sunder said.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

What do you mean how?

Looking at the pictures you posted. I can see the building buckling and start to collapse at the point of impact. You know right where the big gaping hole is?

What are you trying to get at?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

I have NO idea about every kind of specialized explosive that has been developed

Do you know of any explosives that do not breach the sound barrier ?

If they do not breach the sound barrier they are not explosives.

If they do breach the sound barrier there is a loud bang.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

I have NO idea about every kind of specialized explosive that has been developed

Do you know of any explosives that do not breach the sound barrier ?

If they do not breach the sound barrier they are not explosives.

If they do breach the sound barrier there is a loud bang.

I think you have no idea what to do when someone doesn't state a theory so your system just glitched.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: FyreByrd

You have made a thread without looking and taking into account the evidence.


Building Seven Collapsed Too you know .

Please could you explain how Jet did this...

Could you explain to me how a normal fire did this..

I smell a fish.

Wish you could vote misleading threads down..

And I wish people could understand simple English.

This was never about what caused or who caused the buildings to fall down.

It answers/refutes one single element of the complex web of questions and inconsistances surrounding the event.

I stated at the beginning, for those who read, that this was only answering a single question in that web. This thread is only about that single question. Reductionist - certainly; but you must understand the different parts of a problem before you can begin to understand the whole.

This demonstration was a good explanation of one regularly heard "proof" that the building failures were not 'bought down by the plane impacts' alone.

I have one less question - and yes - the answer doesn't fit my belief system around the event - but keeping an open mind, a curious mind is the only logical way to proceed.

There are unanswered questions still. But this has put one to rest for me. I learned something new.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: blackaspirin

originally posted by: FyreByrd

The facade may have been aluminum - but that is irrelevant to the question addressed by the video.

Please don't stray from the topic.

I don't see how that's off-topic. If someone makes an argument regarding molten steel, whether for or against - it's completely relevant to point out that the molten metal did not have to be steel in the first place, and point out the far greater likelihood of it being molten aluminum.

Pointing out the faulty premise, which is on-topic in any argument.

The thread is not about molten steel.

It is about the integrity of structural steel. Specifically that such steel doesn't have to be hot enought to melt to lose it's structural integrity.

Isn't reading comprehension taught in schools any longer ...

Yes it is. And it is also taught that correlation does not imply causation.

Just because jet fuel can weaken steel does not mean that jet fuel was the cause of collapse. It would take a proper investigation to conclude any causation. The 911 commission and NIST report were not proper investigations. NIST was paid a small, finite amount of money to produce a report for a government that already went to war based on the what that report was going to show.

Could you imagine if we were already a year into Afghanistan and kicking off Iraq, then NIST came back and said that these buildings could not have collapsed by the force of heat from jet fuel and office furniture.

Meh, it's not like anyone that reported the findings on 9/11 that resulted in the murder of over a million Afghan and Iraqi citizens, were even under oath.

Oops.

Again, I will mention Reading Comprehension. This is not about molten metal - it's about structural integrity.

This thread is not about what you want it to be, or need it to be or .... all the other miscellany you need to talk about. If you don't have anything to add to the discussion of the breakdown of integrity in structural steel then please start another thread.

I don't want to read or respond to all this stuff.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

I think you have no idea what to do when someone doesn't state a theory so your system just glitched.

If a truther ever stated a coherent theory that is when my system would glitch.

You can't give us anything resembling a coherent theory. You are just another average truther.

a reply to: FyreByrd

And I wish people could understand simple English. This was never about what caused or who caused the buildings to fall down. It answers/refutes one single element of the complex web of questions and inconsistances surrounding the event

There is a word.. Mu i think its spelled that way. It means the answer is bigger than the quesetion.. Your thread addresses nothing.. Really dont get what you are trying to say..

The buildings where built to withstand a direct hit from a plan

Building seven was not even hit by a plane..

a reply to: neutronflux

What evidence do you have is was not fire. Think about the fire never before collapse of a high rise.

That was a controlled demolition.. A European report just said the same thing...


Down with the lies and misinofmation..

Thousands died that day and their death was used to jusify the death of a million more..

We want truth

We want justice

The towers were clearly brought down with small, subterranean, preplanted nuclear demolition devices.
No physical power is capable of explaining all the phenomena at 9/11.

The hitting planes were separate phenomena, so the jet fuel discussion is pointless.
Dont get distracted.

I'm not sure the jet fuel argument isn't that a plane cannot damage the integrity of a building. It's that the damage 9/11 had seemed much more significant, and building 7 sustained minimal damage, but completely destroyed from this damage it took, from 'falling debris' but no other building near the wtc sustained enough damage to spontaneously collapse and also has the name 'world trade' in it, so there is absolutely something unsettling about it, and to be as ignorant to call the 'truth movement' a conspiracy is a sad day when joe blow has no idea anyway but the details fall into such a line. A lot of records were broke that day.


Anyway, the point isn't ultimately the argument over steel beams, that itself is an argument from long ago that devolved from the argument of how much damage the plane did to the tower, and if that damage is enough to cause it to spontaneously collapse hours later. The fact it's a plane and the initial velocity doesn't move the tower much, but ultimately causes it to be completely destroyed from fire an hour later is confusing to think about why they didn't just use a bomb in the first place if it's that easy to take the whole thing down.

To some extent the tower was designed against fire, and was collapsed by fire. Parts of the tower not even hit by the plane fell at 'freefall' speed with the entirety of the tower. It's not just that the plane hit it and caused a pancake effect, but literally such a perfect one it devices your eyes if that's truly what happened. No part of the tower was able to withstand the force of above it. The force above it part isn't that hard to understand, it's that NO PART of the tower withstood it. That is the part that seems uncommon.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Its refreshing to see someone keep an open mind about this subject and go where the evidence leads.

You may like this video too.


It is a NatGeo test to see if jet fuel alone would cause a steal I-beam to fail.

It failed in under 4 mins.

a reply to: purplemer

Would you like to link to the report.

And explain AE 9/11 Truth being forced into fizzle no flash explosives.

And explain why all buckeled columns and sheared floor connections show failure by overloading.

No evidence by failure modes and metallurgical analysis the WTC steel was worked on by demolitions.

Again, in the video in this thread shows the buckling that lead to collapse.

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

There is no sign of a pressure wave from a detonation that would cut steel. No disturbance in the smoke, no windows blown out, no building cladding blown out, no signs of shrapnel. There are no flashes, no sparks and flames by thermite, no signs of molten steel.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Think about the fire ball. It wants to be a sphere. The jets hits, the tanks rupture, the fuel vaporized and expanded along all paths of least resistance. That same fire ball is going to go down any breached elevator shaft it can find. The fuel vapor would expand in all directions of least resistance, and igniting as it finds new sources of oxygen.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

As the building started to fail, the loads shifted. The building started to lean because of the redistribution. However, gravity was pulling down stright into the earth the entire time. Once loads shift and columns buckeled where the potential energy could be changed to kinetic energy, the major force was still gravity. Once offset enough from the vertical columns to cause collapse, why wouldn't the falling upper floors be pulled down straight by gravity. There was no side force to push them over. And after the upper sections fell into the towers for few floors, why wouldn't the vertical columns act like guides? The vertical columns were left standing after the entire floor system collapsed.