The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

a reply to: Jesushere

There was reports of the walls bulging before collapse. The Penthouse caused distortions in the facade. Didn’t you post something on there was a visible effect of the penthouse seen in the windows and facade. So, did you contradict yourself again? The collapse started internationally from one end to the other of the building before the collapse of the facade. The collapse was slower, with less potential energy than the 110 story towers, the collapse of WTC 7 was from the buckling of internal columns losing lateral support, the towers’ collapse was from the buckling of outer columns.

And this was the topic you were not changing.....

Because there is no evidence of CD. There is no evidence concerning thermite.

Again, just for you. The below link contains the moment WTC 2 initiate its collapse.



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

www.metabunk.org...


The columns are clearly bowing in then buckled.

No evidence of a detention with the force to cut steel.

No evidence of a shockwave from explosives.

No evidence of thermite working on the columns.

No evidence of a dropped core.

No evidence of columns being cut.

There was reports of the towers buckling before collapse. Columns buckling right there in the video evidence.

Absolutely no evidence columns cut or melted

mrthumpy that the onset of full collapse. Do you even know what NIST states happened?

They are claiming before this 47 floors on the east section and middle section had already collapsed down inside the building, before the onset of full collapse.

Big problem. There no visual evidence of dust plumes and smoke and debris breaking windows and escaping through walls. I

waypastvne You have to provide evidence for this claim show me a photo or video of this. Do you think Dust plumes only go one direction?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

There was reports of the walls bulging before collapse. The Penthouse caused distortions in the facade. Didn’t you post something on there was a visible effect of the penthouse seen in the windows and facade. So, did you contradict yourself again? The collapse started internationally from one end to the other of the building before the collapse of the facade. The collapse was slower, with less potential energy than the 110 story towers, the collapse of WTC 7 was from the buckling of internal columns losing lateral support, the towers’ collapse was from the buckling of outer columns.

And this was the topic you were not changing.....

Because there is no evidence of CD. There is no evidence concerning thermite.

Again, just for you. The below link contains the moment WTC 2 initiate its collapse.



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

www.metabunk.org...


The columns are clearly bowing in then buckled.

No evidence of a detention with the force to cut steel.

No evidence of a shockwave from explosives.

No evidence of thermite working on the columns.

No evidence of a dropped core.

No evidence of columns being cut.

There was reports of the towers buckling before collapse. Columns buckling right there in the video evidence.

Absolutely no evidence columns cut or melted

NIST computer sim of progressive collapse does not resemble the actual collapse. You even see on the NIST model exterior buckling of the west and a middle roofline that never occurred. Floors collapsing would pull in exterior walls but that not what happened. The building descended when the building 82 columns got removed. The Penthouse sits over core columns on the east side it got taken out and fell in, then 5 to 6 seconds later the building descended because the columns were already removed so it went into freefall.

a reply to: Jesushere

You

They are claiming before this 47 floors on the east section and middle section had already collapsed down inside the building, before the onset of full collapse.

This is more of a problem if you believe in explosives.

Why would collapse from thermal stress shearing floor connections make more or less dust and visible effects than any other methods?

You might want to think what your implying in the ways it pertains to CD, and how you grasping at straws in the desperation for a smoking gun contradicts your theory.

What made the penthouse sink into the building and the resulting visual effects on the facade? Why was there not more dust, smoke, visible light if it was the result was caused by pyrotechnics?


Your argument is more of a problem for CD if your implying a sudden onset of collapse by pyrotechnics than a progressive east to west collapse by failing floor connections.

originally posted by: Jesushere


Big problem. There no visual evidence of dust plumes and smoke and debris breaking windows and escaping through walls. I

OK, just ignmore the video then

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

There was reports of the walls bulging before collapse. The Penthouse caused distortions in the facade. Didn’t you post something on there was a visible effect of the penthouse seen in the windows and facade. So, did you contradict yourself again? The collapse started internationally from one end to the other of the building before the collapse of the facade. The collapse was slower, with less potential energy than the 110 story towers, the collapse of WTC 7 was from the buckling of internal columns losing lateral support, the towers’ collapse was from the buckling of outer columns.

And this was the topic you were not changing.....

Because there is no evidence of CD. There is no evidence concerning thermite.

Again, just for you. The below link contains the moment WTC 2 initiate its collapse.



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

www.metabunk.org...


The columns are clearly bowing in then buckled.

No evidence of a detention with the force to cut steel.

No evidence of a shockwave from explosives.

No evidence of thermite working on the columns.

No evidence of a dropped core.

No evidence of columns being cut.

There was reports of the towers buckling before collapse. Columns buckling right there in the video evidence.

Absolutely no evidence columns cut or melted

NIST computer sim of progressive collapse does not resemble the actual collapse. You even see on the NIST model exterior buckling of the west and a middle roofline that never occurred. Floors collapsing would pull in exterior walls but that not what happened. The building descended when the building 82 columns got removed. The Penthouse sits over core columns on the east side it got taken out and fell in, then 5 to 6 seconds later the building descended because the columns were already removed so it went into freefall.

And yet it is closer than the WTC 7 evaluation model....

How is that AE backed study coming along? Vs it’s stated goals and release date. Talk about a fraudulent claim from it’s original stated goals.

neutronflux When you blow columns you have less dust and debris. Columns are only a small element in the building but they hold it up and keep it sturdy.

47 floors came down crashing will result in massive dust plumes and debris shooting out from windows and walls.

mrthumpy I did not ignore this that dust plumes when the building collapsed down fully. CD was involved.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere
neutronfluX Not trying to change the subject.

WTC7 was brought down by CD then it highly the Twin Towers met the same fate, we agree on that.

What 9/11 Skeptics seemly have not noticed. When the Twin Towers internal floor structures collapsed that gave rise to huge dust plumes and debris bursting through windows and walls

I guess none of you Skeptics noticed 47 collapsing floors inside WTC7 resulted in no huge dust plumes or deformation of walls? Do you think floors that are connected to exterior walls would not deform those walls? Where the dust, debris, smoke from 47 floors collapsing go the Twilight zone the moon mars where exactly? Why did this dust not break windows?

I see dust plumes, deformation, smoke and breaking windows

youtu.be...

You also see on the second clip on the video when WTC 7 is collapsing it starts to fall towards the side which was damaged by the North Tower collapse.

The picture below shows the elevation not damaged by the collapse of the North Tower ON TOP of the debris pile.

originally posted by: Jesushere
neutronflux When you blow columns you have less dust and debris. Columns are only a small element in the building but they hold it up and keep it sturdy.

47 floors came down crashing will result in massive dust plumes and debris shooting out from windows and walls.

False. You would have the dust from the collapse inherent to a collapse from say an earthquake, plus the dust from detonations.

Building implosion below with dust before collapse despite use of shrapnel traps.

GoPro: Building Demolition
m.youtube.com...

Implosion free building collapse

Building Collapse On Camera - Mexico City - 7.1 Magnitude Earthquake
m.youtube.com...

Building Collapse during Mexico City Earthquake
m.youtube.com...

Building collapsing in Mexico City during 7.1 Earthquake (9/19/2017)
m.youtube.com...

Building collapses after earthquake
m.youtube.com...

Earthquake causes building to collapse
m.youtube.com...

Earthquake footage of collapsing buildings show there was no abnormal dust for WTC 7.

Do you have anymore false arguments?

a reply to: Jesushere

Plasco" Building Collapses in Tehran (another view)
m.youtube.com...

Was there not enough dust in the Plasco collapse?

a reply to: Jesushere

Not enough dust in the below collapse either?

Dozens killed in Nigeria church building collapse
m.youtube.com...

neutronflux You showing me concrete buildings? That your proof? Some of the buildings are only two floors high too?

neutronflux Why are you showing me buildings collapsing down? Do you not understand the NIST study of WTC7?

a reply to: Jesushere

I am sorry that you don’t understand by example there was nothing unusual by the dust created by WTC 7.

And, I did I nclude the video of the high rise steel building collapse of the Plasco Building?

This statement betrayed you

neutronflux You showing me concrete buildings? That your proof? Some of the buildings are only two floors high too?

Why would steel floor connections make crazy amounts of dust. Why would steel buckling create crazy amounts of dust. The videos I posted clearly shows the majority of dust is created when the floors and buildings crash against the ground. Not before.

And the video of the implosion I included showed how explosives would have created dust clouds which are not present in the WTC 7 collapse. Especially in the context that WTC 7 did not have any traps constructed to prevent ejected debris like a controlled demolition.

a reply to: Jesushere

Again. You create blatantly false arguments using items out of context. And totally disregarding what is actually posted.

a reply to: Jesushere

Must be sad only trying to use word games to prove CD in the total absence of CD from the video, audio, photo, seismic, medical, metal, material evidence.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

I am sorry that you don’t understand by example there was nothing unusual by the dust created by WTC 7.

And, I did I nclude the video of the high rise steel building collapse of the Plasco Building?

This statement betrayed you

neutronflux You showing me concrete buildings? That your proof? Some of the buildings are only two floors high too?

Why would steel floor connections make crazy amounts of dust. Why would steel buckling create crazy amounts of dust. The videos I posted clearly shows the majority of dust is created when the floors and buildings crash against the ground. Not before.

And the video of the implosion I included showed how explosives would have created dust clouds which are not present in the WTC 7 collapse. Especially in the context that WTC 7 did not have any traps constructed to prevent ejected debris like a controlled demolition.

You need to think about what NIST is claiming happened.
You think 47 entire floors collapsing inside WTC7 would not produce dust plumes and rocketing debris in every direction? You ignoring when the Twin Towers collapsed internally dust ejected out from all corners of the buildings.

47 floors collapsing means everything and everything on those floors came tumbling down prior to full collapse.

NIST report has two different events happening. Progressive collapse and then full collapse the main building falling down later.

Your videos are only highlighted full collapses. WTC7 is not a home or building made of concrete.

You see the columns breaking when the building fell on the westside. The windows broke from the bottom up to the top.

a reply to: Jesushere

Again, why would breaking steel floor connections make large amounts of dust? Again, example after example has been provided that the most dust created is either from the detonation of explosives, when the floor system impacts the ground, or when the building hits the ground.

Sorry, you failed to make your case again. Especially in the sense of supposed CD and that WTC 7 had no traps to catch ejected materials from detonations.

Nice when you debunk yourself.

neutronflux It, not just steel beams and girders collapsing. You have desks, cabinet, chairs, on every floor coming down with the floors. Imagine the inside of WTC7 and every floor coming down before the full collapse? Do you think dust plumes would not blow forward and try to escape through walls and windows on the north side face?

NIST released the draft of the final report in Aug 2008 and claimed WTC7 did not experience freefall. For freefall to occur according to NIST it would be instant and improbable as there was structural resistance underneath. 9/11 Skeptics have ignored this part of 9/11 history as it if it not relevant. Right there they admitting that their analysis and modelling of WTC7 showed resistance underneath during the collapse.

It well known now David Chandler questions this and NIST in NOV 2008 came out and admitted freefall for 2.25 seconds during an 8-floor collapse. They now had a new theory the progressive collapse occurred in three stages. Stage 2 with freefall. They still hanging on during stage 2 the columns were buckling and provided slight support. This just not right if freefall occurred the columns were no longer there to provide any support to the load from above.