How people respond to 9/11 evidence counter to the official conspiracy theory

a reply to: kyleplatinum

You are confusing the vertical columns becoming less massive with height. And the upper stories of the towers did not break through the columns below the areas of buckling that initiated the collapse. What you are not getting is the floors hanging off the vertical columns did not change in mass / composition by height. The 12th story tenant floor had the same design, composition, mass as the 102nd story tenant floor.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Again, your arguments are moot. The buckling was initiated by the geometry of the bowing vertical columns. The falling 29 floors, or 11 floors, broke through floor to column connections. The falling upper stories did no break through the vertical columns which only fell in the wake of the collapsing floor system as documented by video evidence.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Why would you make a floor hanging off the vertical columns at the 12th floor more massive than the 105th floor hanging off the vertical columns?

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I am countering YOUR arguement that you keep posting over and over and over again.

repeating over and over that you don't believe their theory or my theory which doesn't even exist is not countering/refuting anything

its just exposing something

What is it exposing?

And so far i have refuted:

- Law inforcment sent officers and agents that specially trained in explosives to seek for and rule out planted explosives. That is not true.

- the the claim that the building buckled inward anywhere accept where the plane entered the building which bent the structural members inward. I posted video and images of wall being pushed outward. So that was not true

- Crush-down/Crush-up. Neutflux keeps posting from papers written by Bazant and Bazant is an idiot whos theories are not supported by video and images

- I refruted that all professionals agree with the stress/buckling/collapse theory as they were given no other option.

-I also refruted that a theory that is backed by a bunch of private instututions makes it true. That does not make it true.

Theres probably more but my lunch break is nearly over.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Crush-down/Crush-up. Neutflux keeps posting from papers written by Bazant and Bazant is an idiot whos theories are not supported by video and images

This is ridiculous, quote the posts in this thread that I quoted Bazant?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Crush-down/Crush-up. Neutflux keeps posting from papers written by Bazant and Bazant is an idiot whos theories are not supported by video and images

This is ridiculous, quote the posts in this thread that I quoted Bazant?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Sorry, thought it was only authord by Yong Zhou.

Would you like to actually refute the paper, or just make false allegations of who is an idiot.

And please list another root cause that is found more credible that fire / thermal stress by the American Welding society, ANSI, NFPA, AIA, collages, and universities.

I do apologize about Bazant. I am a interested on how you accept an apology?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Crush-down/Crush-up. Neutflux keeps posting from papers written by Bazant and Bazant is an idiot whos theories are not supported by video and images

But the video evidence does show buckling is what lead to the towes collapse. And the American Welding Society that documents the tower floors were torn from the columns, not cut.

Just Incase you forgot. Are they idiots too?

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: kyleplatinum

Yes, really. It's common knowledge.

yeah "its common knowledge"

I swear some stuff said on ATS is so amusing and concerning at the same time.

Its common knowledge, a list of the weights of 110 floors for both buildings?

That is common knowledge?

The thickness of steel changed the floor system weights at different heights of the tower.

Yes and?

You are welcome to list who gravity's helper was.

You are welcome to learn how to follow a conversation and how to read.


Its been posted and then told where it was posted again after you asked before.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

I posted video and images of wall being pushed outward. So that was not true

What you posted was the tilting of the building before collapse as reference by the sources I cited. I asked you to cite a source what you are confusing with the titling of the building is a wall being pushed out.

I have cited different sources and video the vertical columns were bowing inward before collapse at the areas of buckling leading to collapse.

Please cite a source other than yourself the wall was being pushed out, that what you posted wasn’t the title of the building attributed to buckling before collapse, and what that has to do with the actual areas of inward bowing and actual areas of inward buckling that initiated collapse?

And I think I asked you to post evidence of columns buckling outward from the building. All video evidence shows the areas that initiated the collapse being drawn into the building. Not out.

Are you actually going to cite a source, or just play the BS card with no actual proof? No actual debate?

a reply to: InhaleExhale

You are confused.

No worries.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: InhaleExhale

You are confused.

No worries.

It started here on page 11.

you posted this

So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once.

in which I replied with this a few posts later on the same page

gravity combined with the kinetic energy created by all the tonnes of building that was above coming down.

Then on page 15 you say this again in a reply to me

Gravity was not enough to destroy the buildings and accelerate a mass through them. Gravity alone would result in a deceleration.

to which i replied with this on page 17.

Who ever said it was gravity alone? In my last post I explained and here you are again "gravity cant do this or that"

I should have said in an earlier post to you as it wasn't my last one but the 2nd last reply to you where I mentioned that gravity + the energy created by the top of the building.

and then you reply with this asking again what was already posted, you just ignore it.

You are welcome to list who gravity's helper was.

Thanks

already done.

You are confused. No worries.

yeah confused why I bother with 9/11 threads when they are all the same nonsense and end up the same, being completely off topic because if its the towers that are being discussed then someone has to bring up the Pentagon and how that hole is too small or something there abouts.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

I am surprised the old argument the government planted bombs at the towers because cell phone calls from jets hasn’t been played yet? Or because somebody claims seeing a white jet?

a reply to: neutronflux

cell phone calls from jets hasn’t been played yet?

That cycle doesn't start until next week.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Several reasons.

1) 2 planes, 3 buildings.
2) Only 3 steel skyscrapers have ever collapsed due to structural fires... all 3 were in NYC on 9/11/01.
3) Again, what about WTC 7? Assuming some miraculous previously-unknown science allowed jet fuel + explosions + whatever else to melt steel beams, why did WTC 7 come down?
4) Why do so many "training exercises" happen to be occurring when these "events" happen (not just on 9/11, but several other doubtful events as well, including several "mass shootings")?
5) Why was the 9/11 commission effectively neutered?
6) Why is there still classified information RE: 9/11 to this date?
7) Why did the conservative think tank (new american century or something like that) state just months before 9/11 that a "new pearl harbor" was needed to ensure our military primacy in the 21st century?
8) Why was 9/11 constantly used as a justification to step on our Constitutional rights in the name of safety? Think NSA spying revelations.
9) Where is the FULL video from the Pentagon "strike" ? The video they released is poor quality, and does not show an aircraft. It shows some type of projectile/body impacting the Pentagon. Meanwhile, a Pentagon gas-station across the way had its video seized but never released. If the story is true, why not release it and prove us wrong?

Besides, government simply isn't trustworthy enough (especially in the hands of neo-cons) to take them at their word. My philosophy is: proof or you're lying

The very minimal threat terrorism poses does not warrant stepping on the Constitution. No threat is worth stepping on the Constitution, for any reason. No number of lives saved nor people who sleep easier at night is worth destroying the SINGULAR thing that makes our nation so great: our Constitution.

a reply to: JBurns

1) 2 planes, 3 buildings.
2) Only 3 steel skyscrapers have ever collapsed due to structural fires... all 3 were in NYC on 9/11/01.
3) Again, what about WTC 7? Assuming some miraculous previously-unknown science allowed jet fuel + explosions + whatever else to melt steel beams, why did WTC 7 come down?
4) Why do so many "training exercises" happen to be occurrin

If these are your foundation for 911 then you are not thinking clearly.

a reply to: JBurns

"9) Where is the FULL video from the Pentagon "strike" ? The video they released is poor quality, and does not show an aircraft. It shows some type of projectile/body impacting the Pentagon. Meanwhile, a Pentagon gas-station across the way had its video seized but never released. If the story is true, why not release it and prove us wrong? "




www.youtube.com...

It was released years ago.....and it shows........THE GAS STATION.

Wont read what has been rehashed for decades now..... my take when somebody tells me the official story:

1)Yep the Mighty USA are idiots, because their east coast with all the airpower and military might could not stop 2 airliners and its crash in the most heavily populated area in the East coast.
2)They can't defend themselves and neither can construct good buildings, and they fall alone with a lowly fire in some floors after just a few hours, with NO PLANE crash.
3)They can't defend the Pentagon, even after being attacked in NY.
4)Some guys with flight simulator and cutters could do something not even Jack Reacher, or Chuck Norris could pull off as perfect.
5)The fact that GWB did not go into a secure area after being told they were being attacked and stayed in the school is for me the biggest evidence it was all part of a government sponsored attack.

Believe what you want but someday in the future, the truth will be known.

a reply to: kix

Like the might of the USA stopping drug smuggling and human trafficking? How many law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty ever year? Why can’t the might USA stop law enforcement from being killed?

Ever think it may have taken a civilian request to involve fighter jets to engage passenger jets on 9/11? How many times does the military seen up fighter jets for a crashed jet? What was the time line for people realizing hijackers were uncharacteristically crashing jet in purpose and notifying the NORAD?

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The Planes

www.popularmechanics.com...

And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

a reply to: JBurns

Conspiracists cannot even get the simplest things right?

1) 2 planes, 3 buildings.

Try 2 planes and at least 7 buildings?

911research.wtc7.net...

The seven World Trade Center buildings were in the two blue regions of the map to the right. On September 11th, all 7 buildings were destroyed. 110-story WTC 1 and 2, and 47-story WTC 7 were leveled, and WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6 were severely damaged, with large portions of WTC 3, 4, and 6 being crushed.