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

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Still waiting on you to quote from people in this thread to validate your claim somebody is supporting the “official narrative.” Just another straw man argument by a conspiracist?

Sorry you don’t understand evidence from conspiracy fantasy.

Please do state a theory to supersede that impact / fire / thermal stress damage is the cause of the witnessed vertical column buckling that initiated collapse of the towers as captured on video.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Why would there be buckling and plums of pressure being forced out of the building... approx.15 stories above the impact?

What are you ranting about?

Is this where you try to make people jump with vague references? Innuendo? And random out of context references? Because you will not take the time to create a structured argument?

While you will not take a stand on a theory to supersede that impact / fire / thermal stress damage is the cause of the witnessed vertical column buckling that initiated collapse of the towers as captured on video.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
How about someone that supports the official story (maybe NIST?) produce a visual reinactment of what they believe happened.

I mean, if its all so irrefutable, it should be easy to visualize therefore easy to visually display.

Here is quick search. Let me know which one I should watch to help me come to terms with what the OS is pushing.

Let me know. If Im not post-banned by then..

This is case closed.

There is no visual reinactment of the WTC collapse and there likely never will.

Good night neverland!!

a reply to: MALBOSIA

What case is closed? You haven’t even cited an alternative to impact / fire / thermal stress damage induced changes in the towers’ structure causing load redistribution changing the structures geometry resulting in vertical column buckling initiating collapse.

Yes, the case is closed if you don’t offer an alternative to how the towers collapsed?

And still waiting on you to actual quote a person from this thread for you to validate your claims of supporting NIST? Or is that just more innuendo by you to distract from the the nature of the jet impacts and fire, video, audio, physical, seismic evidence is not conclusive to alternate collapse theories?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

There is no visual reinactment of the WTC collapse and there likely never will.

Why do you need a “visual reenactment”? When there is video of the jet impacts? Video and audio of the building collapse from different angles? Seismic evidence? Numerous photos and videos of the WTC cleanup, rubble, and structural steel. I think there is even infrared video of one of the towers? Hell, there is even displays of the WTC steel throughout the USA? Funny, the truth movement claims it was all sent to China?

Because reality does not support unfounded conspiracy theories?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

As to the outward bowing? Are you talking about the tower to the right in the pictures? The tower where the impact zone from the jet was about 29 floors down? If so, you seem to be confused. The upper portion of tower is reported to have started to twist and lean before collapse. Is that false? So, do your pictures show bowing or leaning?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

The tower was leaning. You are pushing the lean as outward bowing? It explains why you can only claim one side is bowing out. Not the biggest fan of NIST. But conspiracists like to use NIST data like collapse speed as established fact? Is that false?

This is from the quoted material below, “
considers the tilting of WTC 2 prior to its collapse.”

AN ANALYSIS OF THE TIPPING OF THE UPPER SECTION OF WTC 2 By
F.R. Greening
www.911myths.com...

A recent article entitled: “A Discussion of the Final NIST Report on the Collapse of WTC Buildings 1 and 2”, (available in pdf format on 911Myths.com), considers the tilting of WTC 2 prior to its collapse and notes that a 2 tilt of the upper section is the largest possible pre-collapse angle that is consistent with video and photographic observations of WTC 2. Thus, as the video evidence clearly shows, the NIST Final Report greatly exaggerates the pre-collapse tilt angle of WTC 2.

Break

5.0 Summary and Conclusions
The collapse of WTC 2 began with a tilting or rotational motion of the upper section of the Tower about a “hinge” at the 80th floor. This rotational motion, which commenced at a tilt angle  2, was caused by an almost instantaneous multi-column failure that eliminated the structural support on one side of WTC 2 near the impact zone. Once set in motion, the upper block moved with a nearly “free” rotational trajectory of a body pivoting under the constant force of gravity. This behavior was sustained at tilt angles up to about 25. Thereafter the motion of the block changed somewhat although the suggestion that the tilting suddenly stopped is not correct.
What appears to happen is that the tilting upper section was continuously crushed near the 80th floor by its own momentum so that the rotation was no longer that of a rigid body. Eventually the "hinge" at the northeast corner failed and the descending block took on a more vertical motion. Interestingly, once the hinge failed, and the pivot became frictionless, the motion of the center of gravity is predicted to become vertical, causing a shift in the rotational axis. Unfortunately, however, details of this stage of the WTC 2 collapse were obscured by smoke, dust and flying debris.

Video of tilt “a split second before collapse started”

WTC2 Initial Tilt with Draft Overlay
m.youtube.com...

WTC2 #1 Rotated
m.youtube.com...

The tower was starting to lean a split second before collapse.

Please cite a source in the context “It proves an outward force a split second before collapse started.” Not what you pictured is a tilt in a 2-d photo.

And still waiting on proof of a single vertical column that buckeled towards the outside of the tower? As opposed to the vertical columns buckled in towards the interior of the tower because that was the direction the vertical columns were pulled.

And still waiting on you to quote a single person that is defending NIST in this thread?

a reply to: neutronflux

I think you should spend 11 minutes watching this video made by experts in there field on what happened to the buildings, but I know you wont.

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: neutronflux
Video of tilt “a split second before collapse started”

WTC2 Initial Tilt with Draft Overlay
m.youtube.com...

WTC2 #1 Rotated
m.youtube.com...

The tower was starting to lean a split second before collapse.

Please cite a source in the context “It proves an outward force a split second before collapse started.” Not what you pictured is a tilt in a 2-d photo.

And still waiting on proof of a single vertical column that buckeled towards the outside of the tower? As opposed to the vertical columns buckled in towards the interior of the tower because that was the direction the vertical columns were pulled.

And still waiting on you to quote a single person that is defending NIST in this thread?

Those clips show where the plane entered the building. Yes? That area woukd be bent inwards. The plane as a whole did not fly OUT of the building, you that right?



Oppisite of where the plane entered, the exterior members bent outward.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Can you cite a source. It looks like you are showing the twist and tilt of the tower as this quoted in the link below.

www.911myths.com...

The rotation of the upper section of WTC 2 is clearly visible in the video and photographic record of 9-11 and was discussed by Bazant and Zhou, (B & Z), in one of the first studies of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2: “Why did the World Trade Center Collapse?” published in the September 2001 issue of Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Please cite a source what you are pass off is outward bending of the actual vertical columns? No tilt and twist in a 2-d photo.

And provide evidence the actual buckling of the vertical columns was not driven inward as shown in video, but buckeled out away from the towers’ interior?

And there is no evidence of a detonation with a shock wave capable of cutting columns. No ejection before collapse.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

To remind people that what is being pushed by bullies that supporr the OS is merely a theory and its ok to think for themselves.

Pushed by bullies?


about 1 percent of all 9/11 thread are in support of the official story,


every other of the 100000000000s of thread about 9/11 are pushing lasers, holograms, demolitions whatever else is under the sun conspiracy wise concerning inside jobs and what not.

Bullies pushing in your opinion are posters that find nonsense and point it out.

Is there 1 real posters on ATS that supports everything surrounding the official account?

One would have to be an idiot to think so, many find how its explained to fit quite well but whats really messy is the foreknowledge, how specific were the warnings received from numerous sources concerning a massive attack impending, all the bits and pieces about what was happening before 9/11 can point to some sort of inside job or at least a hand/hands from the inside of the US gov. or an allied Gov. that helped keep a miscommunication between agencies or helped in orchestrating a plan of attack for after the event, disinfo to keep people interested in demolitions and what not.

There is so much to go on but its demolitions most are focused on when if you watch the towers go down and watch other controlled demolitions they do look similar if you are being lead by a you tube narrator,


get rid of the bias or do the opposite and find a comparisons video where the narrators points out the differences for you to see because it seems most conspiracy theorist are parrots and need things fed to them.


All it takes is about half an hour, even less if one is observant enough.


A controlled demolition is controlled and the collapse begins at the base of the building, the towers is clear where the collapse starts and is obvious why it starts from where they do.

Its such a simple observational task for anyone to do that has an interest in 9/11 conspiracies.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

The plane as a whole did not fly OUT of the building, you that right?

As a whole, no. But there was an exit hole.

www.metabunk.org...

When United Flight 175 hit World Trade Center Tower 2 on 9/11 some large parts of it passed through the building and landed in the streets to the north.

Flight 175 cut heavenly into the corner of the tower?

Aircraft Impact Damage Tomasz Wierzbicki
Professor of Applied Mechanics, MIT
Liang Xue
Ph.D. Candidate of Ocean Engineering, MIT
Meg Hendry-Brogan
Undergraduate student of Ocean Engineering, MIT


web.mit.edu...

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.

Break


Location of damaged zone: From the trajectory of the aircraft impacting the South Tower described in Figure 4. it is clear that the impacts of aircraft were not symmetric with respect to the centroids of the tower’s cross-section. Both the outside columns and the inner columns were destroyed in asymmetric manners, and thus the locations of the centroid of the cross- section was shifted considerably. (See Figure 22 center) Therefore, an overturning moment, due to the gravity load, was immediately created, leading to non-uniform distribution of the load over the core and peripheral columns.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Can you cite a source. It looks like you are showing the twist and tilt of the tower as this quoted in the link below.

www.911myths.com...

The rotation of the upper section of WTC 2 is clearly visible in the video and photographic record of 9-11 and was discussed by Bazant and Zhou, (B & Z), in one of the first studies of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2: “Why did the World Trade Center Collapse?” published in the September 2001 issue of Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Please cite a source what you are pass off is outward bending of the actual vertical columns? No tilt and twist in a 2-d photo.

And provide evidence the actual buckling of the vertical columns was not driven inward as shown in video, but buckeled out away from the towers’ interior?

And there is no evidence of a detonation with a shock wave capable of cutting columns. No ejection before collapse.

I dont read anything by Bazant. Hes a flagrant idiot.

originally posted by: myss427
a reply to: neutronflux

I think you should spend 11 minutes watching this video made by experts in there field on what happened to the buildings, but I know you wont.

www.youtube.com...

List their strongest talking point? I know you probably won’t post anything specific to see if it holds up to actual scrutiny, evidence, and science?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Can you cite a source. It looks like you are showing the twist and tilt of the tower as this quoted in the link below.

www.911myths.com...

The rotation of the upper section of WTC 2 is clearly visible in the video and photographic record of 9-11 and was discussed by Bazant and Zhou, (B & Z), in one of the first studies of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2: “Why did the World Trade Center Collapse?” published in the September 2001 issue of Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Please cite a source what you are pass off is outward bending of the actual vertical columns? No tilt and twist in a 2-d photo.

And provide evidence the actual buckling of the vertical columns was not driven inward as shown in video, but buckeled out away from the towers’ interior?

And there is no evidence of a detonation with a shock wave capable of cutting columns. No ejection before collapse.

I dont read anything by Bazant. Hes a flagrant idiot.

Did I quote Bazant?

AN ANALYSIS OF THE TIPPING OF THE UPPER SECTION OF WTC 2 By
F.R. Greening

www.911myths.com...

a reply to: myss427

spend 11 minutes watching this video made by experts in there field on what happened to the buildings, but I know you wont.

www.youtube.com...

The video was NOT made by experts in their field.
It's a collage put together by some youtuber.
If you can't tell the difference then you are likely to be taken in by conspiracy theories.

a reply to: samkent

Please show me where the 2 x 110 stories of building are? See the pic of the two towers lowered to ground level with small amounts of rubble around them, with building 7 still in the background before it fell! Theres not almost 1 million tones of debree lying around or neatly stacked in a basements, the aerial shots show that. Or did they fake the images? Most of the rubble around looks as its from the other 4 buildings that were heavily damaged.

originally posted by: myss427
a reply to: samkent

Please show me where the 2 x 110 stories of building are? See the pic of the two towers lowered to ground level with small amounts of rubble around them, with building 7 still in the background before it fell! Theres not almost 1 million tones of debree lying around or neatly stacked in a basements, the aerial shots show that. Or did they fake the images? Most of the rubble around looks as its from the other 4 buildings that were heavily damaged.

Oh, you are one of those people that will keep posting the same debunked item as if it’s the first time every time.....

I think this was posted for you to counter once before?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

archive.is...

Some conspiracy theorists claim that large amounts of the buildings were unaccounted for by the size of the rubble pile. Since only 12% of the building volume was solid, the towers should collapse into a pile 12% of the original height of the building, or just about 50 meters high. Since 18 meters of that pile would be filling the basement, the above-ground portion would be 32 meters high.

The actual rubble pile reached the fifth story of adjacent buildings, so well outside the footprint of the tower the pile was five stories, or about 15 meters high. The pile would have been roughly conical, and would have included a lot of void space, increasing its height and offsetting the larger diameter of the pile. Overall the rubble pile is what you'd expect.

So it simply isn't true that the rubble pile is only a small percentage of what would be expected. Some conspiracy sites allege that the rubble pile is only 5% of what would be expected. Others use a figure of 33% as the height of a rubble pile relative to the original building and then argue that the pile should have been 140 or so meters high. But when Controlled Demolition Inc. (www.controlled-demolition.com...) dropped a 23-story, 439-foot (134 m) building in Detroit in 1997, they ended up with a pile averaging 35 feet high (11 m) and a maximum of 60 feet (18 m) high. The rubble pile was an average of 8% of the height of the original building and a maximum of 14%. Scaling that up to the World Trade Center, we get heights of 33 to 58 meters. In other words, the rubble pile at the World Trade Center is totally in line with other large building collapses. 33% may work for a small building a few stories high, but a large building will compress the debris pile a lot more and also fill void spaces more effectively with pulverized debris.

a reply to: myss427

Most of the rubble around looks as its from the other 4 buildings that were heavily damaged.

So is your claim it was all CG?
All the first responders are lying?
Even the ones who lost their own brothers?

With big claims you need big proof.