New 911 Evidence Solves Unanswered Questions

a reply to: turbonium1

No evidence? Here is a report and documentation on how the floor connects to columns failed?

app.aws.org...

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers

The modes on how the floor connects were broken and sheared from the columns is documented? How does that support planted explosives?

a reply to: turbonium1

No evidence? There are not multiple audio and video recordings of the towers’ collapse? Seismic data?

originally posted by: seagull
This theory, if one can grant it such a title, has been around since nearly Day one, in one form or another.

Nukes? Really?

There are so many things wrong with this "theory".

The heat pulse? Where?

The radiation? Where?

[bBig, fast, at a good percentage of the Speed of Sound, moving planes hit the buildings. The impact, and the fuel driven fires, resulted in the catastrophic failure of the buildings.

That too is a theory. NIST is apparently not supported by most members on this board that argue for the official theory of heat being the cause of the collapse.

There is not one single computer generated visual representation of any theory that heat from fires brought down the ENTIRE WTC 1 OR 2 towers. If you asked me why that is, its because it would take an hour and it woulf look rediculous. Everyone yaps about how heat could have buckled the first impacted floor but after that nobody wants to touch it.

I have seen pearl harbor reinacted in cinema a hundred times... I bet nobody touches the towers in cinema. You would need explosive charateristics in order to replicate the collapse even in fiction.

Who cares though. Who ever did it, it gave the US and the banking cartels reason to enforce their dominance that I personally live very comfortably thanks to it.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

I didn’t talk about computer models?

I am referring to the actual collapse video and the inward bowing of outer columns leading to buckling and the collapse. And the study that documents the actual failure mode of the floor connects.

So what truth movement theory better supports the structures collapse from buckling columns, and sheared / stretched floor connects?

Richard Gauge / AE mythical fizzle no flash bombs.

Jones and discredited thermite?

Holograms with lasers and or missiles?

Dustification?

Nukes with no supporting radioactive, contamination, or evidence of a blast?

Did a miss a theory championed by the truth movement?

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Willtell

The science that describes why and how the buildings fell is sound.

No it is not. That is false. What experiments were done to recreate it? NIST? I thought we all agreed they were full of sh!t. I get more comprehensive lab tests for metal ceiling panels. What you just said is total BS. Why are you so passionate about leading people to believe something is irrefutable when it is not?

If it wasn't then all these architects and engineers that have formed a group should have the maths to prove the calculations done when investigation wrong.


all the information id publicly available.


Over the years its been observed that the only ones that keep on about demolitions and what not are very easily manipulated, maybe they have their minds toooooo open.

Thats false too considering i personally am not even a little bit manipulated by the BS you are spewing

originally posted by: Salander
Yes, the strangely burned vehicles present a major problem for the NIST explanation. Hell, everything presents problems for the NIST explanation.

I knew there were hundreds of strangely burned vehicles, but not 1400. No surprise.

The nuclear theory is the only theory that solves all the problems, that accounts for all the damage seen, including that on FEMA photos.

911 First Responders have suffered sicknesses consistent with exposure to radiation. Jon Stewart talked about that on his show on Comedy Central. The Zadroga Bill attempted to address those statistically irregular sicknesses.

You cannot go after nuke theory. It derails the whole arguement that the responsibilty to prove something rests with those that used this a pretence to the longest war in history.

Show their theory is wrong on its own points. Dont introduce new theroies that can be argued and used to reason the official theory.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: toms54

And....

Still no audio, video, seismic evidence of detentions powerful enough to cut steel.

Didnt Labtop explain all this to you vividly in another thread and you conceeded that his evidence was too long and complicated and it was unfair to expect you to understand it? That was you right?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

How is citing actual documentation like the floor connects where sheared my own crazy theory?

What experiments were done to recreate it? NIST?

Why do you need experiments when you have the actual collapse on video. With audio. With seismic data? With no evidence of a detention with the force to cut steel? With metallurgy showing the steel was not worked on by demolitions.

Again, what truth movement theory has more merit than impact damage, thermal stress, buckling which is caught on video, caused the collapse of the towers?

So what truth movement theory better supports the structures collapse from buckling columns, and sheared / stretched floor connects?

Richard Gauge / AE mythical fizzle no flash bombs.

Jones and discredited thermite?

Holograms with lasers and or missiles?

Dustification?

Nukes with no supporting radioactive, contamination, or evidence of a blast?

Did a miss a theory championed by the truth movement?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: toms54

And....

Still no audio, video, seismic evidence of detentions powerful enough to cut steel.

Didnt Labtop explain all this to you vividly in another thread and you conceeded that his evidence was too long and complicated and it was unfair to expect you to understand it? That was you right?

You mean the individual stop posting after calling their bluff and never providing a rebuttal to:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let’s review.

The historical seismic activity shows a building collapse is expected to transmit Rayleigh waves.

Rayleigh waves would change in amplitude as items with different masses with different kinetic energy hit the ground.

“Underground explosions would have produced strong P waves” which are not present in the WTC seismic data.

I have produced evidence a building not properly prepared for an implosion by explosives would eject shrapnel. Shrapnel that would have sprayed bystanders, the street, and adjacent buildings. There is no evidence of shrapnel being ejected while the towers under went inward bowing of columns resulting in buckling leading to collapse.

The 1993 WTC bombing of 1000 pounds of explosives blow out at least one wall and caused substantial structural damage, but did not cause detectable siesmic activity 15 kilometers at a former seismic station. But you claimed LEDO recorded seismic activity from detonations at the WTC 31 kilometers away, but there is no audio or video evidence of detonations powerful enough to cut steel columns from footage of the collapse of the WTC towers? No evidence of ejected shrapnel during the buckling of the vertical columns?

To remain relevant, the biggest pusher of controlled demolition, Architects and Engineers, abandoned the narrative of kinetic detentions brought down the towers in favor of thermal cuttting devices?

You cite a seismic narrative debunked, abandoned by the biggest group pushing WTC CD, and ridiculed by other conspiracists.

There is no seismic evidence of conventional implosions at the WTC. Get over it.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Very simple. Cite from the audio, video, and evidence from the seismic record that should have strong p waves for an underground blast for planted charges at the WTC?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux

What evidence is there the towers collapsed because of planted explosives? Evidence consistent with with the video, audio, and seismic record.

We have no evidence of fires causing the initial collapses, first of all.

That's what the REAL evidence showed.

You have some gall to demand proof of anything!

Because the truth movement has a more likely cause?

Would you like to state the “real” evidence of planted charges that brought down the towers?

Then you explain what caused the inward bowing of the outer columns that lead to the columns buckling that initiated the collapse. The top of the towers above the buckling falling into the structure below. The moment of collapse initiation is seen in the video in the linked to thread below.

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

www.metabunk.org...

And the cause of collapse for you again. The jet impacts took out outer and core columns. The impacts knocked off fire insulation from the steel leaving it vulnerable to be heated and become pliable under load. The fires spread through the towers faster than what the towers were designed for. The remaining floor trusses became pliable under load and heat, and drooped. Upon cooling, they contracted and pulled on the outer columns. The pulling caused the columns to bow inward to the point the load above was not transferred to the foundation. The load was caught in the geometry of the bowing resulting in buckling leading to collapse.

Impact damage, heat, thermal stress, and contraction lead to the collapse of the towers. Do you have something that fits the audio, video, seismic evidence of the towers’ collapse better than inward bowing leading to collapse.

You don't get it....

The steel didn't weaken, from fires, at any point, in either building.

You can't argue the steel failed due to fires, because none of the steel failed from fires, that's a fact.

It doesn't matter what fireproofing was there, or not there, it's not relevant. It's whether or not the steel reached temps high enough to fail from the fires. None of the steel failed from fires, in fact.


Do you understand this, or do you choose to completely ignore it, and pretend it never existed?


Steel did not become 'pliable' in the structures, as proven by the steel evidence, itself.

The evidence shows you are making up a fantasy story. It didn't happen.


What DID happen will never be known, or proven - not for sure, anyway. That's because they didn't allow any further investigation after that point. Evidence is gone, forever. Thanks to these criminals.

You know that. Or you should know it, by now.


Don't ask for proof of explosives when you are ignoring all the steel evidence.

originally posted by: SecretsoftheBlueApples
Conjecture and PowerPoint slides turned into a YouTube video does not constitute evidence. How about big f'ing 757s loaded with Fuel crashing into big f'ing buildings.....how about that?

a reply to: DebtSlave

Thermal cameras show the REAL TEMPERATURE! What do you gotta say to that?

Watch the first 60 seconds of this video...

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: DebtSlave

Here is my source. Remember, this guy is a nuclear physicist, and not a video editor! Try to appreciate the video for it's information!

Its a video!


What new evidence is there?


Nukes have been speculated since it day 1 basically, we have 1 ATSers who bangs on about nukes at ground zero.


No logic of any rational thinking involved, only a view of the collapsing towers that makes a dust plum similar to a mushroom cloud.

And Nukes it is.

Look at the mushroom cloud of Building 7. Notice how it engulfs all of NYC?

If you seriously think this was all caused by jet fuel, watch September Clues and you will see that the planes were digital.

a reply to: stosh64

This is the first guy who can explain the dustification, rustification, and burning of the buildings and cars. His arguments are superb. The fact that you are taking his simple volcano analogy out of context only shows to me that you can't comprehend the more complicated points he makes.

a reply to: turbonium1

Quote where I said the steel failed. Outer columns buckled because of bowing because of drooping floor stresses contraction.

Thats wack! Because every degree steel heats up, it increasingly looses its ability to hold up load.

The long floor tresses with no mid span concrete supports made the towers more vulnerable.

Does steel not expand when heated too?

Why does your believe involve ignoring simple truths?

The composition of WTC floor trusses...

ws680.nist.gov...

As shown in Figure 5, each tenant floor consisted of 102 mm (4 in) thick, lightweight cast-in-place concrete on a fluted steel deck. Supporting the slab was a grid of lightweight steel bar trusses.

The lightweight trusses with no mid span supports became deformed from the heat and remaining load. They caused increase side strain upon cooling on the vertical columns the caused bowing and lead to buckling.

originally posted by: DebtSlave

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: DebtSlave

Here is my source. Remember, this guy is a nuclear physicist, and not a video editor! Try to appreciate the video for it's information!

Its a video!


What new evidence is there?


Nukes have been speculated since it day 1 basically, we have 1 ATSers who bangs on about nukes at ground zero.


No logic of any rational thinking involved, only a view of the collapsing towers that makes a dust plum similar to a mushroom cloud.

And Nukes it is.

Look at the mushroom cloud of Building 7. Notice how it engulfs all of NYC?

If you seriously think this was all caused by jet fuel, watch September Clues and you will see that the planes were digital.

If you had evidence of a blast with the strength to cut steel, a super heated shock wave, windows being blown out, EM pulse, and radiation that made people sick within hours, you might have something.....

originally posted by: DebtSlave
a reply to: stosh64

This is the first guy who can explain the dustification, rustification, and burning of the buildings and cars. His arguments are superb. The fact that you are taking his simple volcano analogy out of context only shows to me that you can't comprehend the more complicated points he makes.

False narratives that are created or taken out of context to create a false dichotomy that does not exist in the video, audio, seismic, and physical evidence. Items that have nothing to do with the actual physical collapse.

originally posted by: szino9
a reply to: DebtSlave

Forgive my ignorance as I have no time to watch the videos you provided, but if we talking about a nuclear fallout shouldn't be a lot of people sick or dead by know from the fallout? I am aware many people got cancer but that was due to other things.

When the World Trade Centers collapsed on 9/11, a cloud of toxic dust and debris blanketed Manhattan. Largely unknown to the public, this dust contained an array of carcinogenic particles. Some of these toxins included: lead, mercury, dioxins, benzene and, of course, asbestos.

I lived in NYC in 2001 worked pretty close to Ground zero for years and now 17 years later no health issues, touch wood...

I don't know how to prove a death or sickness via fallout, all I know is that physics does not lie. When those cameras got hit by the dust clouds, they all reacted the same way. This was due to the radiation / fallout:

Just click on the link and it will take you to the point I want you to watch:

youtu.be...

a reply to: DebtSlave

Radio fallout would have attacked lungs and made people critically sick within fours. It would have caused contamination tracked to hospitals. It would be a super heated causing skin burns. It would be inidated with blast shrapnel that would have caused shotgun like injuries, or worse.

And more arguments based on ignorance?