New 911 Evidence Solves Unanswered Questions

a reply to: MALBOSIA

And it was noted that the North West tower was starting to buckle before it collapsed?

9/11 - The Top of the North Tower Is Leaning - NYPD Warning

m.youtube.com...

a reply to: MALBOSIA

WTC1 Collapse - NBC's Pat Dawson Camera (Enhanced NIST Clip "CBS-Net Dub7 22.avi")
m.youtube.com...

WTC Tower 1 collapse from north (in SoHo) - enhanced
m.youtube.com...

WTC1 collapse with audio.

Please cite from the video why I should think it was planted explosives that caused the collapse?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

For just you again....

Below is a link to a thread that shows the inward bowing of the outer columns that caused buckling, and initiated the collapse of WTC 2.

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

www.metabunk.org...

So, what evidence and logically argument do you have to outlined what caused the outer columns of WTC 2 to buckle inward in a narrow band around the circumference of the towers relative to jet impacts? Impacts and fires that made it impossible for a CD system to survive?

Drooping floor trusses contracted, pulling in on the outer columns. The bowing became great enough it became buckling. The building above the buckling collapsed into the tower. The falling mass stripped floor connects from the vertical columns. Video clearly shows whole sections of vertical columns standing after the complete collapse of the floor system. The remaining vertical columns shortly toppled because they lost lateral support.

The damage to the floor connections is documented in this:

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

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Again, you here to post pretty pictures? At least it better than seeing the last president?

Or actually explain what caused the inward bowing of WTC 2’s outer columns causing buckling leading to collapse?

Or...

Below are two clear videos with clear audio of WTC 1’s collapse. Can you cite video or audio evidence of a detonation that had the power to cut steel to initiate the collapse? And what could survived the jet impacts that cut outer columns, core columns, breached the elevator shafts, cut cables, cut fire water pipes?

WTC1 Collapse - NBC's Pat Dawson Camera (Enhanced NIST Clip "CBS-Net Dub7 22.avi")
m.youtube.com...

WTC Tower 1 collapse from north (in SoHo) - enhanced
m.youtube.com...

I find it odd the collapse of the WTC buildings are some of the most witnessed and videotaped disasters in history? But a truth movement that pushes the resistance of every floor had to be removed doesn’t have video or audio of detentions cutting steel? And posted pictures of steel columns cut with thermal lances by clean up workers with the lie they were cut by thermite?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

You cannot cite evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel? Can you cite proof columns were cut to initiate collapse when all evidence points to columns buckled to initiate collapse? How would a system for cutting columns survive the jet impacts and fires to initiate the collapse at the areas of jet impacts?

You

You really believe those towers came down silently?

If there is audible proof of detonations with the power to cut steel columns, why did AE, largest group pushing CD, turn to pushing thermite and/or fizzle no flash bombs?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Who said anything about paid posters and that the truth movement was created to derail any opinion on what happened that day? I didnt say anything about that... that was you.

Yes of coarse that was me, you just quoted me saying it.

and you keep pushing explosives like the truth movement want you to.

a reply to: InhaleExhale


Explosives are the only possible explanation, given the evidence.

What is clearly not a valid explanation is that offered by NIST, burning office furnishings and gravity.

a reply to: Salander

Explosives are the only possible explanation, given the evidence.

Evidence ?
Do you mean youtube evidence ?
17 Years and the only evidence comes from chopped together YT clips ?

This conspiracy has spun its wheels for 17 years and gone nowhere.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Salander

Explosives are the only possible explanation, given the evidence.

Evidence ?
Do you mean youtube evidence ?
17 Years and the only evidence comes from chopped together YT clips ?

This conspiracy has spun its wheels for 17 years and gone nowhere.

Are you describing the official story? Then you agree with the commission when it noted 63 times that "we found no evidence" to support various claims of that story?


If so, we agree completely. The public was hoodwinked with false claims.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Salander

Explosives are the only possible explanation, given the evidence.

Evidence ?
Do you mean youtube evidence ?
17 Years and the only evidence comes from chopped together YT clips ?

This conspiracy has spun its wheels for 17 years and gone nowhere.

Are you describing the official story? Then you agree with the commission when it noted 63 times that "we found no evidence" to support various claims of that story?


If so, we agree completely. The public was hoodwinked with false claims.

And conspiracists are pros at spinning arguments out of falsehoods, using items out of context, while wrapping themselves with pseudoscience, and all with smugness born from ignorance. And all in the name to exploit 9/11.

So what great fantasy do you go with?

You going with mythical fizzle no flash bombs, and Richard Gage’s / AE false narrative the towers fell through the path of greates resistance?

Going with the fantasy of thermite based on fraudulent peer reviewed papers from a pay to play journal? Claims never subjected to the discovery process? And lab results that cannot be replicated by other individuals? All based on experiments that cannot differentiate thermite from any other exothermic reaction?

How about holograms, lasers, and missiles? Impossible, and don’t explain any part of the tower’s collapse?

Nukes? That are even debunked by Jones? With no evidence of radiation that nuclear reactions would produce? There is a reason AE pushed fizzle no flash bombs. Because there in no evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel. And the videos of the collapse of the towers support nuclear reactions as a root cause in no way.

Or Dr. Wood, and dustification. The conspiracist that debunked all the other WTC theories to push the Towers were turned to dust? Yet, enough rubble hit the ground to destroy WTC 3,4,6, and make WTC 5 uneconomical to repair. Damaging 40 buildings in total? Something like 100,400,000 tons of rubble was removed from the WTC.

Your pet fantasy is nukes if I remember correctly?

Ever think the WTC towers were brought down by a combination of no fire water, the WTC had deficient fire insulation, the fires spread at rates greater than what the building design anticipated, the jet impacts knocked of fire insulation, the towers structure had to redistribute loads after outer and core columns removed, and thermal stress? Can you point to evidence the WTC towers had the resistance of every floor removed as claimed by the truth movement?

It’s sad you worry more about the enabling of fabricated conspiracy theories than being a filter for pseudoscience truth movement lies.

a reply to: Salander

I trust no one.

At least NIST played loose and fast with ACTUAL facts.

When it comes to the truth movement, why do you echo the truth movement’s lies. And yes, they are lies. The same falsehoods debunked over and over the past 16 years plus.

What are you going to do now? Back to the same old play book? Pick some poor first responder, and falsely parade them around as suffering from radiation poisoning stemming from a fantasy nuclear bomb using misquotes and innuendo?

Like you never done that before.

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.

No evidence supporting your claim, of course.

Do you know they investigated it?

What was the main purpose of their investigation?

To find out exactly what caused these two collapses.

And what did they find out?

They found out fires were not hot enough to cause steel to fail, or lose strength, to cause a failure.


That's not a point up for debate, therefore.


If steel buckled from heat, and so on, we'd have proof from the actual steel - because that's the actual evidence here.


What is the point of examining all the steel?

Do you know?


When no steel failed due to the fires, why do you keep on saying it DID?

a reply to: InhaleExhale

Clean Nukes ? Could not their Release be Measured by Instruments ? Was there ANY Data Recorded by Someone to Substantiate that ? Questions , Questions , but Never Enough Real Answers ..........(

a reply to: turbonium1

They found out fires were not hot enough to cause steel to fail, or lose strength, to cause a failure.

You didn't even bother to look did you.
Here's proof of testing and failure.
You are a shinning example of parroting the same old conspiracy lines without looking for the truth.

It's the same old BS week after week.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Common sense already gives you the answers.

The point of nukes is to give you a really big bang in a small package.
911 had no bang beyond what you get in normal building fires.

The neutron bomb was designed to give you lots of radiation with much less bang.
911 had no measurable radiation.

People who believe nukes were used have a screw loose.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Radiation measurements were carried out at WTC from before the collapse

Here are excerpts from earlier posts concerning radiation measurements

New York City Department of Health concerned about a "dirty bomb" sent health inspector with sensative
radiation detectors to WTC



Within minutes of the crash, McKinney sent a radiological health inspector to check the site for any radiation sources. He reached Richard Borri, a senior scientist in the department’s office of Radiological Health, who like most people from DOH, was on his way to work when the first tower was hit.




“While I was walking down Church Street, with all my instruments, I came within 1000 feet of the South Tower, and unfortunately the building came down,” says Borri, sounding every bit the unruffled scientist. “It’s a good thing I walked slowly.”


Used extremely sensitive equipment



That was fortunately not the case, Borri found, using a portable liquid scintillation counter, which measures radioactivity like a Geiger counter. The high-tech portable gadget he carried, one of the few available in the United States, is far more precise than its century-old cousin, the Geiger, counter with a much more refined ability to detect any kind of radioactivity.


Only radiation at scene was from radio pharmacueticals in pharmacy in WTC



Although Borri didn’t turn up any problematic radioactive readings by the end of the day, his work would be supplemented by the federal Department of Energy, whose technicians remained on site and continued to sample. [Only during the last days of the Ground Zero cleanup would radioactive testers find any evidence of radioactive emissions, from a pharmacy laboratory located within one of the buildings.]


www.neha.org...

Later that day FDNY HAZ MAT unit carried out surveys - once off duty members assembled, original crew
was killed in collapse



At this point it was utter chaos trying to find people and get organized. It took a while to re-organize and find some people and get working on the rubble to look for survivors. A total recall was ordered and upon the arrival of a few more Haz-Mat guys we performed quick surveys of the perimeter in two teams of four checking for radiation, nerve and blister agent, all results were negative. We then began digging for survivors.


As can see radiation monitoring was carried out from start of the incident

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: turbonium1

They found out fires were not hot enough to cause steel to fail, or lose strength, to cause a failure.

You didn't even bother to look did you.
Here's proof of testing and failure.
You are a shinning example of parroting the same old conspiracy lines without looking for the truth.

It's the same old BS week after week.

They examined all the actual steel, from the actual buildings. That is the actual evidence. Nothing else matters.

Why did they examine any of the actual evidence - the actual steel from the buildings?


Why do all investigations examine the actual evidence?


Why do all investigations use actual evidence on hand, and never choose to ignore the actual evidence, to try and make up a test without any evidence?

When we investigated the murder scene, all of the evidence was collected, and studied. But when it didn't fit with our pre-determined conclusions of who committed the murder, we dumped the evidence of it. We just invented some tests, to make our pre-determined conclusions work out!


I'm only interested in the actual evidence, because that's what matters here.

But if you prefer to live in denial, without looking at the actual evidence, go right ahead. It's not my problem.

Real investigations don't replace actual evidence with fabricated 'tests'.


If the investigation was valid, it would only examine the actual evidence.


They had all the steel from the buildings.

So they found it wasn't caused by fires weakening steel, as they all hoped, and prayed, but did not find.

At that point, they know it is not caused by fires. Even a complete moron would know that.


The cause of collapse is not fires, nor impact damage. Something else caused the collapses, obviously.


They know it wasn't caused by fires, and when they refused to investigate any further, we KNOW it was not a real investigation, beyond any doubt.

Everyone here knows it. Even you, whether you admit it, or not.

This conflicts with what you expect, what you wish to be true, and what you still hope is true.


It isn't true, sadly.

a reply to: turbonium1

Why can you not explain what caused the inward bowing of outer vertical columns that lead to buckling resulting in collapse? Can you cite evidence of columns cut by planted explosives from the video recordings of the WTC? The only thing you have is blatantly posting falsehoods to not pick what is clearly recorded in the video evidence?