Trying to resolve 9/11

originally posted by: Hulseyreport


 I pretty sure there an abundance of things in the dust and not just fireproofing.

Name them.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

You merely look at the construction to notice a floor truss failure crushing the hat truss very unlikely.

?????????????????

originally posted by: neutronflux

For WTC 2. Once the bowing was great enough, the structure buckled at the floors of the jet impacts. The twenty floors above the buckling fell into the building below. The falling mass destroyed the floor system. This left vertical columns standing in the wake of the falling mass. The vertical columns toppled from loss of lateral support.

Nobody can actually demonstrate it, but if you just keep on claiming it, maybe people will forget it's cartoon physics!!

Anyone knows that a massive object dropped on something, which had been supporting the massive object easily, will cause damage to the lower structure. This is actually something PROVABLE. And structural failures happen, and are also PROVABLE.

But the total collapse of a structure, from a mass which was SUPPORTED by the lower structure, is absolutely impossible, without removing all of the structural supports, and that's why it is NOT provable, in the real world.

See the difference? One is real world, and provable, while the other is fairy-tale world, and not provable.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

Nobody can actually demonstrate it, b

It’s right on video, with audio, and seismic data.

www.metabunk.org/the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

Is it false there was measurable inward bowing of WTC 1 and WTC 2 face columns before collapse?

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Hulseyreport


Go get your eyes checked then? I can see the spray-on foam still there. 

And Ruby Grey can see Lloyd's taxi parked next to the cemetery with a light pole sticking out of it's windshield. You are just like her, no different. You both see what you want to see. You both see something that is not there.

Now lets take a look at your imaginary fireproofing.

You say you can see fireproofing on this exterior column.

Fireproofing insulation.

Same steel piece.

Here we have a scale plan view of an exterior column.

As you can see the fireproofing is very thick. It was 2" thick on the exterior columns. The column flanges were buried in it.


The column flanges are plainly visible in this photo, therefore this pice of steel has no fireproofing on it.

You will also never admit you are wrong. Just like Ruby.

In the 1990s, the New York Port Authority measured the SFRM thickness to be  a half inch to three-quarters inches. Not 2 inches. 
Yes I will admit here it the thickness reduced, but not fully gone. Which brings me to the  speculation-this steel box column was not sitting in the rubble long and was lifted away in the first day or two?
End of the day, I don't believe anybody can claim 100 percent the airplane knocked off all the fireproofing?   
It more likely disintegrated away in the debris pile since most of the steel had no fireproofing.  We have evidence the fireproofing was expelled after collapse.



Do I need to answer that? Since Debunkers are perfectly aware there were paint chips, and pulverized concrete in the dust. There electrical circuitry and many pieced up metals in the dust and other things. Use your insight with this.

Look at the plan design of the floor.


NIST claims the floor trusses sagged and dragged in the perimeter walls. With this scenario, the drag will be all inward. There is no great momentum force here to accelerate the material outwards 100's of feet from the destruction zone.


Observe where the energy is most intense and where all the matter got pushed out at WTC2! ( just two to three floors ) 



Bolted connections snapping and breaking does not reveal this energy release. The fold of a few floors would not produce enough energy yet to pulverise the concrete slaps that you see in the diagram?  We can even observe the top half is topping over and not yet broken apart. It obvious least for me that the steel core collapse is accelerating all the energy and matter outwards from the heart of the building. The sole explanation for that is some kind of controlled demolition occurred here.  How they managed it explicitly only the criminals know.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

NIST claims the floor trusses sagged and dragged in the perimeter walls.

No claim. It’s part of the video / photo graphic record.

With this scenario, the drag will be all inward. There is no great momentum force here to accelerate the material outwards 100's of feet from the destruction zone.

One. The columns tumbled outwards. Look at the lower left of the picture below.


Two. So how do billiard ball collisions result in change of directions?

Three. Please explain how a Newton’s cradle works.


The below was a hydraulic jack actuated collapse. Shows air pressure can push out stuff.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Bolted connections snapping and breaking does not reveal this energy release. The fold of a few floors would not produce enough energy yet to pulverise the concrete slaps that you see in the diagram?

Forty percent of the dust was insulation.

The only concrete was lightweight concrete in floor pans. 20 stories falling into a building is going to pulverize the lightweight concrete in floor pans.

Floor sagging is downward, and the drag is inward . They're no outward failure.
All you have here is trusses bolts breaking and slipping aside. They're no strength here to pulverise concrete. You likely will only damage the concrete and cause it to crack but they're not a chance it change state to dust particles in mid air no way
They attach floor trusses to perimeter columns- the hat truss is basically a tunnel in the middle and very unlikely that going to come apart when a few trusses sagging in the edges.
All the evidence points to inward and outward burst of the steel core and everything got pushed out when cracked up.
You video is of the foundation core below ground sticking up. The height of the core was from bottom to the top floors. 
You hanging something on a line that can sway back obviously? There is a push and force here also, but the floor trusses are considerably weaker than the steel core.  By some  miracle the collision occurred the steel should move downwards (a local failure) you not should see steel and dust plumes pushed outwards beyond the destruction zone 
You persuaded a WTC Fire melts steel, so you conclude the official story true till you die i bet. 
The reality there was no fire hot enough to melt steel, thermal images show it. Debunkers again have neglected and overlooked FEMA own statement there need to be 1000c heat at WTC7 for it to be considered a plausible theory. 
Thermal images- 600c and 500 heat in the rubble. All your chemicals you want to claim was there still did not get hot enough.
Nobody even demonstrated the theory A36 steel at 1000c + sulphar would even cause the melting to begin. Important discoveries ignored by NIST. 

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Floor sagging is downward, and the drag is inward . They're no outward failure.

Twenty floors falling into a building and pushing out air is not going to push crap out? Of course it will.

You can see it from the controlled demolition by hydraulic jack a building falling in on its self pushes air and debris out.



And makes lots of concrete dust with no explosives needed.

You

All you have here is trusses bolts breaking and slipping aside.

You have 20 floors falling into the building below. Converting potential energy to kinetic energy. Imparting kinetic energy on to stationary are objects through collisions. Pushing out air as the mass of failed floors grows.


You

They're no strength here to pulverise concrete.

500,000 tons of building falling in on itself is not going to pulverize light weight concrete as a top coat on floor pans? Of course it will. Look at the hydraulic CD pictures above
I suggest you look up rodmill or ballmill.


You

You likely will only damage the concrete and cause it to crack but they're not a chance it change state to dust particles in mid air no way

Your dead wrong.

Again. Pictures of hydraulic jack initiated no explosives controlled demolition.




You

They attach floor trusses to perimeter columns- the hat truss is basically a tunnel in the middle and very unlikely that going to come apart when a few trusses sagging in the edges.

What does that have to do with the falling mass breaking floor connections, and leaving core columns standing a few seconds in the wake of the falling failed floor system?




You

All the evidence points to inward and outward burst of the steel core and everything got pushed out when cracked up.

Not during collapse initiation. There is no ejection of material until the portion of the building above the buckling on the floors of the jet impacts falls into the building. During the process of inward bowing leading to buckling. There is no ejection of material by detonations with the force to cut steel columns. During the entire collapse, there is no evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns.

The collapse of WTC 1 and 2 started on the floors of the jet impacts. There is no way a CD system would survive a jet impact and fire to initiate collapse as captured on video. The seismic data backs there was no explosions with the force to cut steel columns.


You

You video is of the foundation core below ground sticking up. The height of the core was from bottom to the top floors.

Your making absolutely no sense. The video evidence shows inward bowing leading to buckling. Building tilt above the areas of buckling. The floors above the buckling falling into the building below. The core columns standing in the wake of the collapsing floor system to fall last.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You persuaded a WTC Fire melts steel, so you conclude the official story true till you die i bet.

What the hell?

Are you saying I think the collapse of WTC 1, 2, 7 was from melted steel. Quote where I posted such a thing. What I believe initiated the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 has noting to do, or requires melted steel.

It doesn't matter what you say the close you are to the truth the more the people covering up will say oh no I just don't get what you're saying. Oh that's just crazy. And then BSU with the official version. George W bush did 9/11. Are you at airport stood down and our pentagon obviously helped. FBI CIA Etc. They sent everyone that would defend America overseas and that was only the beginning in my honest opinion

TRUTH REVEALED! 9/11 Trillion$: Follow The Money! [FULL HD DOCUMENTARY]


A good 1 hour documentary by James Red Pills America that puts together all of the strong leads in any real criminal investigation, follow the money. The 9/11 Commission Report did not even touch any of the money trails in their investigation.

a reply to: kwakakev

So? What’s Bush doing with all that 9/11 money?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You persuaded a WTC Fire melts steel, so you conclude the official story true till you die i bet.

What the hell?

Are you saying I think the collapse of WTC 1, 2, 7 was from melted steel. Quote where I posted such a thing. What I believe initiated the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 has noting to do, or requires melted steel.

Since it was established fact steel melted, it's evidence the buildings were not brought down by fire. 
Rest of your position about the collapse it's the same old boring nonsense.

a reply to: kwakakev

If the controlling politicians could supposedly pull off 9/11? If 9/11 gave more power to the NWO? And if the NWO controls the printing and flow of money? Why would the NWO need money from 9/11? Now I am all confused. Would you care to clarify your mythology?

originally posted by: kwakakev
TRUTH REVEALED! 9/11 Trillion$: Follow The Money! [FULL HD DOCUMENTARY]

A good 1 hour documentary by James Red Pills America that puts together all of the strong leads in any real criminal investigation, follow the money. The 9/11 Commission Report did not even touch any of the money trails in their investigation.

The Pentagon strike likewise demolished the financial department of the building.  It not accurate this where the accounting department was? So all 4 events- financial buildings were targets on 9/11. 

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You persuaded a WTC Fire melts steel, so you conclude the official story true till you die i bet.

What the hell?

Are you saying I think the collapse of WTC 1, 2, 7 was from melted steel. Quote where I posted such a thing. What I believe initiated the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 has noting to do, or requires melted steel.

Since it was established fact steel melted, it's evidence the buildings were not brought down by fire. 
Rest of your position about the collapse it's the same old boring nonsense.

No. It’s truth movement mythology. There is no evidence the WTC Pile was hot enough to support liquid steel. There was no reported violent steam releases when the pile was being sprayed with water from water encountering liquid steel. There was no frozen pools of steel found during cleanup.

There is zero evidence of melted steel. Steel attacked by sulfur resulting in a compound with a lower melting point than steel, yes.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again.
If the controlling politicians could supposedly pull off 9/11? If 9/11 gave more power to the NWO? And if the NWO controls the printing and flow of money? Why would the NWO need money from 9/11? Now I am all confused. Would you care to clarify your mythology?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You persuaded a WTC Fire melts steel, so you conclude the official story true till you die i bet.

What the hell?

Are you saying I think the collapse of WTC 1, 2, 7 was from melted steel. Quote where I posted such a thing. What I believe initiated the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 has noting to do, or requires melted steel.

Since it was established fact steel melted, it's evidence the buildings were not brought down by fire. 
Rest of your position about the collapse it's the same old boring nonsense.

No. It’s truth movement mythology. There is no evidence the WTC Pile was hot enough to support liquid steel. There was no reported violent steam releases when the pile was being sprayed with water from water encountering liquid steel. There was no frozen pools of steel found during cleanup.

There is zero evidence of melted steel. Steel attacked by sulfur resulting in a compound with a lower melting point than steel, yes.

Have you read the FEMA study?
They found WTC7 steel that experienced a melting process.
They had a position 1000c heat sulfur generated it.
It's a concept that never been demonstrated that sulfur would diminish the melting point of WTC7 steel by 500C
Thermal models show the heat in the WTC7 rubble was just 500C, with some peaks of 600C.
We have solid evidence the melting can only have happened inside the building as the high temp is essential. 

FEMA likewise found evidence of a liquid was there, but it solidified into phases of Iron oxide and Iron sulfate after cooling. So when people claim they encountered a liquid of molten steel they are correct. 
FEMA claimed their liquid was composed of Iron and Sulfur. Iron in a liquid form is melted steel!