Trying to resolve 9/11

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
neutronflux

The second structure on the roof has not collapsed on video. NIST model the floors are gone with the interior columns. What supporting the second structure then? Use your brain.

NIST overlooked the second structure on the roof.

Quote and cite a source. Just another falsehood by you.

All items on the roof disappeared or had downward movement before the facade started to move downward. It’s like a progressive collapse started under the first penthouse and worked its way to the other side of the building.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

So, let’s recap.

Your fantasy relies on hundredS of planted charges with no evidence of ever being planted, or taking up valuable rental space.

With no way hundred of charges connected in a sophisticated CD system would survive being hit with debris from the twin towers and the office fires to initiate collapse.

With no evidence in the seismic, audio, video of hundreds of charges simultaneously doing the below.

With no chance in hell a compromised CD system of slow and inconsistent burning thermite could perfectly cut columns in unison for your fantasy.

With no evidence from the video, audio, seismic evidence of columns being actively cut.

With you basing your fantasy on truth movement lies and falsehoods concerning the actual collapse.

Demolitions are not carried out the way you believe. 
Place enough demolitions on floors to decrease/remove the interior and exterior columns strength and then collapse the entire structure.  Probably 4 to 8 floors with explosives would pull the building down.

WTC7 had six floors of fires, well 41 floors with no fire! 

I would think conspirators would have planned for scenarios with fire and toppling of the towers before the event. It not something you just to decide to do in a day. The guys who did this are professionals not clowns.

We have no info about the security people who watched the place at night. You assuming it was difficult for conspirators to enter the building and place them there. 

a reply to: Hulseyreport


I just got the car cleaned up and I am ready to go enjoy the day.

I hope the same for. And stop believing truth movement lies.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport


I just got the car cleaned up and I am ready to go enjoy the day.

I hope the same for. And stop believing truth movement lies.

Do go for a drive. The truth movement right about the demolition. After 18 years unlikely to be solved who did it and why.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport


I just got the car cleaned up and I am ready to go enjoy the day.

I hope the same for. And stop believing truth movement lies.

Do go for a drive. The truth movement right about the demolition. After 18 years unlikely to be solved who did it and why.

Really. Your full of crap. You cannot even conclusively say how many charges were used, when they would have been Installed, how the detonation system would have serviced being hit by the debris from the twin towers, how the detonation system would have survived the fires, what type of charges were used, with zero evidence that kicker charges were used to misalign cuts in the columns.

Again..

Is there evidence that hundred of charges was doing the below in hundreds of locations with the assistance of kicker charges to misalign columns?



Hell no


Since there is ZERO EVIDENCE OF CD, what does that leave.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport


I just got the car cleaned up and I am ready to go enjoy the day.

I hope the same for. And stop believing truth movement lies.

Do go for a drive. The truth movement right about the demolition. After 18 years unlikely to be solved who did it and why.

Or you referring to the Hulsey Report so flawed it will never be released for a peer review.

What a joke.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport


I just got the car cleaned up and I am ready to go enjoy the day.

I hope the same for. And stop believing truth movement lies.

Do go for a drive. The truth movement right about the demolition. After 18 years unlikely to be solved who did it and why.

Or you referring to the Hulsey Report so flawed it will never be released for a peer review.

What a joke.

I know building seven was controlled demolition. I don’t require peer review.
Freefall is not possible with a natural collapse (end of story)

NIST knew this too, but covered it up.

NIST spokesperson revealed the truth in Aug 2008.  NIST had no explantation for why the underneath structure would be missing and gone!

Full quote from the conference on Aug 2008. Read it a couple of times, they denying freefall, and its implications. 

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

Freefall is not possible with a natural collapse (end of story)

Momentum transfer.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

Freefall is not possible with a natural collapse (end of story)

Momentum transfer.

Rubbish. NIST computer model exposed them.

Image is the progress of their structural computer model after six seconds ( Penthouse left the roof)

Did debunkers not notice the west internal core still there?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

I know building seven was controlled demolition?

Then...

Really. Your full of crap. You cannot even conclusively say how many charges were used, when they would have been Installed, how the detonation system would have survived being hit by the debris from the twin towers, how the detonation system would have survived the fires, what type of charges were used, with zero evidence that kicker charges were used to misalign cuts in the columns.

Again..

Is there evidence that hundred of charges was doing the below in hundreds of locations with the assistance of kicker charges to misalign columns?



Hell no


Since there is ZERO EVIDENCE OF CD, what does that leave.

You

The building went from full support to zero support in a fraction of a second.

Is total BS.

You

Stage 1 is fiction
The building had instant freefall when full collapse started.

Which is total BS too

This information was provided in this thread several times.

SUMMARY OF EARLY WTC7 MOVEMENT


As was shown in section 2.5, features of the initial failure sequence can be understood as a rapid succession of 7 identifiable events occurring in the following order:

1) Movement Detected from 2 Minutes before Collapse
2) Increase of rocking 6 seconds before visible collapse
3) Ejections and overpressurizations
4) Collapse of the East Penthouse
5) Collective core failure
6) Perimeter response
7) Acceleration downward

sharpprintinginc.com...

Your belief in the fantasy of CD is based on falsehoods, lies, misconceptions, with no support from the video, audio, seismic, and physical evidence.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You are so weird. There or two other studies that show fire related collapse is the most probable cause.

DO YOU HAVE ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF CHARGES ACTIVELY CUTTING COLUMNS?

Other than you wish so?

Your not understand the WTC 7 collapse was not from an simultaneous instantaneously one event and the buckling of the exterior columns under load to achieve the phase two acceleration of the facade is clouding your judgment.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport


Place enough demolitions on floors to decrease/remove the interior and exterior columns strength and then collapse the entire structure.  Probably 4 to 8 floors with explosives would pull the building down.

How would doing this achieve free fall acceleration. You would still have 8 floors of material that would need to be crunched up by the falling upper mass. This would take energy, it would not achieve free fall.

You do realise that in order to achieve the free fall you are on about, they would have to make 8 floors completely disappear. Vaporise it. Nothing but air.


You are still ignoring the fact the exterior fell faster than free fall. Momentum transfer from interior to exterior would explain this. CD does not.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Hulseyreport


Place enough demolitions on floors to decrease/remove the interior and exterior columns strength and then collapse the entire structure.  Probably 4 to 8 floors with explosives would pull the building down.

How would doing this achieve free fall acceleration. You would still have 8 floors of material that would need to be crunched up by the falling upper mass. This would take energy, it would not achieve free fall.

You do realise that in order to achieve the free fall you are on about, they would have to make 8 floors completely disappear. Vaporise it. Nothing but air.


You are still ignoring the fact the exterior fell faster than free fall. Momentum transfer from interior to exterior would explain this. CD does not.

The individual real boxed themselves in with:

The building went from full support to zero support in a fraction of a second.

Stage 1 is fiction
The building had instant freefall when full collapse started.

I guess that is what the individual gets for believing truth movement lies. And ignoring what is actually in the video record.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Everybody knows it was controlled demolition. Certain brave individuals are able to face the uncomfortable truth, even as many are unable to face such truth.

All in all, the events of 911 were brilliantly planned and executed with military precision.

The cover-up has been awkward but incessant, clumsy but mostly successful for the oblivious masses. Those independent thinkers amongst us knows the official narrative fails at mostly every turn.

a reply to: Salander

Everybody knows it was controlled demolition.

Based on what, truth movement lies? Still waiting for you to post science based evidence of your pet theory of WTC nukes? Not truth movement lies and pseudoscience.

You

Certain brave individuals are able to face the uncomfortable truth.even as many are unable to face such truth.

If you were brave, you would admit you have wasted time on truth movement lies like nukes at the WTC.

All in all, the events of 911 were brilliantly planned and executed with military precision.

Like planned by high level terrorists backed by Middle East deep pockets with ties to Middle East governments and military to fight a proxy war against the West.

The cover-up has been awkward but incessant, clumsy but mostly successful for the oblivious masses.

I agree there are those hiding in Saudi Arabia for example with political connections that are guilty of aiding terrorists. Or more.

Those independent thinkers amongst us knows the official narrative fails at mostly every turn.

More like too stupid to not know science from pseudoscience like nukes at the WTC, so they were fooled by the cons of the truth movement. And milked for truth movement donations.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Then your ignoring the Madrid Windsor partial collapse.

The Windsor Tower Fire, Madrid

materialsforinteriorsind54862016.files.wordpress.com...

The Damage
The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.

So. Yes, the WTC buildings were susceptible to fire related collapse. If the WTC buildings were not built in the cheap by minimizing concrete, and total lack of concrete columns along floor spans, and not built with long floor spans free of columns to maximize rental space, and contained building elements contained in the Windsor Tower, WTC 1, 2, and 7 may have not undergone total collapse.

You have proven that a building, engulfed completely in fires, all night long, still does NOT result in a total collapse!

How can you prove a controlled demolition without actual evidence for it?

Suppose a building was demolished, but we found no evidence to prove that explosives were used, since all the debris had been recovered, by the same people who demolished it, beforehand?

How could you prove it was a controlled demolition, without any sort of solid evidence, from the debris? How do you prove steel columns were cut, without having steel columns to examine afterwards, or only those which are previously 'selected' afterwards, if possible, while the other 99.9% is '- somehow - all scrapped'?

If you had no evidence to prove a building was demolished by explosives, it would be exactly the same as 9/11, without actual proof on hand, of any explosives....or cuts in the steel....or whatever else could prove it....


How could we know a building was demolished by explosives, by merely looking at it collapse, when you suggest this is a normal event of fire/damage, within buildings? Because fire/damage events have always occurred before, and since, 9/11, without anything CLOSE to a total collapse.

A demolition expert, who didn't know about WTC 7's collapse on 9/11, at the time, PRAISED how professional it was done. If it was a 'normal' event, by other causes, like fire/damage alone, he wouldn't say it was a demolition, if it could be some other cause, or causes, that actually exist, in previous cases, if this is some sort of 'normal' event.

And why would he have known it was a controlled demolition, by his observations? No other evidence was required, in fact.

When you have no evidence of any kind, no prior examples to show, no way to replicate it, and somehow, you think I need to prove my argument, with all sorts of evidence for explosives among the debris, steel that is cut from explosives, fragments of explosives, and so on...

Thanks for trying to make up all the rules, what is, or is not, considered evidence, why you don't need any evidence, why I need to prove explosives were used, by finding evidence of explosives in the debris, which nobody even had the chance to look at it, before they scrapped most of it, and shipped it to China, sifted for non-incriminating steel, and still had to make excuses for it. None of the steel reached temperatures high enough to cause failure, so they decided to make it all up with computer simulations instead, where all the weakened steel was assumed to be shipped overseas, since nobody can say it wasn't so, otherwise.


Even then, we know that a building cannot collapse like a house of cards, in seconds, without explosives removing the supports within it first, in precise sequence.

Prove it can happen without removing supports, if you can. It's already proven by explosives,.

Since you cannot prove it can happen without removing supports, it's simply trash

a reply to: turbonium1

What are you babbling about?

Ok? Let’s start with you clearly stating what you think brought down the twin towers. Then clearly state how the video, photographic, audio, and seismic evidence supports your clearly stated theory.

Or you saying controlled demolition of the twin towers based completely on no evidence, and only truth movement lies?

Is it Richard Gauge fizzle no flash bombs?

Nukes?

Holograms with lasers and or missiles

Dustification?

Remember. The cores of the twin towers fell last.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

What are you babbling about?

Ok? Let’s start with you clearly stating what you think brought down the twin towers. Then clearly state how the video, photographic, audio, and seismic evidence supports your clearly stated theory.

Or you saying controlled demolition of the twin towers based completely on no evidence, and only truth movement lies?

Is it Richard Gauge fizzle no flash bombs?

Nukes?

Holograms with lasers and or missiles

Dustification?

Remember. The cores of the twin towers fell last.

What can ANYONE prove when all of the physical evidence is removed before any chance to investigate, collect, and study all of it, and the only evidence that WAS collected, was exclusively selected for not showing evidence of explosives, anyway. If a crime scene is investigated by the criminals involved, they won't find evidence proving they did it.

Don't try and shape the argument around the lack of physical evidence, when you know that they had already removed all of this evidence, and cherry-picked some of it, beforehand!


The one who claims that total collapse of an intact structure of 85, or 93 floors, will lose all of it's support within it, from the floors above being severed from the lower structure, which causes the upper section to drop down onto the lower floors, which immediately come down, in precise sequential order, from top to bottom floors, while they were completely intact, and were already supporting the entire structure for decades, as they were designed, tested, and built for that very purpose. That's why buildings like this do not, cannot, will not, suddenly lose all of it's support capabilities, unless they are previously removed in a very precise, sequential order, as happened three times on 9/11.


The only way this has ever been done, ever been proven to work in such a way, is by controlled demolition. All supports are removed in a precise sequence, a millisecond apart from each other, floor by floor downward to the ground.


When you claim this is possible WITHOUT removing any of the lower supports in every floor below the damaged areas, which has NEVER happened before, which we know is only possible from the prior removal of all supports in the structure, as a controlled demolition proves, then the only one who has to prove their claim is YOU.

Because we have never had total collapse of a structure within a few seconds, EXCEPT by a controlled demolition, to claim it WAS a controlled demolition is shown by the total collapse of the structure within seconds.

There is no need to prove a structure will collapse within seconds by a controlled demolition, it's an absolute, indiputable fact. So when three structures collapse, and each one collapses within a few seconds time, we know all three were controlled demolitions.

What you don't understand is that the burden of proof is showing these structures could somehow collapse, in this way, WITHOUT a controlled demolition.

Claiming a building can collapse without removing all of its supports beforehand, is the only claim without any proof, without previous examples, without any way to demonstrate how it could even happen, within the real world. That's why I call it 'cartoon' physics, where anything can happen, and never needs proof, either. Nobody could ever prove the Roadrunner can really run through a rock wall, when a hole is painted on it, because it is 'cartoon' physics.

Claiming the roadrunner can actually run through the rock if a hole is painted on it, is the same as claiming a building can actually collapse to the ground within seconds from upper floor damage and fires, when all the supports below that area remain completely intact.

Proving my claim that a building could only collapse within seconds by controlled demolition, does not require that same structure built up, or even part of the same structure. Because to prove a controlled demolition is done by the removal of supports within ANY structure, which was previously built, and supported itself completely.

That is the exact same thing YOU must prove, in a building which completely supports itself, but to get the same result WITHOUT removing two thirds of the support, from the ground up, with only the upper third section dropping on the intact structure below it.

It is completely irrelevant to speculate on HOW a controlled demolition took place, or the methods used, or what sort of explosives were used, it only matters to know that it WAS a controlled demolition, and if you believe it is NOT a controlled demolition, you must prove it, and because it is impossible to collapse structures in seconds without removing all the supports beforehand, your claim is pure nonsense, to suggest anything else could cause it, other than by a controlled demolition, and you know it.

Proving the impossible is not easy!

a reply to: turbonium1

So? You have no proof of anything other than fire related collapse.

This is where you cite evidence of something other than fire related collapse from the video, photographic, audio, seismic, physical evidence.

Or cite what truth movement fantasy has the most credibility.

Again....

Is it Richard Gauge fizzle no flash bombs?

Nukes?

Holograms with lasers and or missiles

Dustification?

Remember. The cores of the twin towers fell last.

As far as impossible?

Then what caused the floor connection failures in WTC 5 and the collapse of floors?



And

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You are F’n wrong

But the only issue to clarify, first of all, is to prove that such a collapse, from only random fire/damage, is impossible. It cannot happen, in any way

The Plasco Building (Persian: ساختمان پلاسکو‎, romanized: Sâxtmâň-e Plaskô) was a 17-story high-rise landmark building in Tehran, the capital city of Iran. At the time of its construction in the 1960s it was the tallest building in Iran[1] and was considered an iconic part of the Tehran skyline.[2] The building collapsed on 19 January 2017 during a high-rise fire.[3]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Massive high-rise fire causes building to collapse in Brazil, at least 1 dead
By Karma Allen,Aicha El Hammar Castano
May 1, 2018, 5:26 PM ET

abcnews.go.com...

A massive fire engulfed two high-rise structures in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on Tuesday, causing one of the buildings to collapse.

Video posted on social media early Tuesday showed a 24-story building crumbling to the ground as flames raced toward the top floor, killing at least one person.

THE FIRE AT THE TORRE WINDSOR OFFICE BUILDING, MADRID 2005

www.structural-safety.org...

Consequential damage
In the absence of any protection the mullions weakened in the heat. A sufficient number lost their required load capacity causing sections of the building above the upper strong floor at level 17 to collapse. It is likely that only the presence of this floor prevented total progressive collapse. At lower levels none of the fire protected mullions failed. The mullions distorted at the 9th level (yet to receive their protection), but there was sufficient load sharing amongst the remainder-above and below this level- to prevent collapse of the floors. Notwithstanding the failure of the mullions, the reinforced concrete structure also suffered serious damage as a consequence of the temperature attained.

The above making your words below totally empty and baseless.

Shame on you for claiming such blatant falsehoods in the first place!

Your claim is so ridiculous, on any level, to keep spewing it, is truly shameful, and repugnant.

So. How is “ that such a collapse, from only random fire/damage, is impossible. It cannot happen, in any way” actually a true statement in any way?