Trying to resolve 9/11

NIST is not a trustworthy source for information about the collapses. NIST outright said Freefall was an impossibility for building seven in Aug 2008. They ruled it out because in their mind the building seven had structural support underneath and their failures inside the building were slow and there needed to be sequences of failures to take place first and nothing occurred in an instant. Debunkers have never noticed this flaw in their analysis and just accepted their painful lies in their revised update on Nov 2008
This video is all you need' to conclusively show building seven was controlled demolition on 9/11. NIST was fully aware on Aug 2018,  their fire progressive collapse was not compatible with free fall. 

Don't even have to watch the full video. NIST revealed the truth between 2 minutes and just over 4 minutes.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
NIST is not a trustworthy source for information about the collapses. NIST outright said Freefall was an impossibility for building seven in Aug 2008. They ruled it out because in their mind the building seven had structural support underneath and their failures inside the building were slow and there needed to be sequences of failures to take place first and nothing occurred in an instant. Debunkers have never noticed this flaw in their analysis and just accepted their painful lies in their revised update on Nov 2008
This video is all you need' to conclusively show building seven was controlled demolition on 9/11. NIST was fully aware on Aug 2018,  their fire progressive collapse was not compatible with free fall. 

Don't even have to watch the full video. NIST revealed the truth between 2 minutes and just over 4 minutes.

Ok?

Moot point because there is zero evidence of detonations or thermite to prompt an investigation.

Unless....






You can show how the video/ audio evidence is more supportive of a conspiracy fantasy?

Vs cooling and contracting floor trusses pulled in on the outer vertical columns to the point they bowed inward and buckled at the areas of jet impacts. Making it impossible planted charges initiated collapse. The stories above the bowing and buckling fell into the building below.

The pre-collapse inward bowing of WTC2

www.metabunk.org...

The falling mass broke floor connections.

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
Failure of connections, as a result of overloading, occurred within the heat-affected zone of the base metals

app.aws.org...

Summary
Analysis of the connections supporting the composite floor system of the WTC towers showed that at and below the im- pact floors, the greater majority (above 90%) of the floor truss connections were either bent downward or completely re- moved from the exterior column. This was probably related to the overloading of the floors below the impact region after col- lapse initiation. Depending upon weld joint geometry, detachment of the main load-bearing seats was a result of either fracture in the heat affected zone of the base material (standoff plate detached from spandrel) or through the weld metal (seat angle detached from standoff plate). Failure in both cases was assumed to be a result of a shear mechanism as a result of overloading from floors above impacting those below. There did not appear to be a significant change in distribution of failure modes of the floor truss connections when comparing those connections inside vs. outside of the impact region or those ex- posed to pre-collapse fires and those that were not.

And the vertical columns only tumbled down because of loss of lateral support from the failed floor systems.

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

Because you don’t like a report doesn’t mean there is proof of the fantasy conspiracies?

Should I believe in nukes?

No planes and missiles or lasers?

Dr Wood’s Dustification?

Should I believe in Gages fizzle no flash bombs. When a controlled demolition system would never survive the jet impacts? And the towers did not fall through the path of greatest resistance?



Or should I believe the columns were cut by thermite? When the columns fell last? From tumbling? Not being cut? With no visible molten cuts? Form columns still standing?



From meta bunk on the actual WTC 7 collapse progression.

9/11
WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion?
Thread starterJoe Hill Start dateThursday at 10:43 PM

www.metabunk.org...

A closer inspection reveals the first move of the visible perimeter frame was a sudden lurch to the left at the moment the west penthouse descended. There is no descent of the perimeter frame. The east half of the structure is falling over to the north at onset of the perimeter frame.
An explanation of that motion: www.metabunk.org...

Watch the left vertical edge (NE corner). It is falling over toward the camera, pivoting far below what is visible, near the ground. Watch the left face; it is turning to face the camera.
Does this look like controlled demolition? How does controlled demolition make the structure move like this? There is no drop, sudden or otherwise; just half the structure falling over.

Your second video shows the east half continued falling north throughout descent, creating the "kink", or vertical fold of the north face.

The east half is fully facing the camera, falling north, while the west half is noticeably falling south.

The west half has still not distorted commensurate with the radical motion of the east half. The two "halves" are falling over in opposing directions.
How did controlled demolition cause the perimeter frame to behave as two separate units during collapse, connected by the north wall?
No, it doesn't "look like" controlled demolition to me. It behaves like a perimeter frame that sustained a vertical breach somewhere out of view of the camera.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
NIST is not a trustworthy source for information about the collapses. NIST outright said Freefall was an impossibility for building seven in Aug 2008. They ruled it out because in their mind the building seven had structural support underneath and their failures inside the building were slow and there needed to be sequences of failures to take place first and nothing occurred in an instant. Debunkers have never noticed this flaw in their analysis and just accepted their painful lies in their revised update on Nov 2008
This video is all you need' to conclusively show building seven was controlled demolition on 9/11. NIST was fully aware on Aug 2018,  their fire progressive collapse was not compatible with free fall. 

Don't even have to watch the full video. NIST revealed the truth between 2 minutes and just over 4 minutes.

Ok?

Moot point because there is zero evidence of detonations or thermite to prompt an investigation.

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
Failure of connections, as a result of overloading, occurred within the heat-affected zone of the base metals

app.aws.org...

Summary
Analysis of the connections supporting the composite floor system of the WTC towers showed that at and below the im- pact floors, the greater majority (above 90%) of the floor truss connections were either bent downward or completely re- moved from the exterior column. This was probably related to the overloading of the floors below the impact region after col- lapse initiation. Depending upon weld joint geometry, detachment of the main load-bearing seats was a result of either fracture in the heat affected zone of the base material (standoff plate detached from spandrel) or through the weld metal (seat angle detached from standoff plate). Failure in both cases was assumed to be a result of a shear mechanism as a result of overloading from floors above impacting those below. There did not appear to be a significant change in distribution of failure modes of the floor truss connections when comparing those connections inside vs. outside of the impact region or those ex- posed to pre-collapse fires and those that were not.

And the vertical columns only tumbled down because of loss of lateral support from the failed floor systems.

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

Because you don’t like a report doesn’t mean there is proof of the fantasy conspiracies?

Should I believe in nukes?

No planes and missiles or lasers?

Dr Wood’s Dustification?

Should I believe in Gages fizzle no flash bombs. When a controlled demolition system would never survive the jet impacts? And the towers did not fall through the path of greatest resistance?

Or should I believe the columns were cut by thermite? When the columns fell last? From tumbling? Not being cut? With no visible molten cuts? Form columns still standing?

From meta bunk on the actual WTC 7 collapse progression.

9/11
WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion?
Thread starterJoe Hill Start dateThursday at 10:43 PM

www.metabunk.org...

A closer inspection reveals the first move of the visible perimeter frame was a sudden lurch to the left at the moment the west penthouse descended. There is no descent of the perimeter frame. The east half of the structure is falling over to the north at onset of the perimeter frame.
An explanation of that motion: www.metabunk.org...

Watch the left vertical edge (NE corner). It is falling over toward the camera, pivoting far below what is visible, near the ground. Watch the left face; it is turning to face the camera.
Does this look like controlled demolition? How does controlled demolition make the structure move like this? There is no drop, sudden or otherwise; just half the structure falling over.

Your second video shows the east half continued falling north throughout descent, creating the "kink", or vertical fold of the north face.

The east half is fully facing the camera, falling north, while the west half is noticeably falling south.

The west half has still not distorted commensurate with the radical motion of the east half. The two "halves" are falling over in opposing directions.
How did controlled demolition cause the perimeter frame to behave as two separate units during collapse, connected by the north wall?
No, it doesn't "look like" controlled demolition to me. It behaves like a perimeter frame that sustained a vertical breach somewhere out of view of the camera.

Joe hill does not know anything, never thought of that.

Look at the floor plan, you can see why there were two breaks

Blue is the failure of the columns underneath the Penthouse. Caused a kink
Red is the main core system of columns.
Crack is explainable by just looking at the design plan.

Moot point? That NIST said there was structural resistance underneath during the full collapse?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Joe hill does not know anything, never thought of that.

Look at the floor plan, you can see why there were two breaks

Blue is the failure of the columns underneath the Penthouse. Caused a kink
Red is the main core system of columns.
Crack is explainable by just looking at the design plan.

So you admit the collapse under the penthouse was total, not a collapse where the penthouse house disappeared from sight then immediately stopped? Like is Hulsey model.

Anyway, How.

Your claiming all columns throughout the WTC7 were “magically” weaken over a height of eight floors in the same instance in something over 600 spots to make WTC 7 collapse. Is that false? Like the Hulsey model you support?

Then WTC 7 would have fallen uniformly straight down. If all columns where cut in the same instance over eight floors, there would be no resistance to make it fall in two separate units. Gravity pulls straight down.

Thanks for highlighting the fact that WTC 7 went through a internal East to west progressive collapse with the facade falling often the core progressive collapse, and Hulsey’s model is FBAR.

7 World Trade Center

en.m.wikipedia.org...

With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall down as a single unit.

If your sooo right, fix the Wikipedia entry.

And the question was.

You can show how the video/ audio evidence is more supportive of a conspiracy fantasy?

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
Moot point? That NIST said there was structural resistance underneath during the full collapse?

Is that what was in the final report. Then it should be easy for you to cite those exact words if your quoting the actual final report in context?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

What’s that list of yours again?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You were implying the activation of the majority of the WTC 7 fire sprinklers were dependent on fire alarms. Is that false. I believe the statement that the “activation of the majority of the WTC 7 fire sprinklers were dependent on fire alarms” is a lie.

Can you prove the majority of the WTC 7 sprinklers were not activated by the heat of fires through fusible links or glass bulbs. Can you state which WTC 7 sprinkler systems were ”supervised by fire alarms” if any?

So you created a lie to try to put your on twist in the truth movement fabricated mythology? Or can you prove otherwise?

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
For me this evidence of cut steel by nanothermite.
Same steel piece- and exposed to high heat.



Why would I trust anything you post at this point?

So? There is no evidence of cut columns? So you fabricated your own mythology? Sad.

And this blatant falsehood by you

Basille were independent scentists who contacted Steve Jones for samples to test. They confirmed the chips had thermitic properties.

Really. Shame. Another blatant falsehood.

Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?
We skipped August.

66 months now.

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Basile never published results of testing that confirmed Harrit’s results.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You the one playing the looks like game. Looks like has nothing to with having the ability to support a thermite reaction.

Back to the MEK test huh.


You

They did three investigations to confirm Aluminum was present. A DSC test, a XED test and MEK test all three confirmed elemental AI and Iron oxide.

You

MEK test

Please post the procedure that is used to show free elemental aluminum in a”MEK test”

In fact, please post the procedure for the “ DSC test“ to find elemental aluminum?

I don’t know about elemental aluminum, but

By Oystein

The results ranged from 1.5 to 7.5 kiloJoules per gram, a wide spread that makes "high-tech nano-stuff" an unlikely explanation. More importantly, 2 of the sample released more than 4kJ/g of energy, which is the maximum energy thermite could possibly release due to the basic laws of this universe.

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Was two more of your blatant falsehoods document and added to you list.

When you going to ever answer these simple true or false questions?

You use XED by comparing the peaks from known samples. Is that false? The Harrit peaks are close or dead on for industrial coatings, not aluminum iron oxide thermite. Is that false?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Joe hill does not know anything, never thought of that.

Look at the floor plan, you can see why there were two breaks

Blue is the failure of the columns underneath the Penthouse. Caused a kink
Red is the main core system of columns.
Crack is explainable by just looking at the design plan.

So you admit the collapse under the penthouse was total, not a collapse where the penthouse house disappeared from sight then immediately stopped? Like is Hulsey model.

Anyway, How.

Your claiming all columns throughout the WTC7 were “magically” weaken over a height of eight floors in the same instance in something over 600 spots to make WTC 7 collapse. Is that false? Like the Hulsey model you support?

Then WTC 7 would have fallen uniformly straight down. If all columns where cut in the same instance over eight floors, there would be no resistance to make it fall in two separate units. Gravity pulls straight down.

Thanks for highlighting the fact that WTC 7 went through a internal East to west progressive collapse with the facade falling often the core progressive collapse, and Hulsey’s model is FBAR.

7 World Trade Center

en.m.wikipedia.org...

With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall down as a single unit.

If your sooo right, fix the Wikipedia entry.

And the question was.

You can show how the video/ audio evidence is more supportive of a conspiracy fantasy?

Jumping all over the place calm down. Never, never has a building emptied out its structural support- pre-collapse, and this not disturbed the outside wall frame of the building! NIST explanation doesn’t even make sense when they're a video showing the Northside face of building seven!
The only time something developed and was visible, the Penthouse left the roof, and windows broke underneath the roofline at the Northeast face! So just previous to this collapse- is when some columns inside the building gave away.

Guess what we have a loud noise picked up on video one second before the Penthouse fell in. After the Penthouse fell in, then six seconds afterward, the entire roofline descended and building started its free-fall descent. 
It’s inconceivable to drop 47 floors by fire progressive collapse buckling and crushing by 5 to 6 seconds. There’s merely one proven method that can remove steel support in seconds, this method is controlled demolition. 

I don’t think anyone can say with 100 percent certainty the Penthouse debris stopped or kept traveling all the way to the bottom?
 Hulsey opinion is not crazy, as we do only see window 47 to 41 break on the eastside! There seemed to be not sufficient force still taking place, below the window 47, to continue on shattering windows! We’d need to check what on floor 41 to fully figure out what likely happened here.

Column 79 to 81 are support columns under the Penthouse. Hulsey theory is the core in the heart got removed first (collapsing was underway) and the exterior columns got removed next about one to two seconds later.

I would not expect failure to start till the edge corner columns got removed and then the descent commenced. They'll be a period of wait before the building can no longer save itself and begin to fall. Here after the Penthouse fell, about six seconds.

The Kink developed, underneath ( column 79 to 81) This Kink was probably caused by everything being pulled inwards when the columns at the corner and column 79 to 81 (44 and others failed) Once this finished the building was no longer supported and collapse started. 

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
Moot point? That NIST said there was structural resistance underneath during the full collapse?

Is that what was in the final report. Then it should be easy for you to cite those exact words if your quoting the actual final report in context?

You nevertheless have not processed the cock up. NIST was adamant Freefall was an an impossibility, was all based on six years of work and they'd said this at the conference where the selected questions to be answered, about their findings in their draft report of building seven.  They said it was inconceivable for their to be a freefall collapse, when their findings showed there was striuctural resistance underneath stopping the fall and none of their failures inside the building took place instantly and fast. 

Fixing a report after they claimed this is crazy.  How can you accept there change, three months later? They've gave no apologies for the error, and worse they claimed their work was always consistent with freefall. Bull#, the video clearly shows they are charlatans and liars. 

Like they always say, if you are not a Truther you are a liar.

Not a truther claim steel melted.
FEMA confirmed this unusual phenomenon in its steel study from 2002.
How long do we have to go on with this silliness?
FEMA asserts a very hot fire sulfur caused it, but I don't think theory ever been put to the test.
I know Jonathan Cole ( Civil Engineer) did an test and found the steel beam did not melt after 24 hours, even though the steel was heated up by fuel for 24 hours, building materials, gypsum wallboard, and other stuff was mixed in to see what would happen. Steel was fine no holes.
FEMA presumably never did a test because it was false. They're no video of them ever performing an experiment to show 1000c fire and sulfur melted the steel on 9/11. 

neutronflux

See the burned red/grey chips, that's Iron Molten spheres. You only get Iron Molten spheres when the temp over 1500c.

They're no way Harrit red/chips is paint. You can read what you like but this evidence for thermatic reaction. Debunkers expert, discovered no Iron Spheres on his paint chip.

Someone is lying or they're just looking at different chips in the dust.

Energy release is a red herring. One of the chips is greater than the other three samples. It has more mass per gram. Plus, Harrit never believed the chips is solely composed of AI and Iron oxide. He explains he found other chemicals in the red/grey chips. Other chemicals are there in the layers for a reason.  There carbon in different quantities, so the red/gray chips will not always have the same flow and spike in the calorimeter

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Jumping all over the place calm down

False assertion of authority by you, with a long line of your document falsehoods.

Hey. Can you actually answer the question asked of you?

Quote where you actually answer the below?

You


So you admit the collapse under the penthouse was total, not a collapse where the penthouse house disappeared from sight then immediately stopped? Like is Hulsey model.

Anyway, How.

Your claiming all columns throughout the WTC7 were “magically” weaken over a height of eight floors in the same instance in something over 600 spots to make WTC 7 collapse. Is that false? Like the Hulsey model you support?

Then WTC 7 would have fallen uniformly straight down. If all columns where cut in the same instance over eight floors, there would be no resistance to make it fall in two separate units. Gravity pulls straight down.

Thanks for highlighting the fact that WTC 7 went through a internal East to west progressive collapse with the facade falling often the core progressive collapse, and Hulsey’s model is FBAR.



If your sooo right, fix the Wikipedia entry.

And the question was.

You can show how the video/ audio evidence is more supportive of a conspiracy fantasy?


Sad to see blatantly ignored the actual argument, and spin your own reality.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
Moot point? That NIST said there was structural resistance underneath during the full collapse?

Quote what NIST actually wrote in their final report. So? This is another of your document falsehoods.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
Not a truther claim steel melted.
FEMA confirmed this unusual phenomenon in its steel study from 2002.
How long do we have to go on with this silliness?
FEMA asserts a very hot fire sulfur caused it, but I don't think theory ever been put to the test.
I know Jonathan Cole ( Civil Engineer) did an test and found the steel beam did not melt after 24 hours, even though the steel was heated up by fuel for 24 hours, building materials, gypsum wallboard, and other stuff was mixed in to see what would happen. Steel was fine no holes.
FEMA presumably never did a test because it was false. They're no video of them ever performing an experiment to show 1000c fire and sulfur melted the steel on 9/11. 

What are you going on about?

Can you cite and quote what was actually published By FEMA?

Or you caught in another falsehood?

Watch the video and listen to NIST. All you hear for 95 percent of time on video between 2 minutes and just after 4 minutes is NIST.

Listen to them explain the free fall question! Don't take my word for it, just listen. This all you need to come away believing the truthers are right about the demolitions,

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

See the burned red/grey chips, that's Iron Molten spheres. You only get Iron Molten spheres when the temp over 1500c.

False statement by you.

Debunking 9/11 Microsphere Myths
Thread starterMick West Start dateOct 27, 2018 Tags

www.metabunk.org...

Video

m.youtube.com...


In something of an experiment, I've made a detailed video focussing on one small claim of evidence. The claim is that the presence of iron microspheres in the World Trade Center dust means that high temperature incendiaries were used to demolish it.

The video explains that you can make iron microsphere by making sparks with steel hitting or abrading things, or by burning some tiny bits of iron in a low temperature flame. I also discuss how some of the spheres found might also have been pre-existing from construction, or might have been created after the collapse during cleanup.

Just in case you missed it, “ or by burning some tiny bits of iron in a low temperature flame.”

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
Watch the video and listen to NIST. All you hear for 95 percent of time on video between 2 minutes and just after 4 minutes is NIST.

Listen to them explain the free fall question! Don't take my word for it, just listen. This all you need to come away believing the truthers are right about the demolitions,

Is the video the final published report no.

Quote what the actual published report states.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Pests start here.

You can show how the video/ audio evidence is more supportive of a conspiracy fantasy?

Vs cooling and contracting floor trusses pulled in on the outer vertical columns to the point they bowed inward and buckled at the areas of jet impacts. Making it impossible planted charges initiated collapse. The stories above the bowing and buckling fell into the building below.