Trying to resolve 9/11

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Quote the recorded temperatures from the Harriet paper. There is no proof the reactions burnt hotter than the melting point of steel.

You can live in your make believe world. But the video is evidence. We can hear on video NIST denying freefall. Changes they made later are not believeable.

Again...

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

There claiming negligible support in the revised report underneath

If this is not another falsehood by you, then quote the final report where such a statement is made.

Again.

Another falsehood by you. Quote from the final support where NIST made any claims of negligible support. When the facade columns buckled, they offered negligible resistance. Huge difference.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Quote the recorded temperatures from the Harriet paper. There is no proof the reactions burnt hotter than the melting point of steel.

You can live in your make believe world. But the video is evidence. We can hear on video NIST denying freefall. Changes they made later are not believeable.

Again...

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

There claiming negligible support in the revised report underneath

If this is not another falsehood by you, then quote the final report where such a statement is made.

Again.

Another falsehood by you. Quote from the final support where NIST made any claims of negligible support. When the facade columns buckled, they offered negligible resistance. Huge difference.

At stage 2 NIST admits freefall. For freefall to have occurred there was an acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s during the collapse. Each floor of the building is not hollow, it constructed with steel from bottom to the top. When the building descended there was no resistance at all inside the building to stop the top half hitting the bottom half. There was zero collisions across the width of the building. How by fire you have to ask NIST.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Quote the recorded temperatures from the Harriet paper. There is no proof the reactions burnt hotter than the melting point of steel.

You can live in your make believe world. But the video is evidence. We can hear on video NIST denying freefall. Changes they made later are not believeable.

Again...

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

There claiming negligible support in the revised report underneath

If this is not another falsehood by you, then quote the final report where such a statement is made.

Again.

Another falsehood by you. Quote from the final support where NIST made any claims of negligible support. When the facade columns buckled, they offered negligible resistance. Huge difference.

At stage 2 NIST admits freefall. For freefall to have occurred there was an acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s during the collapse. Each floor of the building is not hollow, it constructed with steel from bottom to the top. When the building descended there was no resistance at all inside the building to stop the top half hitting the bottom half. There was zero collisions across the width of the building. How by fire you have to ask NIST.

Again...

What free fall? There was no free fall in the twin towers.

WTC 7 as a whole fell slower the rate of acceleration of gravity.

WTC 7 started with an internal East to West progressive collapse. The facade did not even start to move downward until the penthouse completely disappeared below the roof line. WTC 7 twisted and kinked before the facade moved. The facade collapse was in three stages. The first stage where it accelerated slower than the rate of gravity. WTC core was pretty much gutted by the second stage of the facade collapse. The second stage is where negligible resistance was offered by the facade. With strong evidence the was faster than the acceleration due to gravity. With no indication or evidence the facade columns were being actively cut. The third and final stage of the facade collapse was started when the rate of free fall slowed less that that of gravity.

During stage two:
There is no evidence in the video, audio, seismic evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns.

You yourself said there was no evidence of temperatures greater than normal office fires. That means there is no evidence of thermite fueled fires burning at 4000F.

The facade columns were right at the windows of the facade. No evidence of columns being actively cut by thermite. No indication of strong UV radiation. No flashing. No sparking.

There is no evidence from the photographic record of columns cut by explosives.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Each floor of the building is not hollow

Then where do all the people work? How is there office space to rent? Where does all the office furniture and equipment go?

Added...
And how do elevator shafts, stairwells, air ducts, piping run between floors?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

There was zero collisions across the width of the building.

What does that have to do with the penthouse bearing witness by disappearing below the roof line WTC 7 was undergoing a East to west international progressive collapse before the facade moved? Then once the facade began to move in stage one, the facade columns became overloaded leading to buckling and negligible resistance in stage two of the facade collapse.

a reply to: MoonMine

How is pointing to video evidence and calling out blatant falsehoods not allowing “normal discussion in here”

The towers and 7 were destroyed by demolition and not planes or fire.

Then to you then?

For the twin towers.

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

a reply to: MoonMine

Why don’t you call out the lies from the talking heads of the truth movement who exploit 9/11 for personal gain? I am guessing spin is more important to you than truth. You’ll never got to the truth through the lies of the truth movement.

a reply to: MoonMine

You trusted government before 9/11? I didn’t need 9/11 to understand that government needs to be limited, and kept in check.

a reply to: neutronflux

Who is running.
Your the one that never addressed anything?

I did inform you to a fact, from which you ran.

Let me try another page from the same publication:

NIST NCSTAR 1-3C

NIST has documented approximately 3 percent of all perimeter columns and 1 percent of all core columns intersecting floors with pre-collapse fires. Thus, the preceding forensic analysis does not, and cannot, give a picture of temperatures seen by the vast majority of perimeter and core columns.

Page 235, last paragraph (whole summary is fascinating btw)


---

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?

Should I believe in nukes?
No planes and missiles or lasers?
Dr Wood’s Dustification?

No.

a reply to: democracydemo

Again with your recoding.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

You created your own “evidence”.
Now again... "I counted them on the video did i not?"
Is that after your claim you tweaked the audio? So you are manipulating the sound? Where, if the “explosions” actually had the force to cut steel columns, the detonations would be clear, obvious, and would have echoed about manhattan. Let’s say you claim eight loud bangs that are expected from any large building fire, or from a structure failing by overloading. Eight bangs who’s audio you manipulated, is that false?

Tweaked and manipulated the sound...oh sweet baby Jeesus.

Tell you what

1.Download the original Huibregtse clip:
archive.org...

2.Get a decent Audio Editor (i use WavePad)

3.Since explosive detonations create low frequencies this is where you want to concentrate on. So a Band-Pass filter must be used.
See where i whipped mine: 96-169Hz
Essentially this operation disregards the helicopter and random street noise, leaving the juicy bits.

4. Report back if your results vary.

Don’t have too. Your created evidence and frequencies are not reflected in the seismic data for detentions with the force to cut steel columns. By frequency, how can you tell if a fire cracker sets off vs a pressurized air conditioning unit exploding in a fire. Other then the ac unit exploding would be more forceful. Again, nobody is say there were no explosions. But, keep on making your own reality.

And the whole argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

With ease:

The same old out of context with no attempt at quantification argument.

Nobody disagrees there was explosions from closed pressurized systems like refrigeration units and air conditioning units cutting loose in the fires. And nobody disagrees there wasn’t a pop when floor connections failed as in WTC 5 being an example.


A detonation that makes a transient pressure wave in the atmosphere where the pressure wave has the force to cut steel columns is entirely different.

And your easily debunked again.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

You didn’t hit a nerve with me. You created your own “evidence”.

Now again...

I counted them on the video did i not?

Is that after your claim you tweaked the audio? So you are manipulating the sound? Where, if the “explosions” actually had the force to cut steel columns, the detonations would be clear, obvious, and would have echoed about manhattan.

Let’s say you claim eight loud bangs that are expected from any large building fire, or from a structure failing by overloading.

Eight bangs who’s audio you manipulated, is that false?

Next, there is no way CD systems would survive the jet impacts and fires to initiate collapse on the floors impacted by the jets as attested to by the video evidence.

Next you claim:

Nature of material used to cut core colums (Nano-thermite anyone)?

If you are saying nano-thermite cut the columns by shockwave, it still would have to create a pressure wave to cut the columns. The energy created by that shockwave is still going to produce audible energy of at least 130 dB.

If you are saying thermite cut the core columns, then why is the no visible white hot sparking from the WTC video evidence. Why would there be “explosive” sounds. Thermite burns relatively slow. Why is there no glowing metal from the collapse video?



Next. You.

Would, lets say, a normal shaped cutting charges even leave this evidence in the first place? Provide evidence for your claim!

But you are not claiming shape cutting charges are you?

You claim eight explosions from the video you “tweaked”?

I did some tinkering with the original video/audio and ended up with this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh. Sorry. You tinkered. Nice that you “tinkered” to create your “evidence” that should be obvious.

Anyway.

You again.

Would, lets say, a normal shaped cutting charges even leave this evidence in the first place? Provide evidence for your claim!

Let’s say you claimed eight loud bands you
Tinkered into “evidence”.

You claim eight cutting charges? Well, flight 175 probably took out about 7 core columns, and the tower did not fall.

Some estimates are more than 7 core columns taken out by Flight 175, with no serious consideration the tower would have collapsed from the jet impact.

That indicates your eight supposed “explosions” could not be cutting charges on individual core columns to take out enough of the 44 core columns to initiate collapse. For you fantasy to work, the supposed explosives would had to be wide area in nature. Not eight shape charges only taking out eight columns. Explosions that would need to take out multiple core columns with each detonation. Explosions that would look like the one event that is known to have taken out 7 core columns, and produced a seismic event of .7 magnitude.




Again. CD systems would not have survived the jet impacts and fires to initiate collapse of the twin towers as attested to by video evidence.

You are falsely confusing expect sounds of “explosions” from a building fire, and expected from a building failing from being overloaded.

You have produced no evidence of explosions with the force to cut steel columns. Explosions that would be obvious, awe inspiring, and echoed about manhattan.
Very similar to the explosive sounds starting around 4:14 mark of the FDR drive video

18 Views of "Plane Impact" in South Tower | 9/11 World Trade Center [HD DOWNLOAD]
m.youtube.com...

How far is FDR drive fromWTC 2?

But you only have audio you “tinkered” with from expected normal building fires, or sounds from a building being overloaded.

You cannot produce physical evidence of columns cut by pyrotechnics. Especially when the truth movement claims the resistance of each floor had to be removed by removing the structural steel of each floor.

a reply to: democracydemo

Funny I address what you post, but you ignore what is asked of you?

You

Let me try another page from the same publication:

NIST NCSTAR 1-3C

NIST has documented approximately 3 percent of all perimeter columns and 1 percent of all core columns intersecting floors with pre-collapse fires. Thus, the preceding forensic analysis does not, and cannot, give a picture of temperatures seen by the vast majority of perimeter and core columns.

Page 235, last paragraph (whole summary is fascinating btw)

The context of the whole argument you act like it doesn’t exist.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Again a paper and the enigmatic two words; "collapse initiation" with dismal focus on what role the core structure played.
How many core columns did NIST inspect from WTC 1 and 2?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Who is running.

Your the one that never addressed anything?


Again...

The context of the whole argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Again a paper and the enigmatic two words; "collapse initiation" with dismal focus on what role the core structure played.
How many core columns did NIST inspect from WTC 1 and 2?

I am game. You tell me.

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?

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

I am game. You tell me.

Perfect! Shall we start from your link: Page 10 Ref. 4

The connections used in the core area are not discussed in this paper, as few were recovered and the as-built location of those that were could not be ascertained; information on these seats can be found in Ref. 4

As this paper presents data on the exterior wall truss connections only the core and hat truss are not discussed further.

Ref. 4: NIST NCSTAR 1-3C

Page 281 paragraph 4 in verbatim?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

You do understand how failure analysis works?

You do understand that there was no evidence of failures from explosives or thermite. You do understand the same failures were witnessed again and again. An investigation only needs to analyze a representative sample of the same type of failure that is present / witnesses again and again?

What analysis should they have ran that wasn’t ran? That would be the more accurate question. Based on the nature of the collapse of the twin towers? What analysis was missing?

Back to the engine block failure example.

A mechanic see this failure.



They should test for explosives? No. It be ridiculous.

You see the same type of shear failure, or broken weld failure present thousands of times in the structural steel. Do you lab analyze every failure. No. You take a representative sample of the repeated witnesses failure mode, then you analyze that sample. You don’t conduct a thousand lab analysis for the same type of failure when a representative sample gives you the answers you need.

a reply to: democracydemo

From the video evidence. For WTC 1 and 2. Do you have any proof the collapse initiation was in areas other than the floors hit the hardest and sustained the most damaged by the jet impacts? Making it impossible for controlled demolition systems to survive the impacts and fires to initiate collapse as captured on video? From multiple angles?

a reply to: neutronflux

What analysis should they have ran that wasn’t ran? That would be the more accurate question. Based on the nature of the collapse of the twin towers? What analysis was missing?

Any and everything after "collapse initiation" and "collapse inevitable". This is a blank canvas not explored by NIST, deliberately imho.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

What analysis should they have ran that wasn’t ran? That would be the more accurate question. Based on the nature of the collapse of the twin towers? What analysis was missing?

Any and everything after "collapse initiation" and "collapse inevitable". This is a blank canvas not explored by NIST, deliberately imho.

So no credible argument by you?

Again


From the video evidence. For WTC 1 and 2. Do you have any proof the collapse initiation was in areas other than the floors hit the hardest and sustained the most damaged by the jet impacts? Making it impossible for controlled demolition systems to survive the impacts and fires to initiate collapse as captured on video? From multiple angles?

a reply to: neutronflux

Good point

My theory relies on precise flight to point of impact. This in mind, charges had to be placed below these planned points of impact to the core columns on multiple levels, bands if you will. Set of in sequence, level by level one after another, you allow gravity to do the work(this is how CD works).

We hear sequence of booms from the video backing up my theory.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Good point

My theory relies on precise flight to point of impact. This in mind, charges had to be placed below these planned points of impact to the core columns on multiple levels, bands if you will. Set of in sequence, level by level one after another, you allow gravity to do the work(this is how CD works).

We hear sequence of booms from the video backing up my theory.

Except one flaw. Besides the points already listed. The collapse initiation was not below the points of impact. With no indication in the core that such explosives were planted.

a reply to: democracydemo

And you didn’t answer

From the video evidence. For WTC 1 and 2. Do you have any proof the collapse initiation was in areas other than the floors hit the hardest and sustained the most damaged by the jet impacts? Making it impossible for controlled demolition systems to survive the impacts and fires to initiate collapse as captured on video? From multiple angles?


You just tried to change the topic to innuendo not supported by the video, audio, physical, seismic evidence, and not supported by the actual collapse initiation.

a reply to: neutronflux

I gave you the video, with audio. You just ignore it.

physical evidence

1% by NIST publication:

NIST NCSTAR 1-3C

NIST has documented approximately 3 percent of all perimeter columns and 1 percent of all core columns intersecting floors with pre-collapse fires. Thus, the preceding forensic analysis does not, and cannot, give a picture of temperatures seen by the vast majority of perimeter and core columns.

Page 235, last paragraph

Ignore and deny everything.