Trying to resolve 9/11

The Plasco building was another CD.

If they don't actually SAY it is a CD, then it means it is not, and it cannot, possibly have been a CD?

That's your argument?

Now I've heard everything!


If buildings could collapse like on 9/11, by only fire/damage around an area, within seconds, it would have happened before 9/11, but it never did, ever. Why would it happen only AFTER 9/11? Because they want to show it is a 'normal' event, afterwards.

Good one.

a reply to: turbonium1

The whole argument

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

The Plasco building was another CD.

Base on what evidence.

It’s a truth movement lie to keep the CD fantasy on life support for blind followers of WTC controlled demolition.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You

The Plasco building was another CD.

Base on what evidence.

It’s a truth movement lie to keep the CD fantasy on life support for blind followers of WTC controlled demolition.

The reason you, or anyone else, is unable to physically demonstrate/replicate the same event, using any materials, proves it was a CD. One can replicate actual physical events, they cannot replicate cartoon physics in the real world. They just blab about how it can happen, which is absolute nonsense.

A real physical event is always repeatable, demonstrable. We can replicate a CD, by removing supports beforehand. You're trying to support an impossible, cartoon event, make excuses why you can't replicate it, and I pity you, for such ignorance of the real world. Maybe you're a stooge for these murderers, or in denial, it's your problem, and God's judgement of our actions on Earth is not a joke, my friend. All criminals, all supporters of criminals, are simply foolish people, who only
come to realize it, much too late.

a reply to: turbonium1

So. You have no citable evidence of WTC CD. And you have to lie about the Plasco building collapse. Got it.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

So. You have no citable evidence of WTC CD. And you have to lie about the Plasco building collapse. Got it.

What would possibly indicate that these collapses were NOT controlled demolitions.... except for not saying that they were?

The visual evidence of a CD is based on comparing the collapses to other, well-known examples of collapses by CD.

There are specific features of a collapse by CD, which are unique, and distinct, to show it as a CD collapse.

Puffs of smoke coming out of the building, moments before the collapse begins, is a common feature of a CD.

The immediate loss of all structural support is another CD feature.

The speed of collapse is another feature.

These are common features of a CD collapse, which appear only in CD collapses.

Because no other collapse has occurred like this, EXCEPT for CD's.


You cannot compare ANY collapse like those, ever happening before 9/11.

All the evidence shows they were CD collapses. However, there is nothing at all to support your argument, that they were not CD's.


Every CD collapse is conclusive evidence of CD's on 9/11. Non-CD collapses before 9/11 do not exist.

Claiming they were not CD's, isn't based on reality. There would be examples of this, prior to 9/11, if your argument was valid, or might be valid. When you claim they weren't CD's, when knowing there are no prior examples of it, you are lying about it, or deceitful in claiming something that has never happened before, IS what happened, on 9/11, three times, on the very same day!

And topping it off, you demand I show YOU my evidence of CD's?!?

a reply to: turbonium1

You

Puffs of smoke coming out of the building, moments before the collapse begins, is a common feature of a CD.

You mean smoke from fires? With no indication of explosions with the force to cut steel columns as in no corresponding audio of explosions? No evidence of a pressure wave / pressure transient with the force to cut steel columns. No corresponding splintered steel/shrapnel being ejected? No corresponding seismic evidence?

The immediate loss of all structural support is another CD feature.

There is evidence and accounts all three buildings were in distress and leaning before collapse

For the twin towers. They leaned. The sides bowed in and buckled.

The twin towers, the core columns fell last.



What CD technique is that?

You

The speed of collapse is another feature.

Please actually quote the total collapse time from the first sign of buildings shaking / leaning until total collapse.

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.
www.skeptic.com...

You

Claiming they were not CD's, isn't based on reality.

No. It’s based on the absolute zero evidence of planted pyrotechnics cutting steel columns.

While your argument uses pseudoscience, falsehoods, and truth movement lies.

a reply to: turbonium1

Puffs of smoke coming out of the building, moments before the collapse begins, is a common feature of a CD.

The immediate loss of all structural support is another CD feature.

The speed of collapse is another feature.

These are common features of a CD collapse, which appear only in CD collapses.

Because no other collapse has occurred like this, EXCEPT for CD's.

Puffs of smoke coming from one side of building is indication of interior structural collapse

As are

Booming or crashing sounds from inside of building

Windows breaking

Doors either swinging free or jammed tight

Water pouring out one side of building

Cracks appearing in building

All are signs that building is becoming unstable and of impending collapse

So my instructors at seminar on building collapse told us what to look for

All were FDNY chief officers who were at WTC on 911

originally posted by: neutronflux
You mean smoke from fires? With no indication of explosions with the force to cut steel columns as in no corresponding audio of explosions? No evidence of a pressure wave / pressure transient with the force to cut steel columns. No corresponding splintered steel/shrapnel being ejected? No corresponding seismic evidence?

No, I mean puffs of smoke expelled from a building where there is NO fire, and NO damage. The WTC 7 collapse is classic example of this feature, which is common to CD's, and never seen in buildings OTHER than those which are CD's. Every prior example of this feature is in CD collapses, and NONE otherwise. Cutting out, editing the audio is child's play, get serious! There are many CD collapses that show no indication of explosives, either, so drop that one too. And no shrapnel expelled in smoke puffs of a CD, either. Seismic evidence is taken away, revised, or whatever they need to do, so that's another silly argument.

Saying 'where is the physical evidence of a CD',

SInce they have removed all the physical evidence, at the crime scene, which is a crime, right there. If you want to ignore the crime they took part in, let's go one step further, when they SHIPPED AWAY most of the phyical evidence to China. It cannot be disputed that this is a serious crime, because the majority evidence they deliberately took away, was never studied, never investigated, in any way. It was all shipped to China, by them, and that is destruction of evidence, and if you have half a brain, you know they are implicit in this mass murder, to remove and destroy the evidence, DELIBERATELY, which is hardly a cover up, right?

Somehow, you choose to ignore this, as an outright criminal act, proving right there, they are covering up a mass murder, removing all the evidence of a mass murder, deliberately. If you don't agree this is a very serious crime, having very serious implications, of a massive cover up, and shows they are implicit in mass murder, right there, you are siding with the mass murderers, who you know removed the evidence, and destroyed the evidence, and specifically picked out any of the LITTLE evidence they didn't destroy, from a controlled site, which nobody else could enter, or look at.

Then, the only evidence was selected by the same scum who destroyed all the MAJORITY of evidence, intentionally, so they certainly won't select anything that would still implicate them. So pieces were selected, cut, and they called this the 'evidence'!! What a joke!

originally posted by: neutronflux
There is evidence and accounts all three buildings were in distress and leaning before collapse

For the twin towers. They leaned. The sides bowed in and buckled.

The twin towers, the core columns fell last.

Please actually quote the total collapse time from the first sign of buildings shaking / leaning until total collapse.

Are you actually trying to suggest that whenever any building shakes / leans, before it collapses, that this will/has/could never happen in a CD collapse? Or do you believe it can happen in a CD collapse, too?

So what is your point supposed to be? That the collapse time starts at the first shaking, or leaning, onward? No idea what you are getting at, and why you think it's important to discuss what indicates the start of a collapse, or the end of a collapse, because it collapsed entirely to the ground in seconds. It hardly matters to add or remove a few seconds, based on anyone's personal opinion of what makes a start point, and end point, for a collapse.

It's like saying 'Hey, it didn't take 20 seconds, it took almost 40 seconds to collapse', as if you think it matters at all. It took seconds, which proves there was an immediate, sequential removal of all the supports, regardless of what time you think it took..it is irrelevant. Nothing can collapse like that, within seconds, immediately after it was structurally sound, and intact, below the damaged/fire ares.....except for a CD.

I'm not going to play your little games, of how long it took, what method of CD it was, what explosives were used, what proof of explosives was found at the scene, especially because you are siding with these mass murderers, who destroyed this evidence, to begin with. I find this to be sickening, and disgusting to ignore it as you do, which can only mean you ARE siding with these mass murderers, who removed their evidence of mass murder, which you ignore completely, and who would ever ignore that, except those siding with them? Explain what you are doing by ignoring this despicable crime they committed, in broad daylight, if you are really seeking to know the truth? When you know that the truth they destroyed, the truth you ignore, or dismiss, or downplay, you seek to lie, and protect murderers, instead.

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: turbonium1

Puffs of smoke coming out of the building, moments before the collapse begins, is a common feature of a CD.

The immediate loss of all structural support is another CD feature.

The speed of collapse is another feature.

These are common features of a CD collapse, which appear only in CD collapses.

Because no other collapse has occurred like this, EXCEPT for CD's.

Puffs of smoke coming from one side of building is indication of interior structural collapse

As are

Booming or crashing sounds from inside of building

Windows breaking

Doors either swinging free or jammed tight

Water pouring out one side of building

Cracks appearing in building

All are signs that building is becoming unstable and of impending collapse

So my instructors at seminar on building collapse told us what to look for

All were FDNY chief officers who were at WTC on 911

They are all signs of an impending collapse, by CD, for sure.

Every single collapse of a building, within seconds, means it is a CD. Nothing has ever collapsed within seconds, the moment after it had stood almost, or completely intact, except through a CD.

Count the examples of collapses within seconds before 9/11, and every one was a CD, NOT ONE was without a CD, ever.

We know an intact structure cannot collapse within seconds without removing all its supports beforehand, in a very precise sequence, milliseconds apart. That's why it only takes seconds to collapse a building that was previously intact.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

No, I mean puffs of smoke expelled from a building where there is NO fire, and NO damage.

Instead of making crap up. Or using innuendo. How about you provide the actual video evidence?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

So. You have no citable evidence of WTC CD. And you have to lie about the Plasco building collapse. Got it.

So you have no credible evidence to support your official story. So what's new? Nothing.

Pictures and psychobabble put up by yourself prove nothing except how bankrupt your position is.

19 years later and you still haven't figured out 911. That suggests you will NEVER figure out the Covid 19 story.

a reply to: Salander

What? Let’s start with what caused the WTC 2 inward bowing on the floors of the jet impact. Which initiated the collapse.

The pre-collapse inward bowing of WTC2
www.metabunk.org...

That the cores were not cut, but toppled over last.






And that floor connections were bent or sheared by a falling mass from still standing vertical columns. Showing with the video evidence the floor system failed first. The vertical columns were the last to topple. And the twin towers did not collapse through the path of greatest resistance.

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Tower

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.

Man you burn up the bandwidth regurgitating lies.

a reply to: Salander

Empty comment. Thanks for highlighting how week your argument is. And how you lack a rebuttal.

I didn't think this thread had any value all but it did, I learned that clicking the X will remove it from the "MY ATS" list.

originally posted by: neutronflux
And that floor connections were bent or sheared by a falling mass from still standing vertical columns. Showing with the video evidence the floor system failed first. The vertical columns were the last to topple. And the twin towers did not collapse through the path of greatest resistance.

What resistance?

There was no resistance to the collapse, that's why it fell within seconds!

Where was the debris after the collapse? Directly below/around the building's footprint, mostly! Your claim is nonsense, obviously.

Halfway through the collapses, look closely. Is there any vertical columns still standing up, at that point? No.

Everything is gone, seconds later, mainly. Slivers of metal from a column or whatever don't mean anything, since the columns came down at the same time as everything else, if you just look at the collapse halfway through, or so, and NOTHING is standing up, like you claim.


Do you have some sort of agenda here? Why are you defending scumbags who murdered innocent people, then removed all the evidence of it, right afterwards, and shipped it to China, like it was scrap?

How can you live with yourself? It's God who will judge our actions on Earth, after we die, a person who defends evil, acts of evil, assume they will get away with it, or not be judged, punished, for defending evil acts....a brutal mistake, based on greed, selfishness, ignorance, and the rewards, benefits, power, gained are fleeting, while judgement is eternal...

Anyone who will lie about this, or side with them, like those of you who know they destroyed all this evidence, afterwards, but say nothing about it, or excuse it, or whatever....

I think it's disgusting.



The supports in a building are what holds it up, in the first place, that's the purpose of supports, and if any supports fail, from fires, or damage, the supports elsewhere, are intact, still supporting the structure, same as before, and that's why no building collapses at once, in seconds, from any damage, or fires, afterwards. Damage, and fire, may be large, and extreme, throughout an entire building, but random damage, random fires, result in random failures, when they occur, no matter how large in scale, because random damage, random fires, will always result in random failures, and nothing collapses uniform, in seconds, from random damage/random fires.

You have a cartoon argument. It's that ridiculous.

a reply to: turbonium1

You don’t even know the collapse time / sequence do you.

Your arguments full of crap.

Don’t worry. You proven over and over how clueless you are. And your arguments have zero substance and credibility.

a reply to: turbonium1

This is the difference between you and me. I will take a claim. Like the collapse speed of the buildings. I will try to read as many sources as possible. Look at as much analysis as possible. Compare and contrast. Compare it to the video available on line. I will base my arguments off proven analysis. And cite that source in my argument.

You. Well. You literally make up crap. And use proven lies.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

This is the difference between you and me. I will take a claim. Like the collapse speed of the buildings. I will try to read as many sources as possible. Look at as much analysis as possible. Compare and contrast. Compare it to the video available on line. I will base my arguments off proven analysis. And cite that source in my argument.

You. Well. You literally make up crap. And use proven lies.

When you tried to compare three structures that totally collapsed within seconds, by ANY cause, or causes, which ever existed before 9/11, why didn't you mention nothing collapsed in seconds after far worse damage, or fires that made a hirise look like a massive torch, or anything even close to it....

What are you really comparing here?

I've compared every previous example, which is very easy, since there are none.

And I've compared it with actual collapses happening within seconds, which are all CD's.


So what, exactly, are you supposedly comparing here?