Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: kwakakev

I keep posting the same facts because you keep posting the same blatantly false arguments, and truth movement lies.

a reply to: kwakakev

Again..

You

As for how the building started to collapse, something happened to compromise the core support structures of the building. The plane strike when it hit was not enough to do this. The subsequent office and fuel fire was not enough to do this either.

The basic rundown as been repeatedly cited for you. Conspiracists have the shortest memory.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

Skip to...

Again...

After the planes struck the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel.

As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of floors above. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards. "The ensuing loss in vertical load-carrying capacity was confined to a few storeys but extended over the entire cross section of each tower."[26] In the case of 2 WTC, the eastern face finally buckled, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. Later, the south wall of 1 WTC buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.[27]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

——-

Now. Please cite and quote where you have made any attempt to prove the above is false.

So provide actual facts to counter the basic account of collapse initiation. Or stop with the blatant intellectually dishonest arguments in acting like something has not been repeatedly provided for you.

a reply to: kwakakev

You posted this

It has been the A&E for 9/11 truth where a lot of the peer review for Richard's conclusions has taken place. Have done a lot of good work over the years challenging the findings by NiST and forming a more realistic understanding of how the buildings collapsed.

In response to this:


originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

You

It make a lot more sense than the NIST corruption,

That’s your opinion. But it’s fact that Richard Gages manufactured mythology concerning the twin towers has no bases in reality concerning the actual physical, video, audio, seismic evidence. Unless you count him using items like photos of columns cut during cleanup by thermal lance as “evidence” of the thermite fantasy.

In trashing Richard it is trashing the the strong and open oeer review of the engineering community.

What peer review by people independent of Richard Gage’s group are you referring to.

I think I have posted this before. With people involved with the Hulsey report. And there ties to Architects and Engineers. Is that false?


——————-

Now. What published work by Richard Gage are you referring to, please cite and link to specific published papers and research that has gone through a third party independent peer reviewed.

a reply to: neutronflux

All you ever post is pictures and talking points from the official narrative, and all that proves is the intellectual bankruptcy of the official narrative. The official narrative is false, and that's why the government's own commission noted many times that "we found no evidence" to support various claims of that narrative.

a reply to: Salander

All you ever post is pictures and talking points from the official narrative,

You mean reference the actual video evidence and facts. I didn’t know that was official?

What I post is talking points? Please cite the list you think I am using


Now referring to the wiki item I quote..


Again...

After the planes struck the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel.

As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of floors above. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards. "The ensuing loss in vertical load-carrying capacity was confined to a few storeys but extended over the entire cross section of each tower."[26] In the case of 2 WTC, the eastern face finally buckled, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. Later, the south wall of 1 WTC buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.[27]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Can you refute the collapse initiation of each twin tower: “ In the case of 2 WTC, the eastern face finally buckled, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. Later, the south wall of 1 WTC buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.”

You

and all that proves is the and all that proves is the intellectual bankruptcy of the official narrative.

Referencing the video evidence is “ and all that proves is the intellectual bankruptcy of the official narrative. How. Vs what you using pseudoscience to push your nuke theory. When the core columns had to be cut from their foundations, the slurry wall was not breached, and the bedrock was solid enough to build new towers on?

You

The official narrative is false,

The prove this wrong: “ In the case of 2 WTC, the eastern face finally buckled, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. Later, the south wall of 1 WTC buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.”


You

and that's why the government's own commission noted many times that "we found no evidence" to support various claims of that narrative.

One: Please quote and cite what those various claims are. Be specific. Or is that a truth movement talking point?

Two. Good thing I reference the actual video.

a reply to: Salander

Funny I post and cite actual material and evidence. You write BS about what I post, ignore questions I ask, and avoid the actual evidence.

originally posted by: neutronflux

You don’t have to replicate the collapse of each twin tower. It’s on video. With videos from multiple angles.

That's exactly what has to be replicated, because nothing else HAS collapsed in such a way before. Of course "it's on video", and "from multiple angles"! Everybody knows that already, it doesn't mean you don't have to replicate it with real models.

You cannot use the collapses as proof that such collapses can happen by fire and damage, that's ridiculous!

You are using 'circular reasoning'...

Circular reasoning (often begging the question) is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument; i.e., the premises would not work if the conclusion weren't already assumed to be true.

rationalwiki.org...

You've already concluded that a collapse like this can happen by fire and damage alone, and it doesn't need to be replicated because it happened on 9/11.

The fact is that it has NEVER happened before, so there's only one way to prove it COULD happen on 9/11, and that is with actual replication with real models.

But of course, you CANNOT replicate it with real models, and nobody ever can. Because it's impossible to replicate it.

The excuse that you don't need to replicate it doesn't wash.

a reply to: turbonium1

Is this true or false...

“ In the case of 2 WTC, the eastern face finally buckled, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. Later, the south wall of 1 WTC buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.”

Because it’s know from the video where the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 initiated. It was in the areas of jet and fire. With no indication of being initiated by pyrotechnics. With no way a controlled controlled system would survive the jet impact and fires to stat the collapse in the record of evidence. With no indication the core columns were cut.

What is that other thing you will not answer?

The video / photographic evidence shows the core fell after being completely sheared of the floor system. And all the floor connections indicate they were sheared from overloading, or bent down. Not cut. Exactly how in the fantasy of planted pyrotechnics did they interact with the structural steel?

a reply to: turbonium1

You

That's exactly what has to be replicated,

Because it’s on video, and the collapse initiation is on tape?

New to me this video of a father speaking about how his son was killed in a blast at the north tower before the blast

www.bitchute.com...

www.facebook.com...

This is Bobby McIlvaine's dad and I (Gene Laratonda​) at WTC 7 this past weekend. His son was found knocked out of his shoes with half of his head, chest and one arm blown off. His body was in the morgue BEFORE the towers came down. An explosion caused this and it wasn't a fireball coming down the only elevator shaft that went up to the impact zone because the man in it lived. The explosion knocked the stonework off the core column walls and blew much of the lobby glass out onto the sidewalk. Glass was impregnated in Bobby's chest. 118 firefighters witnessed explosions as well as maintenance worker William Rodriguez (from the 1st of 6 sub-level basements in WTC 1).


Drops mike and walks out of room

a reply to: stonerwilliam

September 11, 2001: The day my son didn't come home
By David Usborne
Saturday 11 September 2004 00:00

www.independent.co.uk...

But something still haunts this man and he has not been able to let it go. How did Bobby die, exactly? Where was he? He and his wife never saw the body. It was identified, without any question, by dental records. (Bobby had recently had a crown fitted.) They were advised against viewing it at the makeshift morgue that received all the 9/11 remains at that time. And when they got him home to Philadelphia, the undertaker was similarly discouraging. "He said that it was just going to leave a mark on us for the rest of our lives, if we did," he recalls now. What they were told was this: Bobby suffered massive trauma, had post-mortem burns over 90 per cent of his body and was missing his right arm.

Mr McIlvaine is still searching for answers. His theory is that Bobby was struck by flying debris, perhaps a chunk of concrete or a girder. If everyone was telling them the truth about the condition of his body, he surely could not have jumped. To imagine that would almost be too much to bear.

Article from 2004.

Do you have the actual coroner’ report. Or just another victim of 9/11 exploited by the truth movement, with truth movement exaggeration and Innuendo.

a reply to: stonerwilliam

FATHER’S GRIEF SPURS SEARCH FOR TRUTH ABOUT 9/11
APRIL 4, 2010IRISH EDITION

irishedition.com...’s-grief-spurs-search-for-truth-about-911/

Article on Bobby McIlvaine's dad from 2010. No mention of the injuries to Bobby being proof of CD. The only thing I can find reference to is glass, with no indication of metal / demolition shrapnel recovered with Bobbies body.

A fire ball explosions from vaporized jet fuel igniting still causes a pressure / shockwave. What do you think blows up crude oil refineries when they explode. Its vaporized fuel.

So yes. A fire ball explosion from 10,000 gallons of jet fuel can be very devastating, and cause a shockwave.

a reply to: stonerwilliam

Why would Bobby McIlvaine be the smoking gun when...

Inside the North Tower: Witness Accounts, Plaza Level & Concourse Lobbies, Basements

Home
9/11 Links
Plaza Level & Concourse Lobbies

sites.google.com...:witnessaccounts,lobb

Reeves suffered third-degree burns to 40 percent of his body before he was able to pat out the flames. He was one of 20 critically-injured patients rushed to New York Presbyterian’s burn unit that day. www.ny1.com...

Why would the truth movement rally just behind Bobby McIlvaine when there were actual lobby survivors?

What type of injuries did the 20 critically injured people have?

a reply to: stonerwilliam

Lauren Manning

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Surviving 9/11 attacks (2001) Edit
See also: Unmeasured Strength § Book overview
On September 11, 2001, Manning left her West Village home[10] and headed for the World Trade Center's North Tower, where she was a senior executive at Cantor Fitzgerald[12] with an office on the 105th floor.[4][13] As she entered through the glass doors of the North Tower's West Street entrance, the first jet was crashed into the 96th floor, cutting through elevator shafts that ran the full height of the building and giving the explosive fires a direct path to the first floor lobby. Moments later, as she turned towards the elevators that would take her up to her office, a wall of fire from the jet fuel explosion blasted from the elevator shafts, enveloping Manning and setting her aflame.[10][2] Manning fought the back draft and pushed out through the building doors and onto the sidewalk outside.[13] She ran across the six lanes of West Street before stopping to drop and roll on a strip of grass to extinguish the flames, where she was assisted by a good Samaritan.[14]

Why wouldn’t the truth movement rally behind Lauren Manning? Because she is alive and cannot be exploited like the dead?

a reply to: neutronflux

I keep posting the same facts because you keep posting the same blatantly false arguments, and truth movement lies.

It feels like I am at an exorcism and interacting with a demonic forces as you spew your personal attacks. I don't expect to change your mind, if you have not yet with all the evidence that has been produced on this thread you wont.

You want to stay blind to the real threat and protect the real terrorists, its your life. You want to fight for supporting this corruption, you can. If you resolve this issue by listening to people with an interest in not getting busted for this crime rather than following the evidence wherever it leads, it's your choice.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I keep posting the same facts because you keep posting the same blatantly false arguments, and truth movement lies.

It feels like I am at an exorcism and interacting with a demonic forces as you spew your personal attacks. I don't expect to change your mind, if you have not yet with all the evidence that has been produced on this thread you wont.

You want to stay blind to the real threat and protect the real terrorists, its your life. You want to fight for supporting this corruption, you can. If you resolve this issue by listening to people with an interest in not getting busted for this crime rather than following the evidence wherever it leads, it's your choice.

I feel ya and agree with your post. I go into 9/11 posts from time to time and see the poster you are replying to making post after post, sometimes 5 and 6 back to back and I wonder what drives him or her to be so relentless on refuting or downing every claim that isn't the official story. i don't know what exactly happened that day but I know that i don't believe it happened as they have tried to convince us it happened. I can't imagine being so convinced as said poster is to fight any questioning of the official story with such veracity.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I keep posting the same facts because you keep posting the same blatantly false arguments, and truth movement lies.

It feels like I am at an exorcism and interacting with a demonic forces as you spew your personal attacks. I don't expect to change your mind, if you have not yet with all the evidence that has been produced on this thread you wont.

You want to stay blind to the real threat and protect the real terrorists, its your life. You want to fight for supporting this corruption, you can. If you resolve this issue by listening to people with an interest in not getting busted for this crime rather than following the evidence wherever it leads, it's your choice.

You wonder why I keep listing the same crap. Because you use the same innuendo to change the subject.

You don’t understand how repugnant it is for you to back a proven con like Richard Gage that exploits 9/11 for person fame and profit?


Now. Stop changing the subject. Answer questions directed to you.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

Again..

You

As for how the building started to collapse, something happened to compromise the core support structures of the building. The plane strike when it hit was not enough to do this. The subsequent office and fuel fire was not enough to do this either.

The basic rundown as been repeatedly cited for you. Conspiracists have the shortest memory.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

Skip to...

Again...

After the planes struck the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel.

As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of floors above. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards. "The ensuing loss in vertical load-carrying capacity was confined to a few storeys but extended over the entire cross section of each tower."[26] In the case of 2 WTC, the eastern face finally buckled, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. Later, the south wall of 1 WTC buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.[27]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

——-

Now. Please cite and quote where you have made any attempt to prove the above is false.

So provide actual facts to counter the basic account of collapse initiation. Or stop with the blatant intellectually dishonest arguments in acting like something has not been repeatedly provided for you.


originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

You posted this

It has been the A&E for 9/11 truth where a lot of the peer review for Richard's conclusions has taken place. Have done a lot of good work over the years challenging the findings by NiST and forming a more realistic understanding of how the buildings collapsed.

In response to this:


originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

You

It make a lot more sense than the NIST corruption,

That’s your opinion. But it’s fact that Richard Gages manufactured mythology concerning the twin towers has no bases in reality concerning the actual physical, video, audio, seismic evidence. Unless you count him using items like photos of columns cut during cleanup by thermal lance as “evidence” of the thermite fantasy.

In trashing Richard it is trashing the the strong and open oeer review of the engineering community.

What peer review by people independent of Richard Gage’s group are you referring to.

I think I have posted this before. With people involved with the Hulsey report. And there ties to Architects and Engineers. Is that false?


——————-

Now. What published work by Richard Gage are you referring to, please cite and link to specific published papers and research that has gone through a third party independent peer reviewed.

a reply to: kwakakev

You

It feels like I am at an exorcism and interacting with a demonic forces

And yet your the one pushing proven and know truth movement lies. Your the one ignoring basic facts. And backing a man the has been caught using false 9/11 mythology to exploit 9/11 for personal gain and choice speaking engagements.

Matthew 23 ►


A Warning Against Hypocrisy

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5“Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries a wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

8“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

biblehub.com...

By all means. You keep being spiritually judgmental and keep using your false authority founded on people creating a false mythology concerning 9/11 to exploit it. While I simple refer to the actual video evidence.

a reply to: neutronflux
By all means refer to this video evidence:

Are all the people in this video lying?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
By all means refer to this video evidence:

Are all the people in this video lying?

By all means. What does this have to do with actual collapse initiation as caught in the video recorded.

Is this false.

“ In the case of 2 WTC, the eastern face finally buckled, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. Later, the south wall of 1 WTC buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.”

Seems you also have a history of making claims you cannot back...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Want to play too.

Let’s stay with this...

start with this..

A system of pyrotechnic charges would not have survived the jet impact and fires to initiate the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 as clearly seen by the video, audio, seismic record.

The truth movement fantasy of CD is dead on arrival. You get it.

—————

If kwakakev actually addressed the above. It should be easy for you to counter? Or quote and cite a response.

I am guessing you cannot.