Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: neutronflux

Funny I want to talk about the actual collapse initiation and you keep changing the subject....

Good for you, I hope you find what you are looking for to make sense of all this. I have a lot of disagreements with your current perspective of events and doing more homework sounds like a good idea. With your commitment to this thread it reads as though you are struggling with a lot of conflicts in trying to resolve it.

Hopefully someone out there has the answers you need. With Larry Silverstein caught saying 'Pull it' that day, it initiated the orders to begin the collapse sequence.

a reply to: kwakakev

You

Good for you, I hope you find what you are looking for to make sense of all this. I have a lot of disagreements with your current perspective of events and doing more homework sounds like a good idea.

Me. Your the one pushing blatant truth movement falsehoods and lies that have been soundly debunked repeatedly.

And you cannot answer the simplest of honest questions.

Case in point.


Now.

Please list actual published work by Richard Gage that has undergone independent third party peer review concerning the works trade centure.

Joining a group is not peer review.

——-and———-

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.


———————

I would think you would want your fantasy of collapse initiation tested by debate. Using the actual video, audio, seismic evidence.

But you would rather use arrogance and false authority to push fantasies only backed by lies, false mythology, falsehoods, using items out of context, and innuendo.

a reply to: neutronflux

Please list actual published work by Richard Gage that has undergone independent third party peer review concerning the works trade centure.

9/11 Blueprint for Truth has been linked plenty of times on this thread. The findings of that presentation has gone through a lot of review in many areas. You want to find excuses to ignore it that it up to you. All the claims in it look right to me.

Joining a group is not peer review.

This does not make any sense. Peer review is done by groups of people in an associated profession. The compilations and discussions by the group of people at AE 9/11 has gone through lots of review.

This is another presentation by the truth movement that has gone through a lot of peer review.

Skygate 9/11 (2014): by PilotsFor911Truth.org

a reply to: kwakakev

So your assertion of Richard Gage having peer reviewed material concerning the WTC is BS.

Now

Again..

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.

__________

Despite the “peer” review you imply is there, you cannot create a counter argument to the collapse initiation as recorded in the video record. Got it.

And that brings us back to...

The only argument you have is creating a false mythology about what I post. So sad.

The jets hit the towers, removed structural supports. Cut electric cables, pipes, dislodged insulation, breached elevator shafts, cut elevator cables, and disrupted building services.

The Twin Towers fell into the structure of WTC 7. Damaging WTC 7.

Each building had unchecked and wide spread fires.

The wiring, batteries, and electronics needed for your fantasy CD would not have serviced these fires.

The jet impacts would have dislodged charges in your fantasy, and could have busted open and spread the explosives.

The actual CD systems in your fantasy would not have maintained their integrity, notice I posted SYSTEMS, to actuate to initiate the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 as recorded on video multiple angles.

The CD narrative is dead on arrival.

a reply to: kwakakev

So. Again. I am debating actual citable facts from the video evidence, reported evidence. And talking specifics.

You make vague innuendo with no attempt to counter what is actually in the video record.

————-

And you need to address this:

You

If you really want to know just exactly what type and system was used then Larry Silverstein would be a good place to start,

One. Oh. The old truth movement take a term “pull it” that is not even a reference to setting off explosives for an implosion to create a false mythology.

Two. I have posted much on this in that the truth movement has taken Silverstein voicing pulling the firefight effort to save WTC 7 which the building was giving indication of it failing, and putting the surviving firefighters at risk.

Three. If Firefights were killed in your fantasy of the twin towers CD, why would they help Silverstein CD WTC 7.

So. You only have innuendo by taking something out of context in a scenario that has no evidence, and makes zero sense.

a reply to: neutronflux

You only have innuendo by taking something out of context in a scenario that has no evidence, and makes zero sense.

If you cannot see past the deception around Larry saying 'Pull it', I am not surprised you have some many questions about it all. If you cannot work out who is telling lies and misrepresenting things around this one I do not see you making any progress any time soon.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

You only have innuendo by taking something out of context in a scenario that has no evidence, and makes zero sense.

If you cannot see past the deception around Larry saying 'Pull it', I am not surprised you have some many questions about it all. If you cannot work out who is telling lies and misrepresenting things around this one I do not see you making any progress any time soon.

The context was pulling the fire fighters from WTC 7 if you listen to the actual interview.

And again. “Pull it” is not a term used with explosives.

Using fake important sarcastic voice. You have all those Richard Gage peer review documents concerning collapse, and your strongest argument is word games of, but Silverstein said...

You wonder why the truth movement gets laughed at. It’s a F’n joke.

a reply to: kwakakev

Now. Is this true or not.

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...

a reply to: neutronflux

“Pull it” is not a term used with explosives.

It is a term used with controlled demolitions.

As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of floors above

This is false. The building was not made of plastic.

a reply to: kwakakev


You

It is a term used with controlled demolitions.

What is your controlled demolition fantasy for WTC 7 vs how “pulling” is used in demolition.

www.bastison.net...


Is “Pull” Used by Demolitions Professionals to Mean “Demolish a Structure With Explosives?”
Brent Blanchard, a demolitions expert with Protec, and contributor to ImplosionWorld.com, weighs in with his expert opinion:
We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conven- tional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre- weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers etc) to 'pull' the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six story remains of WTC6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway

Is “Pull” Ever Used to Mean “Withdraw Firefighters from Danger?” Yes.
It certainly was used that way on 9/11. Again and again, “pull” is how firefighters and EMTs describe the afternoon withdrawal from the area in and around WTC 7. In the accounts I’ve read, excluding Larry Sil- verstein’s, “pull” is used 26 times to refer to the withdrawal of WTC firefighting operations. 23 of those references are about WTC 7. Add Silverstein’s statement and we’ve got 28 references to “pull” meaning “withdraw.” Details are in the appendix. My survey was by no means exhaustive.
Here’s a summary of the first-person accounts I’ve read:
People who specifically mention the severity of the WTC 7 fires 35 People who specifically mention the extensive damage to WTC 7 25 People who mention the FDNY order to withdraw from WTC 7 area 93
Number of times “Pull” is used to mean “withdraw rescuers” Number of people who use “Pull” to mean “withdraw rescuers” Other witnesses who say the collapse of WTC 7 was expected
29 16 29
Total 211
Doubters, please read the following accounts. Names in bold are those whom the accounts indicate gave orders to withdraw from the area around WTC 7.
7 World Trade Center was roaring. I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down. –Firefighter Kevin Howe
graphics8.nytimes.com...
Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to col- lapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to col- lapse. ""
Firehouse Magazine: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47- story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface re- moval and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were con- cerned for their safety. ""
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in get- ting the guys out.

www.bastison.net...

a reply to: kwakakev

You

This is false. The building was not made of plastic

Hahahahahahahaha breath hahahahahaha

Your funny and sad at the same time.


Please do go into great detail how crushed only applies to plastic.

Compressive strength or compression strength is the capacity of a material or structure to withstand loads tending to reduce size, as opposed to which withstands loads tending to elongate. In other words, compressive strength resists being pushed together, whereas tensile strength resists tension (being pulled apart). In the study of strength of materials, tensile strength, compressive strength, and shear strength can be analyzed independently.

Some materials fracture at their compressive strength limit; others deform irreversibly, so a given amount of deformation may be considered as the limit for compressive load. Compressive strength is a key value for design of structures.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: kwakakev

Compressive strength refers to the ability of a certain material or structural element to withstand loads that reduce the size of that material, or structural element, when applied. A force is applied to the top and bottom of a test sample, until the sample fractures or is deformed.

Materials such as concrete and rock are often evaluated using a compressive strength test and in these cases, fracturing occurs.

Materials such as steel can also be tested for compressive strength, and in the case of ductile materials, deformation tends to occur. Initially, a ductile material will accommodate the applied load by adjusting it’s internal structure– a process referred to as plastic flow.

Once the deformation is concentrated in one area, the plastic flow stops and the material breaks. For ductile metals, tensile strength is usually the preferred indicator for measurement and comparison. This is because tensile stress measures the forces needed to pull a material apart, which is better suited to the plastic flow phenomenon.

This one will blow your mind...

ntroduction
F. Abe, in Creep-Resistant Steels, 2008
1.1 Definition of creep
Plastic deformation is irreversible and it consists of time-dependent and time-independent components. In general, creep refers to the time-dependent component of plastic deformation. This means that creep is a slow and continuous plastic deformation of materials over extended periods under load. Although creep can take place at all temperatures above absolute zero Kelvin, traditionally creep has been associated with time-dependent plastic deformation at elevated temperatures, often higher than roughly 0.4Tm, where Tm is the absolute melting temperature, because diffusion can assist creep at elevated temperatures. For detailed description of mechanical equation of state, creep behavior of metals and alloys, dislocation motion during creep, mechanisms of creep, creep damage and fracture, the reader is referred to standard text books on creep.1-6

www.sciencedirect.com...

a reply to: kwakakev

More here...

Effect of temperature on creep in ASTM A572 high-strength low-alloy steels

link.springer.com...

Abstract

Creep deformations that occur at high temperature can significantly influence the fire response of steel structures. There is limited data on the effect of temperature on creep deformations in structural steel used in construction applications. This paper presents an investigation into temperature induced creep in high-strength low-alloy ASTM A572 steel commonly used in structural members. A set of creep tests is carried out at various stress levels in 400–800 °C range which is commonly encountered temperature range in structures subjected to fires. Results from these creep tests indicate that temperature has significant influence on the level of creep deformations in ASTM A572 steel, especially when the temperature exceeds 500 °C. The extent of creep deformation at a given temperature increases with stress level and the effect can be substantial at 550 °C when the stress level exceeds 50 % of room temperature yield stress. But creep deformations can rapidly rise beyond 800 °C even for low stress levels of about 10–15 % of room temperature yield stress.

Creep (deformation)
In materials science, creep (sometimes called cold flow) is the tendency of a solid material to move slowly or deform permanently under the influence of persistent mechanical stresses. It can occur as a result of long-term exposure to high levels of stress that are still below the yield strength of the material. Creep is more severe in materials that are subjected to heat for long periods and generally increases as they near their melting point.

en.m.wikipedia.org...(deformation)

a reply to: kwakakev

This is now in better context..

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

Now. Is this true or not.

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...

a reply to: neutronflux

I disagree with those findings as the cause for the complete destruction of the towers. I know some have used it to argue for Larry's payout on the buildings as he got his money. Looks like one big con job from here.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I disagree with those findings as the cause for the complete destruction of the towers. I know some have used it to argue for Larry's payout on the buildings as he got his money. Looks like one big con job from here.

So you wrecked your car and get a check equals a con? Why do you think people carry insurance? Why would it be different for a property owner making insurance payments?

Then you know there was a lawsuit against the payout for WTC 7. Care to state those funding and the cause of collapse of WTC 7 in the insurance companies vs Silverstein?

a reply to: kwakakev

You

I disagree with those findings as the cause for the complete destruction of the towers.

Based on what? What does the video evidence show.

Just because it shows the truth movement fantasy of CD is a lie.

a reply to: kwakakev

Fifteen years after the World Trade Center attacks, the estimated cost of rebuilding the entire site remains somewhat of a mystery, hovering somewhere between $14 billion and $16 billion — or maybe more.

therealdeal.com...

The cost of rebuilding the WTC was 14 to 16 billion. How much was the insurance payout?

a reply to: kwakakev

I am guessing it would be easy for you to cite and quote Richard Gage’s peer reviewed study on the collapse initiation of WTC 1 or WTC 2. The one authored by Richard Gage. Except for he doesn’t have one.