Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: kwakakev

Funny how there is this manufactured truth movement mythology concerning 9/11 that is not based on actual fact.

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

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

Really?

How does a presentation go through a peer review?

Please quote is abstract. It’s conclusion. Who was the referee for the peer review. Please quote the published peer review of the presentation, and it’s findings.

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

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

Sorry. Biased people clapping at a biased presentation is not a peer review.

a reply to: neutronflux

How does a presentation go through a peer review?

Similar to how information goes through review on these boards. A lot of discussion boards where setup with sharing and debate of the evidence. Over time a lot of the lies and misinformation was called out with what was left providing a clearer picture and understanding of events.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

How does a presentation go through a peer review?

Similar to how information goes through review on these boards. A lot of discussion boards where setup with sharing and debate of the evidence. Over time a lot of the lies and misinformation was called out with what was left providing a clearer picture and understanding of events.

That is not peer review.

And what has that got to do with you cannot provide a more credible explanation of collapse of WTC 1 and 2 that is supported by the video evidence.

Is the below true?

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.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

How does a presentation go through a peer review?

Similar to how information goes through review on these boards. A lot of discussion boards where setup with sharing and debate of the evidence. Over time a lot of the lies and misinformation was called out with what was left providing a clearer picture and understanding of events.

Really? Let’s test your statement. Then this is a peer review.

Hulsey presents research arguing WTC7 not brought down by fires/University of Alaska

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Post 3254

www.internationalskeptics.com...

By Oystein

YT: NEW 911 Report By UAF DESTROYS Official Narrative On Collapse Of Building 7!!!
uploaded yesterday, 2020/02/19, it apparently took place between Feb 13 and 16

The title of the video is a lie, to start with: The report (final release) cannot "destroy" anything because it does not yet exist, and the draft isn't "new".

Gage fires of an incredibly fast scatter-shooting of lies, start at 1 min 33 seconds:

—————-
Originally Posted by Richard Gage lies
If uh Building 7 could come down at freefall acceleration[1], straight down, uniformly[2], symmetrically[3], into its own footprint[4] in under seven seconds[5] just like the old hotels in Las Vegas, which are controlled demolitions, then we have a problem[6] with how these similarly designed, hundreds of them, buildings[7] could behave in an office fire. And these were not huge office fires[8]. They were relatively small[9], few and scattered[10] in this building.[2:00]

————————
10 lies in 27 seconds. WOW! I hilighted the lies. He speaks the truth about Vegas demolitions. That's it.

He goes on - 2 minutes 10 seconds:
Originally Posted by Richard Gage more lies
Well, Professor Leroy Hulsey one of the top forensic structural engineers in the country...
LOL
.
Here is JL Hulsey's personal page at the UAF web presence, it contains what must be considered his official CV:
cem.uaf.edu...
Low and behold, it contains the word "forensic" exactly ZERO (0) times. Seems Mr. Hulsey does not think that "forensic" engineering is part of his expertise!

And

Debunked: UAF Study Shows WTC7 Could Not Have Collapsed from Fire

www.metabunk.org...

And

Making Iron Microspheres - Grinding, Impacts, Welding, Burning

www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: kwakakev

Funny. You keep using lots of truth movement items proven as lies in treads repeatedly, but you keep using those proven lies as truth?

a reply to: neutronflux

I guess you could say the work done by the international skeptics is peer reviewed. It is not just one individual doing all the work but a group collaboration. Personally I am skeptical of the work by these and similar skeptics, have had a look at some of it in the past.

Making Iron Microspheres - Grinding, Impacts, Welding, Burning

So where was all this metal work going on that day to create the concentrations of iron spheres found in the dust? Takes a lot more than some general maintenance work to make what was found.

Funny. You keep using lots of truth movement items proven as lies in treads repeatedly, but you keep using those proven lies as truth?

You have not presented a strong enough case to change my mind when comparing the body of work done by NIST compared to that done A&E for 9/11 truth.

a reply to: kwakakev

You

guess you could say the work done by the international skeptics is peer reviewed.

You missed the point.

A peer review is not a forum or clapping at a presentation.

A peer review is a formal review of a study or research stating a clear abstract and conclusion by documenting the critique by a series of individuals that are experts in that field. Usually overseen by a peer review referee. Those experts are expected to have no involvement or contribution to the work they are peer reviewing. And if so, are expected to decline the peer review.This is done to publish research or a study.

You

Similar to how information goes through review on these boards. A lot of discussion boards where setup with sharing and debate of the evidence. Over time a lot of the lies and misinformation was called out with what was left providing a clearer picture and understanding of events.

How is international skeptics not a discussion board by the way. You cannot change your stance because you don’t like the messengers if you want to stand by your erroneous and unethical stance on peer review.

The unethical part of the truth movement. The unethical peer review you have sighted are published not third party impartial general journals like a chemistry journal, but specific truth movement propaganda rags. Pilots for 9/11 truth should be submitting to aerospace journals, not be paid to write for truth movement propaganda rags

Usual the people used in truth movement “peer” reviews are people that were consulted during the “research”, and are picked through the good old boy club because it is known how they will support the propaganda. Not because they think different than the cult mentality.

a reply to: kwakakev

Another example.

If a person ever worked for, contributed money wise / intellectually to Architects and Engineers, then has their work “peered” reviewed by architects and Engineers managed media/publications, that’s a false, unethical peer review.

It be like a pesticide company owning a pesticide journal having their workers publish “studies” the company’s pesticides are safe and calling it “peer” reviewed.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

Funny. You keep using lots of truth movement items proven as lies in treads repeatedly, but you keep using those proven lies as truth?

Why do you fear the truth so much?

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

Funny. You keep using lots of truth movement items proven as lies in treads repeatedly, but you keep using those proven lies as truth?

Why do you fear the truth so much?

Why don’t you argue the false fantasies of Nukes being used at the WTC any longer. I am still arguing my case. Your down to toothless rants. I guess that is what happens when you argue fantasy, and I argue citable and provable facts. Like the Twin Towers did fall through the path of greatest resistance.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

How does a presentation go through a peer review?

Similar to how information goes through review on these boards. A lot of discussion boards where setup with sharing and debate of the evidence. Over time a lot of the lies and misinformation was called out with what was left providing a clearer picture and understanding of events.

I think the other problem you don’t understand. Truth movement forums tied to specific Truth movement groups will censor based on content. You don’t walk their propaganda line, your out. Then you come to a site like ATS that is more open, and conspiracists are not treated with favor. You have a tough time with the actual nature of the twin towers, the reality, and bulk at people citing facts contrary to the manufactured mythology of the truth movement. So you result to false false allegations of demonic.


You

It feels like I am at an exorcism and interacting with a demonic forces as you spew your personal attacks.

I am sorry what is an unprotected environment that facilitates open debate that you are caught using proven truth movement lies soundly debunked. Then instead of dealing with reality, your have to create fantasy demonic forces.

Truth

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

You passing off ridiculousness as fact.

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

At least you provided a post that will always make me chuckle.

a reply to: neutronflux

At least you provided a post that will always make me chuckle.

Good. Just remember I am not the one that wrote that rubbish that the building turned into plastic to help visualize how it collapsed without any explosives. Maybe there where some plastic explosives used some where?

I know it is important to be skeptical about a lot of things in this world.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

At least you provided a post that will always make me chuckle.

Good. Just remember I am not the one that wrote that rubbish that the building turned into plastic to help visualize how it collapsed without any explosives. Maybe there where some plastic explosives used some where?

I know it is important to be skeptical about a lot of things in this world.

What are you talking about.

Do you understand the term plastic in the context of collapse initiation for WTC 1 and 2.

“ 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, “

Plasticity (physics)


en.m.wikipedia.org...(physics)

In physics and materials science, plasticity, also known as plastic deformation, is the ability of a solid material to undergo permanent deformation, a non-reversible change of shape in response to applied forces.[1][2] For example, a solid piece of metal being bent or pounded into a new shape displays plasticity as permanent changes occur within the material itself. In engineering, the transition from elastic behavior to plastic behavior is known as yielding.

As far as plastic explosives.

No proof.

And how do they fit in the reality and context of collapse initiation.

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

Do you understand the term plastic in the context of collapse initiation for WTC 1 and 2. “ 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, “

So you live in a world where steel turns into plastic? Thank you for calling me a lair that lives in a fantasy world. Your reality does not make any sense to me.

a reply to: kwakakev

So you live in a world where steel turns into plastic?

I hope your messing with me. But if not. It shows how ignorant the followers of Richard Gage are when it comes to real world physics.

Not plastic.

Plasticity as in relating to the WTC 1 and 2 fires to cause enough stress in the compromised building structures and / or fire insulation to result in plastic and creep deformation of the structural steel.

6.1 Elastic and Plastic Deformation

Metal piece is subjected to a uniaxial force ⇒ deformation occurs
• When force is removed:
- metal returns to its original dimensions ⇒ elastic deformation (atoms return to their original position)
- metal deformed to an extent that it cannot fully recover its original dimensions ⇒ plastic deformation (shape of the material changes, atoms are permanently displaced from their positions)

physics.uwo.ca...

A steel spring stretched and released to return to its original spring shape underwent elastic deformation.

If a steel spring is stretch too much, it becomes permanently stretched out. When it does not return to is original shape as a spring, it underwent plastic deformation.

Bolt Stretching and Tensile Stress

Tensile stress and Hooke's Law

www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

Mechanics of Materials-Steel

www.learncivilengineering.com...

Structural Steel
Structural steel considered one of the predominant materials for construction of buildings, bridges, towers and other structures. The preferable physical properties of steel makes it widely used for construction of steel bridges, high rise buildings, and other structures. The high strength, ductility, toughness, and uniformity are some of the desirable properties that made steel a leading martial for structures. Despite steel desirable properties, disadvantages of using steel include associated maintenance cost, fatigue, and susceptibility to buckling
Stress-Strain Relationship
The stress-strain relationship of steel material as plotted by the results of a tensile test is shown in Figure 1. The relationship is linear up to the proportional limit; where the material follows the Hook’s law. The upper yield point in the curve is the peak value reached after the linear part; the peak value is followed by a lower yield point at which the curve levels off.

Snip

As shown in the curve, the stress remains constant while the strain continues to increase. At that stage the elongation continues as long as the load is not removed. The constant stress region of the curve called the yield plateau, or plastic range

Snip
dealized Stress-Strain Relationship
In idealized stress strain curve as shown in Figure 2, the proportional limit, elastic limit, and the upper and the lower yield point are represented by a single point called yield point, defined by the stress Fy. The maximum stress in the idealized curve represents the ultimate tensile strength Fu. It should be noted that the shape of the curve below is typical for mild structural steels which are different from each other in the values of Fy and Fu. The ratio of the stress to strain within the elastic range called Young's modulus and denoted by E. The modulus of elasticity, E, is the same for all structures steel and has a value of 29,000,000 psi.

a reply to: kwakakev

There’s that word plastic again...

Steel column strength models

www.sciencedirect.com...

Abstract
This paper uses a simple model to unify the two traditional approaches to steel column strength based either on the buckling of straight columns with residual stresses or on the first yield of crooked columns.

The inelastic buckling and post-buckling loads of elastic-plastic-strain hardening steel columns with residual stresses are determined using the tangent, reduced, and Shanley theories. These are compared with the maximum load capacities of crooked columns which fail by inelastic bending.

It is concluded that the strengths of real steel columns should be analysed by considering the inelastic bending of crooked elastic-plastic-strain hardening columns with residual stresses. It is suggested that this will be most conveniently done by using a tangent modulus theory (which assumes that the loading and unloading paths coincide) to determine the maximum load capacities.

originally posted by: neutronflux

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.

How do you know it was hit by real planes, instead of images of planes? That's what the evidence shows they were.

Look at the videos when the plane first contacts the tower, frame by frame, as it goes into the building, until if finally disappears.

The building is still intact at that point, which is impossible, and proves it wasn't a real plane.

Real planes would crumple at impact, and NOT sift through the whole structure, and leave no damage at all!

That's what we see happen, a phantom plane slice into a building, and vanish, without a trace!

And you assume it was hit by real planes, and initiated collapse at the impact points, so you believe it cannot be caused by CD, because of where the collapse initiated...


Nobody needs to prove if the planes were real, or phantoms, all that matters if if it can be REPLICATED by real models, or cannot.

The fact is that it CANNOT be replicated, and proves the collapses were CD's. No building can completely collapse in seconds, unless by CD. Claiming it was not a CD, over and over again, is completely worthless.

All the floors below the 'impact' areas were intact. They cannot lose all structural support in perfect sequence, over milliseconds, unless by CD.

It's nonsense.

a reply to: turbonium1
What do you mean "nonsense"? We all know those towers were made of Butter!