Trying to resolve 9/11

There's no visual evidence of freefall, in the finite global model belonging to NIST. That a big problem the debunkers ignore.

Where I boxed around, have a good look!



If you don't understand the model. This is a real time comparison of that model (same captured time)


NIST is showing the internal steel columns are still holding here and are now only beginning to crumble. At this stage of the collapse the building falling through its own structure, an empty left space, over 100 feet from east corner to the west corner. You can’t believe progressive collapse true when the model shows the complete opposite thing happened.


Like i told you. NIST was asked did freefall occur in a televised broadcast in Aug 2008 and they denied it. David Chandler in my mind got the truth out of them and if debunkers are living a lie

Shyam Sunder (NIST) listen to his answer about freefall at seven.
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You have no sense of shame.

Let’s start with your blatant lies one by one.

You

Thermal expansion of girders and beams leading to an asymmetrical total collapse h

Another BS argument by you. A blatant lie.

For the Twin Towers. The core tumbled outward in long lengths after being stripped of their lateral support provided by the floor system.



For WTC 7

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Building seven did not come apart at all

Back to blatant lies to create a false mythology....

Overview of Damage to Buildings near Ground Zero

www.eng.buffalo.edu...

As WTC 7 collapsed, it fell partly on an adjacent building at 30 West Broadway, causing significant damage (Figure 3.15, south face and Figure 3.16, west face). Beams were permanently distorted by the impact (Figure 3.17).
Figure 3.15. Damage to the south face of a building at 30 West Broadway due to impact from the collapse of WTC 7


——-snip——-

3.5 Verizon Building, 140 West Street
The collapse of World Trade Center 7 damaged the adjacent Verizon building. Damage to the west façade of that building is shown in Figure 3.18. Large segments of the WTC 7 braced framing were lodged against the Verizon building, which also suffered notable perforations in its framing and cladding. In particular, a steel column was severely distorted, presumably by debris impact (Figure 3.18, bottom right photo).

———-

You post like you have credibility.

Do you your really want to highlight your lies over and over again.

You keep posting mythology. Not actual evidence. Not actual collapse characteristics.

Again...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

From...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

You

The debris field of almost null for WTC 7 is hard to simulate.

How is this contradictory? What logic drives such a statement?

Trying to be dishonest about my actual post.

The actual argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Please explain how Hulsey’s model of WTC7 simulates the actual debris fiend of WTC 7, and the collateral damage by WTC 7 concerning other buildings.

Especially as pointed out by Oystein

But he didn't replicate...
the collapse or the East Penthouse correctly, as Mick showed earlier
the kink that formed in the east part of the roof
the flectures
the counter-clocwise rotation of the building
the fall of the north wall onto the roof of Fiterman Hall
Essentially, Hulsey himself erected a standard of precision that he wants to hold NIST to (without actually giving a reason), and then fails that standard.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Pointless post, ignoring the lies and falsehoods of your sources.

You posted this statement from your source...

Unlike NIST the UAF study found a scenario that exactly matched the observed collapse both visually and in the time domain

But you contradict your own source with:

The debris field of almost null for WTC 7 is hard to simulate.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You just look stupid at this point. Sorry.

Again confused. If Seven building broke apart during the fall. Will look identical to this gif based on modelling carried out by Kostack studios.

makeagif.com...

Impact of the debris hitting the ground and the raising dust from the collapse is what caused the adjacent buildings to have damage. Your terminology wrong to suggest the outside came apart when falling from the top to the bottom.

My posts are about building seven, not the towers.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
Again confused. If Seven building broke apart during the fall. Will look identical to this gif based on modelling carried out by Kostack studios.

makeagif.com...

Impact of the debris hitting the ground and the raising dust from the collapse is what caused the adjacent buildings to have damage. Your terminology wrong to suggest the outside came apart when falling from the top to the bottom.

My posts are about building seven, not the towers.

See you are blatantly lying again



Then how did the damage to Fiterman Hall occur near its roof?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Why does the Hulsey model not developed the “kink” that clearly is evident in the video evidence.

Look at the picture of Fiternan hall. The damage is pushed downward. Part of WTC 7 fell on top of Fiterman hall and worked down into the corner of the building.




The photographic evidence shows you are lying, and not credible.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

See you are not posting about the twin towers.

Do you admit the truth movement lied.

The twin towers did not fall straight down through the path of greatest resistance.

The floor systems stripped away. Then the cores columns tumbled out after stripped of lateral support.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
Again confused. If Seven building broke apart during the fall. Will look identical to this gif based on modelling carried out by Kostack studios.

makeagif.com...

Impact of the debris hitting the ground and the raising dust from the collapse is what caused the adjacent buildings to have damage. Your terminology wrong to suggest the outside came apart when falling from the top to the bottom.

My posts are about building seven, not the towers.

See you are blatantly lying again

Then how did the damage to Fiterman Hall occur near its roof?

There multiple feeds of the destruction of seven online. The building did come apart like i show in that gif. For you to be right all the videos from that day would need to be fake. Just because someone official says in one photograph that it damage caused by building seven does not make it so. What not disputed- twin towers when falling down hurled steel and all sorts of debris, many street blocks away and many pieces of steel could have reached that far and landed on top of the roof of smaller buildings, even more since when building seven is in close proximity to fiterman hall that near Greenwich street

Neutro i don’t trust studies that lie about the construction..

This is a computer model of that connection at column 79

A21 is the girder. 79 the column



The construction pieces, highlighted in red NIST removed to allow that failure at column 79 to start. There be no beginning of the NIST progressive collapse until the push that girder east of its column seat. You can see the welded the plates to prevent such a thing from happening. Right side drawing shows it even more clearly. NIST can not remove construction and believe the replicated the failure correctly.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

See you are not posting about the twin towers.

Do you admit the truth movement lied.

The twin towers did not fall straight down through the path of greatest resistance.

The floor systems stripped away. Then the cores columns tumbled out after stripped of lateral support.

Building seven is the smoking gun here for demolition. Discussion about the towers is not of critical importance for me right now. My reason for that is- only need to show one of the threee building brought down was a controlled demolition to change the entire event. I have no evidence to back up mainstream studies building seven fell naturally

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

Neutro i don’t trust studies that lie about the construction..

This is a computer model of that connection at column 79

A21 is the girder. 79 the column

The construction pieces, highlighted in red NIST removed to allow that failure at column 79 to start. There be no beginning of the NIST progressive collapse until the push that girder east of its column seat. You can see the welded the plates to prevent such a thing from happening. Right side drawing shows it even more clearly. NIST can not remove construction and believe the replicated the failure correctly.

How do plates prevent steel from being weakened if sufficiently heated? The whole reason millions are spent on fire proofing insulation for steel is to protect the steel from normal office fires. If it only took steel plates, then why use insulation. How do plates prevent steel from thermal expansion and contraction that have caused structural failures. Steam piping and boilers do not use fixed plates to prevent ruptures and pipes cracking open from thermal expansion. They require expansion joints. You might lookup the pipe thickness for carbon steel pipe rated for 1500 psi steam. And with no thermal expansion joints, it will crack like an egg during heat up from thermal stress. If it’s boxed in in anyway.

Enough thermal stress can push past such plates. Or break such plates. Especially if the plates have reduced load rating from being hot.

Then how did these floor connections in WTC 5 fail?







And good thing there are two other court submitted studies that concluded fire related collapse. What was the collapse mechanisms in those studies. I think they concluded fire related collapse, but had different areas of initiation.

Quote where I ever said the NIST report was gospel. Like how your create these arguments that never existed.

Blatant intellectually dishonestly.

And how did the steel structure at the Windsor Tower above the 17 floor collapse?


Your arguments are BS.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

There multiple feeds of the destruction of seven online.

Ok.

The building did come apart like i show in that gif.

Do you know what your talking about?

Here in this thread. The First 9/11 Sceptic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You claimed “seven did not come apart at all”

You contradicted yourself. And still killing your own credibility. Smooth move Ex-lacs.

Below is from your post. Is that false?

Building seven did not come apart at all,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You

For you to be right all the videos from that day would need to be fake.

False assertion with you providing no link to actual video.

While you ignore the actual argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Why does the Hulsey model not developed the “kink” that clearly is evident in the video evidence.

Look at the picture of Fiternan hall. The damage is pushed downward. Part of WTC 7 fell on top of Fiterman hall and worked down into the corner of the building.




The photographic evidence shows you are lying, and not credible.

Just because someone official says in one photograph that it damage caused by building seven does not make it so.

The photo of the damage to Fiterman Hall clearly shows part of WTC 7 struck the roof, or right at the roof line. And caused the steel structure of Fiterman Hall to pushed down causing failures.

So. Again. I have no F’n clue what your talking about when I posted the picture of the actual damage. You are as dishonest as a flat earther.

What not disputed- twin towers when falling down hurled steel and all sorts of debris, many street blocks away and many pieces of steel could have reached that far and landed on top of the roof of smaller buildings, even more since when building seven is in close proximity to fiterman hall that near Greenwich street

No. You said:

Thermal expansion of girders and beams leading to an asymmetrical total collapse however only occurred in the minds of NIST

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So the twin towers was not a asymmetrical collapse, or the twin towers collapse was a asymmetrical? I am not sure you know what your posting?

Definition of asymmetrical..

having parts that fail to correspond to one another in shape, size, or arrangement; lacking symmetry.
"the church has an asymmetrical plan with an aisle only on one side"

Are you saying Thermal expansion of girders and beams lead to a symmetric collapse? Since you posed “ Thermal expansion of girders and beams leading to an asymmetrical total collapse however only occurred in the minds of NIST “?


The more I read that quoted last paragraph. The less sense it makes? Or you saying the Twin Towers caused the damage to Fiterman Hall.

This are what the parts of the twin towers look like.






There are no parts that look the examples that hit Fiterman Hall. There are no parts of the twin towers that caused the damage in this picture.



Sad that you use blatant lies.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

And you steel have zero proof / evidence of explosives/pyrotechnics cutting steel columns. It’s not in the video, audio, photographic, physical, personal injury, human remains, seismic evidence.

With thermite burning too slow and inconsistent for your fantasy.

With zero chance controlled demolition systems would survive jet impacts, falling debris, hours of fire to maintain their integrity to actuate at all. Much less the precise timing and synchronization required by your created false mythology.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

In fact. This is my argument. What exactly does it have to do with NIST?

And WTC 5 shows fire related failures and floor collapse were possible in the WTC buildings.








Enough floor connection failures along one column, the column losses the lateral support it needs from the floor systems, and it would buckle.

————-

So. You are just creating more false arguments. You are just practicing more intellectually dishonesty.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

Neutro i don’t trust studies that lie about the construction..

This is a computer model of that connection at column 79

A21 is the girder. 79 the column

The construction pieces, highlighted in red NIST removed to allow that failure at column 79 to start. There be no beginning of the NIST progressive collapse until the push that girder east of its column seat. You can see the welded the plates to prevent such a thing from happening. Right side drawing shows it even more clearly. NIST can not remove construction and believe the replicated the failure correctly.

How do plates prevent steel from being weakened if sufficiently heated? The whole reason millions are spent on fire proofing insulation for steel is to protect the steel from normal office fires. If it only took steel plates, then why use insulation. How do plates prevent steel from thermal expansion and contraction that have caused structural failures. Steam piping and boilers do not use fixed plates to prevent ruptures and pipes cracking open from thermal expansion. They require expansion joints. You might lookup the pipe thickness for carbon steel pipe rated for 1500 psi steam. And with no thermal expansion joints, it will crack like an egg during heat up from thermal stress. If it’s boxed in in anyway.

Enough thermal stress can push past such plates. Or break such plates. Especially if the plates have reduced load rating from being hot.

Then how did these floor connections in WTC 5 fail?

And good thing there are two other court submitted studies that concluded fire related collapse. What was the collapse mechanisms in those studies. I think they concluded fire related collapse, but had different areas of initiation.

Quote where I ever said the NIST report was gospel. Like how your create these arguments that never existed.

Blatant intellectually dishonestly.

And how did the steel structure at the Windsor Tower above the 17 floor collapse?

Your arguments are BS.

Version by NIST when girder A2001 at column 79 got heated up, a thermal expansion took place, and girder wedged between the column legs of 79, then slipped from its base plate and fell down.

The problem, not understood still, the took away the web stiffiner to favor that to happen. A big no- no is removing construction and call that body of work science later. Only reason you remove construction is you did not like the results and the thermal expansion was not happening with the web stiffiner plate there! NIST manipulated the performance, and the column at 79 did not buckle or collapse with the welded web plate set in place.

Web Stiffiner is very important, as it provides extra protection, and designed, to prevent connection buckling. and extra stiffiness and stability to the joist and stop uncontrolled, lateral movements

NIST in their own report said the temps are very low. It’s myth in the debunker community temps, got hot enough to damage the steel.

This is NIST answering the public questions about the collapse.
www.nist.gov...

24. How hot did WTC 7’s steel columns and floor beams get?

Quote

Due to the effectiveness of the spray-applied fire-resistive material (SFRM) or fireproofing, the highest steel column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degrees Celsius (570 degrees Fahrenheit), and only on the east side of the building did the steel floor beams exceed 600 degrees Celsius (1,100 degrees Fahrenheit).However-induced buckling of floor beams and damage to connections—which caused buckling of a critical column initiating collapse—occurred at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees Celsius (where thermal expansion dominates.
...............................................................................................................................

Below 400 celsius, the steel would only be tickled and give up some of its primer paint to the low heat. Even if the steel beams and girders sagged here, the shear stud connections would hold it in place. Another glaring omission by NIST that overlooked, the removal of 32 shear studs, that would also change the results of the model.

Neutro you are dropping and uploading pictures of web bolts ripped out after a failure event. This is not a surprise, it expected since there was a partial floor collapse in WTC5. At the site of building seven after collapse, one would find similar things there in the rubble! It does not shed light in what actually happened before the building fell down and you don’t seem to get that yet..

WTC5 you can see the steel girders only sagged. The connections held! Are you claiming fires in seven are hotter?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Such intellectual dishonesty.

Again.

How do plates prevent steel from being weakened if sufficiently heated? The whole reason millions are spent on fire proofing insulation for steel is to protect the steel from normal office fires. If it only took steel plates, then why use insulation. How do plates prevent steel from thermal expansion and contraction that have caused structural failures. Steam piping and boilers do not use fixed plates to prevent ruptures and pipes cracking open from thermal expansion. They require expansion joints. You might lookup the pipe thickness for carbon steel pipe rated for 1500 psi steam. And with no thermal expansion joints, it will crack like an egg during heat up from thermal stress. If it’s boxed in in anyway.

Enough thermal stress can push past such plates. Or break such plates. Especially if the plates have reduced load rating from being hot.

And good thing there are two other court submitted studies that concluded fire related collapse. What was the collapse mechanisms in those studies. I think they concluded fire related collapse, but had different areas of initiation.

Quote where I ever said the NIST report was gospel. Like how your create these arguments that never existed.

Blatant intellectually dishonestly.

And how did the steel structure at the Windsor Tower above the 17 floor collapse?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

In fact. This is my argument. What exactly does it have to do with NIST?

And WTC 5 shows fire related failures and floor collapse were possible in the WTC buildings.








Enough floor connection failures along one column, the column losses the lateral support it needs from the floor systems, and it would buckle.

————-

So. You are just creating more false arguments. You are just practicing more intellectually dishonesty.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You first need to address your blatant lies and inconsistency.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

There multiple feeds of the destruction of seven online.

Ok.

The building did come apart like i show in that gif.

Do you know what your talking about?

Here in this thread. The First 9/11 Sceptic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You claimed “seven did not come apart at all”

You contradicted yourself. And still killing your own credibility. Smooth move Ex-lacs.

Below is from your post. Is that false?

Building seven did not come apart at all,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You

For you to be right all the videos from that day would need to be fake.

False assertion with you providing no link to actual video.

While you ignore the actual argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Why does the Hulsey model not developed the “kink” that clearly is evident in the video evidence.

Look at the picture of Fiternan hall. The damage is pushed downward. Part of WTC 7 fell on top of Fiterman hall and worked down into the corner of the building.




The photographic evidence shows you are lying, and not credible.

Just because someone official says in one photograph that it damage caused by building seven does not make it so.

The photo of the damage to Fiterman Hall clearly shows part of WTC 7 struck the roof, or right at the roof line. And caused the steel structure of Fiterman Hall to pushed down causing failures.

So. Again. I have no F’n clue what your talking about when I posted the picture of the actual damage. You are as dishonest as a flat earther.

What not disputed- twin towers when falling down hurled steel and all sorts of debris, many street blocks away and many pieces of steel could have reached that far and landed on top of the roof of smaller buildings, even more since when building seven is in close proximity to fiterman hall that near Greenwich street

No. You said:

Thermal expansion of girders and beams leading to an asymmetrical total collapse however only occurred in the minds of NIST

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So the twin towers was not a asymmetrical collapse, or the twin towers collapse was a asymmetrical? I am not sure you know what your posting?

Definition of asymmetrical..

having parts that fail to correspond to one another in shape, size, or arrangement; lacking symmetry.
"the church has an asymmetrical plan with an aisle only on one side"

Are you saying Thermal expansion of girders and beams lead to a symmetric collapse? Since you posed “ Thermal expansion of girders and beams leading to an asymmetrical total collapse however only occurred in the minds of NIST “?


The more I read that quoted last paragraph. The less sense it makes? Or you saying the Twin Towers caused the damage to Fiterman Hall.

This are what the parts of the twin towers look like.






There are no parts that look the examples that hit Fiterman Hall. There are no parts of the twin towers that caused the damage in this picture.



Sad that you use blatant lies.

Neutro can you not read and understand things like a normal person?

By NIST.
"However-induced buckling of floor beams and damage to connections—which caused buckling of a critical column 79) initiating collapse—occurred at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees Celsius (where thermal expansion dominates)

The steel was not hot enough to snap or break. NIST is claiming the steel expanded a few inches by thermal forces which is a different thing entirely.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
Neutro can you not read and understand things like a normal person?

By NIST.
"However-induced buckling of floor beams and damage to connections—which caused buckling of a critical column 79) initiating collapse—occurred at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees Celsius (where thermal expansion dominates)

The steel was not hot enough to snap or break. NIST is claiming the steel expanded a few inches by thermal forces which is a different thing entirely.

It not me with a reading comprehension.

Start with this...

And good thing there are two other court submitted studies that concluded fire related collapse. What was the collapse mechanisms in those studies. I think they concluded fire related collapse, but had different areas of initiation.

Other WTC7 Investigations: Aegis Insurance v. 7 World Trade Company Expert Reports

www.metabunk.org...