Trying to resolve 9/11

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: Asktheanimals


One theory that sounded reasonable was some kind of extreme temperature device at the base of the building that sent up a big blast of heat around 7 000 - 15 000 degrees that just vaporized the internal core structure as the rest of the building had its thermite cutter charges and other more general explosive to powderise the rest of the building and cover up what was going on in the internal core of the building.

Considering they had to cut the bases of the core columns from the foundation. Large potions of the cores of WTC 1 and 2 were left sanding after being stripped by the falling mass of the floors. And the cores tumbled down or out. And the video and photos available that show the standing portions of cores after being stripped show no sparking nor Liquid Metal cuts.



There is zero evidence the cores were vaporized.



You

Dr Judy looks like she gets close to a lot of it. As for a 10/10, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth gets first place here. I know they only go so far, been rock solid where they stand.

DR Wood debunked everything else in her book then pushed her dustification BS

Judy Wood is no friend of those that believe explosives and or thermite.


You

As for how half a cop car gets oxidized while the rest is fine is due to the path the pryoclastic cloud generate by this heat took.

Your pyroclastic cloud…




Vs…

Evidently the aluminum would make quite the mess…

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: WhatItIs

Dustification? Really.

Yeah, really.

You should read through the thread…

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

You again don’t seem to understand the nature of the collapses on 9/11.

Another blatant lie.

Now, is the below false.. if you think it is, prove it.

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...

Sorry, when it comes to the truth movement fantasy the towers were brought down by planted pyrotechnics, it’s a blatant lie at this point.

When it comes to planted WTC CD, you have invested almost twenty years in a lie.

The towers collapsed because the buildings were built too cheap, minimized concrete usage beyond normal practice, had longer floor span with no mid length support beyond normal practice, damaged fire insulation, and fire related failures.


All evidence showed the towers did not collapse through the path of greatest resistance as pushed by the truth movement. Just another truth movement lie. The cores of the Twin Towers fell last.

As supported in that floor connections were bent downward which would only be possible if the vertical columns fell last.

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

app.aws.org...

Summary

Analysis of the connections supporting the composite floor system of the WTC towers showed that at and below the im- pact floors, the greater majority (above 90%) of the floor truss connections were either bent downward or completely re- moved from the exterior column. This was probably related to the overloading of the floors below the impact region after col- lapse initiation. Depending upon weld joint geometry, detachment of the main load-bearing seats was a result of either fracture in the heat affected zone of the base material (standoff plate detached from spandrel) or through the weld metal (seat angle detached from standoff plate). Failure in both cases was assumed to be a result of a shear mechanism as a result of overloading from floors above impacting those below. There did not appear to be a significant change in distribution of failure modes of the floor truss connections when comparing those connections inside vs. outside of the impact region or those ex- posed to pre-collapse fires and those that were not.

There is no evidence from the thiner and less massive floor connections that explosives/pyrotechnics worked on the WTC steel.

originally posted by: kwakakev

One theory that sounded reasonable was some kind of extreme temperature device at the base of the building that sent up a big blast of heat around 7 000 - 15 000 degrees that just vaporized the internal core structure

Why would you post this…


Then post a picture of the core still standing?




Are you really that inept?

a reply to: WhatItIs

Then post a picture of the core still standing?

If you check more into where those images come from and cross reference with other angles of the towers destruction, you will find that those sequence of images shows the spire (very top) of one of the buildings turn to dust. It does not show the core of the building still standing.

Are you really that inept?

I guess more curious?

a reply to: WhatItIs
Very strange. That is not the article I found using search. 200,000 tons is the magic number you will find if you try to look up the amount of steel recovered from the WTC towers. It's the same in article after article. The actual contracts for who handled it and how much they recycled was of course kept secret. Hush-hush, national security and all.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: WhatItIs


If you check more into where those images come from and cross reference with other angles of the towers destruction, you will find that those sequence of images shows the spire (very top) of one of the buildings turn to dust. It does not show the core of the building still standing.

After video of seeing large portions of the core left unsupported tumbling down or outward?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

The video shows a steel column or columns shedding dust as it falls.









Picks from a video this post.

www.metabunk.org...

The steel drops with no reason to stand long with no floor system to support it. The steel drops down. Then the dust is left in its wake.


If the column was being hit with a high energy weapon. What exactly is it doing. There is no radiance from the steel showing its temperature was raise to soften it.

Unlike the video below. There is no flashing and degassing as from primer, paint, and rust being burnt off. And steel being vaporized.

m.youtube.com...

And there is no evidence structural steel was missing…

Judy Wood's Blatant Misrepresentation of 9-11 Facts
February 21, 2013

What’s Woods bizarre idea about a hurricane?

THE TRACK OF HURRICANE ERIN (2001) - Erin, a tropical storm/hurricane, did not even come close to Manhattan. It passed Bermuda and moved away from the strong high pressure zone over the Eastern United States.

www.bollyn.com...

a reply to: WhatItIs

For discussion, lets say your view of events and support of the official narrative is what really happened. Are you content with the quality of your arguments and think you have fully and correctly addressed all of the concerns others have about what really happened?

If things did go the way the government claims, then it should all add up and not be any holes in the story. There should be a clear, concise and factual argument to address any questions that do exist. Just to call something a lie and dismiss it might help you in living with your perceptions. As for trying to find some consensus it does lack the scientific integrity and rigor of debate that has helped shape a clearer and stronger view of our world.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: WhatItIs

For discussion, lets say your view of events and support of the official narrative is what really happened.

You’re changing the subject. And I asked you questions first you’re ignoring.

a reply to: WhatItIs

You’re changing the subject.

No. This thread is about trying to resolve 9/11. I am interested in how you resolve this event within yourself. It has been tough on a lot of people. I know I have struggled with it and I am on the other side of the world from where it happened. Lot of things changed that day.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: WhatItIs

You’re changing the subject.

No. This thread is about trying to resolve 9/11. I am interested in how you resolve this event within yourself. It has been tough on a lot of people. I know I have struggled with it and I am on the other side of the world from where it happened. Lot of things changed that day.

Like the truth movement using myths to create books like Dr Judy Wood that profit off the misery of 9/11. I don’t trust the government. And I don’t trust anyone the uses 9/11 to self promote….

a reply to: WhatItIs

The Patriot act was one book that profited a lot more than what any independent researches can earn with their publications.

My trust got hit hard when I finally realized the official story was bunk. Had to reassess everything. When trying to rebuild my trust I has to start with the hard physical facts. I did not get too wrapped up with who said what, just what evidence is there and how reliable is it?

At the start when looking into it, most of it was in the gray zone as trust was low. Has been a big information war with lots of competing views around. It was looking at the videos and pictures of the event that was the strongest source of truth. As for what they mean, how they describe what actually happened, what parts to look at to build a larger and more comprehensive view of events.

In being a detective on this case, I consulted with lots of different views and opinions, at least listen, maybe they do have something that provides a strong interpretation to some part of it? Lots of people get things wrong all the time. It is the parts they get right that helped me find a better place in this mess.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: WhatItIs

In being a detective on this case,

No. You’re a biased person that sucks up any propaganda from people that appeal to your biased views. And celebrate truth movement cons when they should be exposed for the charlatans they are.

a reply to: WhatItIs

For communication to be effective it does require listening, comprehending and making sense of what another person is saying. If you want to call that sucking up propaganda, ok, Propaganda usually refers to the governments point of view, which I have looked at and considered. I have also considered the views from other groups and individuals including you.

After sucking up all this information it does present a conflicted and scrambled mess of information. Good and bad information all mixed up. To find a perspective I can trust relied on the physical evidence, not people.

From your perspective, I guess my views are biased. But I am still willing to try and give you some support and respect in finding a clearer picture of this evidence, for both of us. I know we may fight and disagree about things, but we are also both victims of the forces behind 9/11. With just how hard you have struggled through 9/11 it does feel like we have a common enemy lurking in the shadows.

The 9/11 topic is not one I celebrate. It is more of a cross that I carry with its burden. One thing that looks to have left you at a disadvantage is just how personal you take the opinion and views of others. To disregard everything someone says because you disagree with some part of it has restricted a lot of valid insights in getting through.

So just where do you stand on WTC7? You know the official story has problems. The 9/11 Commission did not even touch WTC7. We have NIST saying it was a fire where some columns collapsed so the whole building fell down at the same time. Got others saying it was a controlled demolition with a lot of substantial evidence to back it up. With more to the story still restricted and sealed up by the government, surly you know enough by now to make an informed assessment.

So in your own words, how did WTC7 fall?

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: WhatItIs

For communication to be effective it does require listening,

And it’s been proven over and over again much of the truth movement is a con, sorry.

You’re the one that can’t listen and comprehend because how biased you are that people of the truth movement make a name for themselves creating a lie off other people’s suffering.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: WhatItIs

We have NIST saying it was a fire where some columns collapsed so the whole building fell down at the same time.

Care to actually quote and cite the NIST WTC7 report….

And if it was the same rate, how did the WTC 7 penthouse collapse into the building. Completely disappear below the roof line. Then after a split second, a slight pause, then WTC 7’s facade fell. Then if you look at photos of the remains of WTC 7 how is one whole section of the outer wall laid over/draped over the pile of ruble on top.

a reply to: WhatItIs

And it’s been proven over and over again much of the truth movement is a con,

So Richard Gage claiming that foreknowledge of WCT7 collapse is a con? Despite the media claiming the building had fallen before it fell?

I know this is one name that triggers you bad, why is that? Surly if the facts of 9/11 are important to you, no name should get in the way of finding out just what exactly happened?

a reply to: WhatItIs

Care to actually quote and cite the NIST WTC7 report….

Not these days, its in the archives some where. Well done in trying to explain WCT7, seams like there are still questions remaining. That's fine.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: WhatItIs

Care to actually quote and cite the NIST WTC7 report….

Not these days, its in the archives some where. Well done in trying to explain WCT7, seams like there are still questions remaining. That's fine.

You mean all you have to do is quote one of your past posts. And you even can’t to that..

a reply to: WhatItIs

You mean all you have to do is quote one of your past posts. And you even can’t to that..

No I cannot. So what are you playing at when you already know the data but just want to keep me busy as you are stuck on some mad merry go round?

You are not being a friend by placing such unnecessary burned on me. Can I really trust you in your search for truth, or do you already know and just looking for your next victim to stab in the back?

originally posted by: kwakakev

For discussion, lets say your view of events and support of the official narrative is what really happened. Are you content with the quality of your arguments and think you have fully and correctly addressed all of the concerns others have about what really happened?

If things did go the way the government claims, then it should all add up and not be any holes in the story. There should be a clear, concise and factual argument to address any questions that do exist. Just to call something a lie and dismiss it might help you in living with your perceptions. As for trying to find some consensus it does lack the scientific integrity and rigor of debate that has helped shape a clearer and stronger view of our world.

I find it very interesting that people spend more time on the how it was done and not the who was behind it all.

With that said, there are like 99 conspiracies and 1 official story out there and only one is right. Whenever I look at a conspiracy, I look at the logistics needed to support it and that is where most times a conspiracy spin out of control. In the case of the towers, I also looked at the timing of everything and all the variables that no one could predict to actually pull it off with control dets to some level of perfection if planned. If not planned and events unfolded as they did with zero precision planning other than aircraft hitting the towers, then they played out in whatever direction it ended up going with zero need for perfection or timing. If there was actual control dets with the aircraft hitting the towers to mask it all then the timing would have been God like in the execution while having many unknown variables that there would be no way to plan for. It's funny how we have this Government that just can't do anything right, but then there is some shadow Government that is perfect in all they do even 20+ years later.