Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: Pilgrum

Yeah, thats the pic... After going through the rest of the Pentagon stuff it fits.

a reply to: kwakakev

I hope you've taken time to count the number of floors (rows of windows) in each section which reveal there are 2 unseen levels below the roof of the drive and that's where the plane went through without causing that roof to cave in.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux




Unbelievable that people are still pushing the thermite BS!!!

On the other hand, given the 24/7 professional efforts at brainwashing regarding 911, it is quite predictable that so many would still believe the official tale.

a reply to: Salander


How’s that “evidence” on nukes at the WTC coming along?

And quote where I believe every bit of the “official narrative”?

Just because I don’t believe in:
Nukes?
Dustification?
No jets with holograms with lasers and/or missiles?
Thermite ceiling tiles and/or paint?
Richard Gage’s fizzle no flash bombs?

So Mr./Ms. Salander, which from the list above should I find more credible than fire related collapse?

[

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

Funny when people want proof the twin towers were brought down by CD the conversation changes topic to WTC 7 who’s total collapse was also slower than free fall? With no evidence columns being visibly cut by explosives or relatively slow and bright flashing thermite. You know, the columns right at the exterior facade and windows.

Why would I ignore WTC7 collapse? It significant event on the day and happened on a day the country was attacked. NIST was tasked with finding out why the building collapsed. They've failed to adequately explain it. They even missed the building experienced freefall about 100 feet.

Explain how 200 qualified people at NIST did not notice WTC7 underwent a period of freefall? David Chandler helped them fix their error.. We know they messed up because they dismissed freefall in Aug 2008. Freefall was an impossibility in Aug 2008 and suddenly it wasn't anymore and NIST accepted Freefall in Nov 2008. How can you change a six year study of work in just three months?

NIST is well aware that Freefall is an indication this building was demolished by controlled demolition. Sadly they just kept up the charade and claimed freefall was envisionged in their study throughout the six years. A lie and anyone who watched their conference in Aug 2008 can see this.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

What does any of that have to do with there being zero evidence of planted pyrotechnics bringing down the WTC.

Hard to say NIST is lying when they right out state this is their most educated guess.

So, by all means. State what conspiracy fantasy you most favor over fire related collapse. Then cite actual supporting evidence.

Not my business to find how they accomplished this demolition at WTC7.

Fire related collapse is not the most probable cause. Fires have never collapsed a steel beam building . It least likely cause when there no precedent or history for it. NIST failure to adequately explain the failure on 9/11, you can't then ignore the alternative, some people brought down the building down by controlled demolition.

There visual evidence observable evidence the building was not brought down by fire. Freefall is the biggest clue the columns were taken out by explosives.

originally posted by: kwakakev
It has been interesting to see how others try and resolve 9/11 with things like denial, censorship and ridicule. The trends of projecting ones own faults is also high. Being censored is a ostracizing experience indicative of the site sponsored mockery of 9/11. If website policy is to ignore or hide from 9/11 like China does with its Tiananmen square massacre then why even have an open 9/11 forum?

Deny ignorance sounds good. Actions say otherwise if the truth is inconvenient or uncomfortable. Overall I have found the ATS guard has weakened from what they where 5 or 6 years ago. With an aerial view of the Pentagon now out it is a tough one to argue with a straight face these days. Despite failing evidence, the believers still hold the ATS ground in its discourse and moderation.

This is an unofficial public service announcement

Frankly? I don't feel censored when I mock the damage control and get posts removed. There was not a single reply to my initial post, so why bother?

Top Secret America is in the open already, what's left to resolve? Our rights are being systematically dissolved as we speak, and the forever wars will lead to a grandiose victory one day in the future. On a TTSA tictac cruise-ship at the edges of the Milky Way. Snickers, anyone?

And, as always: the Mud-Pit is everywhere, please reply to this post!

a reply to: Jesushere

Explain how 200 qualified people at NIST did not notice WTC7 underwent a period of freefall

Again. The building went with an internal progressive collapse before the facade even stated to collapse. The facade collapsed in three stages. The 2nd stage of the facade collapsed at the rate free fall acceleration for about 18 stories. Is that false.

The 47 story building as a whole did not collapse at the rate of free fall. Is the false.

NIST is well aware that Freefall is an indication this building was demolished by controlled demolition

Quote by what scientific law.

It only indicates the exterior supporting columns of the facade buckled or were overloaded to the point they offered negligible resistance.

In fact, there is a case the facade fell faster the the rate of free fall for a period. Is the false? The interior that fell before the facade may have placed the facade in a “bind” with connecting structural steel. This bind may have acted like a “spring” and aided in the acceleration of the facade.


Any who. Do you have any proof of the exterior columns being cut to aid the 18 floor free fall acceleration of the facade. You know. Explosions or burning thermite that should have been visible from the facade windows, or cut through the actual facade wall?

a reply to: Jesushere

Fire related collapse is not the most probable cause

Then I will ask you...

And quote where I believe every bit of the “official narrative”?

Just because I don’t believe in:
Nukes?
Dustification?
No jets with holograms with lasers and/or missiles?
Thermite ceiling tiles and/or paint?
Richard Gage’s fizzle no flash bombs?

So Mr./Ms. j, which from the list above should I find more credible than fire related collapse?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

Explain how 200 qualified people at NIST did not notice WTC7 underwent a period of freefall

Again. The building went with an internal progressive collapse before the facade even stated to collapse. The facade collapsed in three stages. The 2nd stage of the facade collapsed at the rate free fall acceleration for about 18 stories. Is that false.

The 47 story building as a whole did not collapse at the rate of free fall. Is the false.

NIST is well aware that Freefall is an indication this building was demolished by controlled demolition

Quote by what scientific law.

It only indicates the exterior supporting columns of the facade buckled or were overloaded to the point they offered negligible resistance.

In fact, there is a case the facade fell faster the the rate of free fall for a period. Is the false? The interior that fell before the facade may have placed the facade in a “bind” with connecting structural steel. This bind may have acted like a “spring” and aided in the acceleration of the facade.


Any who. Do you have any proof of the exterior columns being cut to aid the 18 floor free fall acceleration of the facade. You know. Explosions or burning thermite that should have been visible from the facade windows, or cut through the actual facade wall?

Not correct NIST only measured from the top of the roofline down 18 floors. Only on the floors, they can see on the video. They claimed 8 floors collapsed under freefall conditions in Stage 2. They never measured 47 floors.

The problem with NIST theory is 82 columns were missing by Stage 2. In freefall condition, there can't be negligible support above or beneath. The dead load is experiencing no resistance whatsoever across the width of the building. How this is done by natural crushing, bending and slow progressive collapse only NIST can reveal. Data points point to fast collapse after the Penthouse fell down- indicating a rapid failure of columns across the width of the building.

NIST ignores the building was stiff and not moving. There no evidence of 47 floors collapsing internally prior to full collapse. If the entire shell collapsed there be dust plumes breaking windows across the width of the building. Nist theory doesn't make sense.

The motion of the building and way it fell is also a sign NIST progressive theory is false. Collapsing floors would pull in walls and change the shape of the corners walls.

a reply to: Jesushere

Not correct NIST only measured from the top of the roofline down 18 floors. Only on the floors, they can see on the video. They claimed 8 floors collapsed under freefall conditions in Stage 2. They never measured 47 floors.

Really?

www.nist.gov...

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at wtc.nist.gov...).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

a reply to: Jesushere

Again..

Do you have any proof of the exterior columns being cut to aid the 18 floor free fall acceleration of the facade. You know. Explosions or burning thermite that should have been visible from the facade windows, or cut through the actual facade wall?

Then I will ask you...

And quote where I believe every bit of the “official narrative”?

Just because I don’t believe in:
Nukes?
Dustification?
No jets with holograms with lasers and/or missiles?
Thermite ceiling tiles and/or paint?
Richard Gage’s fizzle no flash bombs?

So Mr./Ms. j, which from the list above should I find more credible than fire related collapse?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

Not correct NIST only measured from the top of the roofline down 18 floors. Only on the floors, they can see on the video. They claimed 8 floors collapsed under freefall conditions in Stage 2. They never measured 47 floors.

Really?

www.nist.gov...

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at wtc.nist.gov...).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

#

Yes and you obviously just pasting stuff without reading it.

Quote NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse

18 floors they measured in 5.4 seconds. Stage 2 was 2.25 seconds ( 8 floors) from a total of 5.2 seconds.

Do you think Stage 3 with 29 floors collapsed faster? They measured only 18 floors total, not 47 floors.

a reply to: Jesushere

Is this better?

The Case of World Trade Center 7


sharpprintinginc.com...:559


SUMMARY OF EARLY WTC7 MOVEMENT


As was shown in section 2.5, features of the initial failure sequence can be understood as a rapid succession of 7 identifiable events occurring in the following order:

1) Movement Detected from 2 Minutes before Collapse
2) Increase of rocking 6 seconds before visible collapse
3) Ejections and overpressurizations
4) Collapse of the East Penthouse
5) Collective core failure
6) Perimeter response
7) Acceleration downward

CONCLUSIONS ON WTC7

The simulation was set up to fail. Even though the simulation bears almost no resemblance to the collapsed as documented, it is passively accepted as convincing by many.

It was gamed to collapse, and the collapse as simulated shows no key geometric features such as the collective core failure or flexure of the perimeter.

The issue of collective core failure leading to perimeter flexure and an extremely well-ordered collapse is not addressed at all. Instead, the public is asked to accept the simulated model even though it lacks an detail of the key geometric global features clearly visible in the collapse including:


1) Collective core dropping
2) Perimeter flexure as a response to the core falling
3) Building movement detectable from about 90 seconds before visible movement




COMPARISON OF NIST DESCRIPTION OF EARLY MOVEMENT OF WTC7 WITH THE ACTUAL VISUAL RECORD


1) Movement Detected from 2 Minutes before Collapse

Was never noticed by the NIST


2) Increase of rocking 6 seconds before visible collapse

This movement was measured by the NIST yet there is no explanation for it within their computer simulations of the collapse.

3) Collective core failure

Not noted or modeled in the NIST report

4) Perimeter response

Not noted in the NIST report. The Core-perimeteer action that is such an important feature in the early collapse process is not noted in the NIST report

5) Acceleration downward

Was measured incorrectly within the reports. The core-perimeter interaction was not understood and there were multiple problems with the NIST camera #3 tracking as listed earlier.

a reply to: Jesushere

Again..

Do you have any proof of the exterior columns being cut to aid the 18 floor free fall acceleration of the facade. You know. Explosions or burning thermite that should have been visible from the facade windows, or cut through the actual facade wall?

Then I will ask you...

And quote where I believe every bit of the “official narrative”?

Just because I don’t believe in:
Nukes?
Dustification?
No jets with holograms with lasers and/or missiles?
Thermite ceiling tiles and/or paint?
Richard Gage’s fizzle no flash bombs?

So Mr./Ms. j, which from the list above should I find more credible than fire related collapse?

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

What does any of that have to do with there being zero evidence of planted pyrotechnics bringing down the WTC.

Hard to say NIST is lying when they right out state this is their most educated guess.

So, by all means. State what conspiracy fantasy you most favor over fire related collapse. Then cite actual supporting evidence.

Not my business to find how they accomplished this demolition at WTC7.

Fire related collapse is not the most probable cause. Fires have never collapsed a steel beam building . It least likely cause when there no precedent or history for it. NIST failure to adequately explain the failure on 9/11, you can't then ignore the alternative, some people brought down the building down by controlled demolition.

There visual evidence observable evidence the building was not brought down by fire. Freefall is the biggest clue the columns were taken out by explosives.

Still waiting for that example of a building with a similar construction which suffered similar damage and DIDN'T collapse.

Any time you're ready

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

What does any of that have to do with there being zero evidence of planted pyrotechnics bringing down the WTC.

Hard to say NIST is lying when they right out state this is their most educated guess.

So, by all means. State what conspiracy fantasy you most favor over fire related collapse. Then cite actual supporting evidence.

Not my business to find how they accomplished this demolition at WTC7.

Fire related collapse is not the most probable cause. Fires have never collapsed a steel beam building . It least likely cause when there no precedent or history for it. NIST failure to adequately explain the failure on 9/11, you can't then ignore the alternative, some people brought down the building down by controlled demolition.

There visual evidence observable evidence the building was not brought down by fire. Freefall is the biggest clue the columns were taken out by explosives.

Still waiting for that example of a building with a similar construction which suffered similar damage and DIDN'T collapse.

Any time you're ready

Funny that conspiracists never answer questions? Don’t provide evidence of “CD”? And try to shoot holes in what is clearly seen on the video and seismic records when they should be presenting direct evidence of “CD”.

Funny conspiracists are dogged in replying when they think they have a “gotcha”? But disappear when facts for them get too uncomfortable....

a reply to: neutronflux

Or maybe its just knowing which battles are worth fighting for. There has already been heaps of photos and other evidence supplied. If you accept the official story and have seen nothing to change your mind thats fine, you have that right. Just as I have the right to decide which comments I will respond to.

To you then...

Then I will ask you....

And quote where I believe every bit of the “official narrative”?

Just because I don’t believe in:
Nukes?
Dustification?
No jets with holograms with lasers and/or missiles?
Thermite ceiling tiles and/or paint?
Richard Gage’s fizzle no flash bombs?

So Mr./Ms. K, which from the list above should I find more credible than fire related collapse?

a reply to: neutronflux

Don't pick any. Go through the evidence and let that shine the way.