Trying to resolve 9/11

originally posted by: NWOwned

"That's not a dust cloud..."

"That's a Dust Cloud!"

Now you are picking and choosing what I post. And posting it out of context. Hallmarks of a person with nothing but intellectually dishonest arguments.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Don’t follow. If WTC dust didn’t come from WTC buildings, then where did the dust come from. Pixies? Dust bombs?

No you don't. The thought that it took months of preparations to demolish the WTC buildings is too much to comprehend. The though that the US government planned, prepared and executed the events on 9/11 is just too much too consider. Why would the government want to kill it's own population? It does not make sense to a reasonable person.

When Trump says he wants to drain the swamp we are not dealing with reasonable people. We are dealing with psychopaths who do not care about you. They only care about themselves.

What does your rant have to do with you stating..

Do you really think it is appropriate to compare a bricks and mortar building to a steel and concrete one?

It’s like you cannot explain what you post. But I can put what you post in context.

Then my reply of...

Don’t follow. If WTC dust didn’t come from WTC buildings, then where did the dust come from. Pixies? Dust bombs?

Again... your list.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

Top picture. Damage from whole lengths of tower columns tumbling outward and crashing.

Middle picture of section of outer wall that tumbled and fell outward with broken welds and no visible effects of etching/erosion due to a blast working on the metal. No sounds of detonations from the collapse of the WTC with the energy to propel wall segments.

Bottom picture.

Can you link to the original picture before the truth movement got ahold of it. Please cite original published source. Claims the truth movement has “enhanced” photo to make it more glowy.

Bottom picture continue. What does the collapse of a building on fire resulting in smoldering debris pile have to do with proof of detonations to cut steel columns?

And you ignored..

Funny🤪

Would you cared to quantify the roar of the collapse in some way? Like state how loud the collapse was in decibels? Compared to charges with the force to cut steel columns would be around 130 db? If the collapse of the towers was 110 dB, a 130 dB detonation should still be a hundred times louder. Is that false.

Then there being no seismic evidence of detonations cutting steel columns.

There is collapse video of people talking during the WTC 7 collapse where the conversation is heard despite the roar of collapse. People talking in the video where others had to point out to the person speaking to the camera the collapse had started.

There should be very distinct sounds of detonations echoing about manhattan before the collapse even began.




Explosive Building Implosion | Demolition Show
m.youtube.com...


In the linked to video above, detonations can be heard setting off while the building is collapsing. Is that false.


So your down to posting random pictures with no context, with no ability to cite actual evidence of cut columns? With no ability to create a credible argument for explosives at the WTC. Nice.

a reply to: NWOwned

So. Still no physical proof of columns actually cut to initiate collapse.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NWOwned

So. Still no physical proof of columns actually cut to initiate collapse.

You know, I'm not so sure you're really following along or even paying attention. You seem to repeat yourself a lot even posting and reposting the same 3 or 4 pictures over and over. Even in different threads.

I'm not the regular conventional controlled demolition guy, I'm the unconventional controlled demolition guy. I'm not really looking for evidence of cut columns that led to and initiated a collapse. That's a story line you repeat over and over but you don't need to waste your time posting to me about it.

I've already said I don't think CD and preplanted chemical explosives did it. As well I completely reject the whole idea of a 'collapse'.

Also, I said I agree with you that Richard Gage may be misleading people. How? Easy. Many people who lived through 9/11 or have looked at pictures or videos think this idea of a gravity collapse is just not correct. So the next thing to go to is explosives. The people who can't accept gravity move to explosives.

Now I don't think it's gravity or regular old school explosives but that's just me.

For these other people it's probably comforting to find a public lecture figure who promotes CD etc. They're maybe leaning that way anyway. I don't know what Gage's motives are, maybe he genuinely believes in CD. It could be just as likely though, that he doesn't and he's only promoting it because it's ultimately false but it keeps people occupied and not asking questions possibly beyond CD where the real answer of what happened may lie.

So, to recap:

I don't think it was a collapse.
I don't think it was CD.
I don't think it was gravity.
I think Richard Gage may be purposely misleading people.

I think you may have meant that comment to be for kwakakev and not me?
Is that in fact the case?

a reply to: NWOwned

So. You have no real explanation what initiated collapse. Like cut columns for example.

a reply to: neutronflux

Well Ok let me put it to you this way. Most, if not all, regular CD building demolition collapses are done from the bottom. A slight variation being your explosiveless hydraulic jack example. But using explosives they take out the bottoms. Is this false.

originally posted by: NWOwned
a reply to: neutronflux

Well Ok let me put it to you this way. Most, if not all, regular CD building demolition collapses are done from the bottom. A slight variation being your explosiveless hydraulic jack example. But using explosives they take out the bottoms. Is this false.

Again

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NWOwned

So. You have no real explanation what initiated collapse. Like cut columns for example.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: NWOwned
a reply to: neutronflux

Well Ok let me put it to you this way. Most, if not all, regular CD building demolition collapses are done from the bottom. A slight variation being your explosiveless hydraulic jack example. But using explosives they take out the bottoms. Is this false.

Again

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NWOwned

So. You have no real explanation what initiated collapse. Like cut columns for example.

You seem to never want to answer my questions, so Ok, moving on...

I already told you I don't think it was a 'collapse', I don't think 'gravity' did it, and I'm not looking for any 'cut' columns.

But here is a picture of a heavy steel frame building demolition, notice anything?



Biltmore Hotel, OKC 1977.

a reply to: NWOwned

So you cannot name any evidence that plasma initiated collapse can you.

I think I posted this before your little rant. Is that false.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NWOwned

You

Now, you show a pic of lightning hitting the antenna of the north tower, again, I don't know why.

I asked:

To bad there was no plasm used on 9/11. No power source powerful enough. No way to port the energy required to the WTC. No indication of a source of energy powerful enough to create a containment field with the ability to create the resonance time required to direct enough plasma to contact enough steel of a single tower to cause collapse.

The truth movement itself said the fires were no hotter than normal office fires? Is that false.

What temperatures and what element of plasma are you claiming. Whatever element you claim was made into plasma would condense out into large deposits of that element on the WTC debris. Or if an gaseous element, some for of reaction?

What evidence do you have of a mechanism that plasma caused your proposed plasma induced collapse.


Then to put everything in prospective. I cited where lighting creates plasma.

Lightning is a naturally occurring electrostatic discharge during which two electrically charged regions in the atmosphere or ground temporarily equalize themselves, causing the instantaneous release of as much as one billion joules of energy.[1] This discharge may produce a wide range of electromagnetic radiation, from very hot plasma created by the rapid movement of electrons to brilliant flashes of visible light in the form of black-body radiation. Lightning causes thunder, a sound from the shock wave which develops as gases in the vicinity of the discharge experience a sudden increase in pressure. Lightning occurs commonly during thunderstorms and other types of energetic weather.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Then I showed lighting that creates plasma, had hit the Twin Towers with no adverse effects.

WTC hit by a lightning
m.youtube.com...

How much power does lightning have?

There's Way More Energy in a Bolt of Lightning Than We Thought

www.sciencealert.com...

Power is energy per time, and our measurements of fulgurites suggest that megajoules of energy make rock in thousandths to millionths of seconds. So a gigawatt is actually on the low side – lightning power may be a thousand times that, reaching into the terawatts, though the average is probably tens of gigawatts.

That’s enough energy to power about a billion houses, albeit only for a few millionths of a second. Unfortunately, given its sporadic and unpredictable nature, no power grid will ever be able to harness lightning effectively.

But with that much power, perhaps breaking the space-time continuum in a souped-up Delorean is not so unfeasible after all….

Soooo.

“lightning power may be a thousand times that, reaching into the terawatts, ” has no history of damaging the WTC with plasma.

So. Again...

To bad there was no plasm used on 9/11. No power source powerful enough. No way to port the energy required to the WTC.

a reply to: NWOwned

Now. Can you cite any physical evidence plasma caused any kind of mechanism that initiated collapse at the WTC.

a reply to: neutronflux

Can you cite any evidence that supports NIST's conclusion that gravity and office fires caused the collapse?

There is ample evidence that contradicts the NIST conclusion. Are you interested in discussing it?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Can you cite any evidence that supports NIST's conclusion that gravity and office fires caused the collapse?

There is ample evidence that contradicts the NIST conclusion. Are you interested in discussing it?

It’s right in the video, seismic, and audio evidence that fire / thermal stress related collapse is the most credible cause with zero evidence of CD,

Again...


WTC 2.

The jet hit the tower. The jet took out outer and at least 7 core columns. The jet cut services such as firewater mains and electrical. The jet removed insulation. The WTC was know to have deficient fire insulation throughout the buildings. The jet impact resulted in fires throughout the tower.

The fires resulted in heating up the floor system and trusts stripped of fire insulation. The floor trusses still boxed in at the inner and out columns could not expand in length. That resulted in them bowing downward. When they cooled. They contracted. They pulled on the outer columns to cause bowing on the floors hit by the jet.



Once the bowing was great enough, the load of the upper 20 floors was no longer transmitted to the foundation. The load was “caught” in the bowing, and initiated collapse with no signs of explosions or balls of plasma by buckling the columns. No indication of nukes setting off.

The upper part of the building fell into the building below. The falling mass bent or sheared floor connections. The building surrounding WTC 2 were not damaged by “ejected” columns, but long segments of columns toppling outward,

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.

The falling mass stripped the floor systems from the vertical columns.



The columns fell last, and only toppled in the wake of the floor system once the vertical columns lost lateral support.

The columns were not cut. The towers did not fall through the path of greatest resistance as Richard Gage Claims.

In reply to NWOwned statement.

"Nothing left."

Not sure what your ranting about? The American Welding Society documented the recover and examination of thinner metal objects like floor connections.

The tower columns were numbered and identified by those numbers. What columns were not recovered?

Any building collapse makes lots of dust


Building collapse initiated by hydraulics to prove what was whiteness at WTC 2 was not driven by explosives. Just WTC 2 crushing itself and air being pushed out by the fall mass of the upper structure.

a reply to: neutronflux

Pure speculation.

Now have a close look at this picture of a 28 story heavy steel frame building demolition and tell me what you see.



What speculation you ask?

You don't know how many columns the plane took out, you don't know the plane 'knocked off the fire insulation'. You say things heated up and then cooled and pulled the so called bowing in but you're just guessing and assuming.

Admit it.

You think what you see explains things simply, but that's just what they want you to think.

The 9/11 Onion has many layers.

originally posted by: NWOwned
a reply to: neutronflux

the plane 'knocked off the fire insulation'.

That is the funniest thing i have heard in a while , i saw a picture from inside the walls of the insulation , same type i used to apply many years ago , We called it bubblegum because it stuck like hell and was murder to grind away when any welding had to be done .

No way hosey

a reply to: NWOwned

a reply to: NWOwned

You.

you don't know the plane 'knocked off the fire insulation'.

Nice picture of a building built nothing like the WTC 2.

How would it not cut columns and take out insulation.

A real good estimate by using physics and simulations can be simulated, or calculated.

Simulation of jet hitting the north tower

Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center
m.youtube.com...

Below, simulating highlighting most probable damage to the North Tower core at 3:29.

Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center
m.youtube.com...

The model above seems created by Purdue.

Purdue creates scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack

www.purdue.edu...

Still, Popescu says the visualization has a realism never seen before.

"The crashes and computer models you often see on television are not scientifically accurate," he says. "This provides an alternative that is useful to the nonexpert but is also scientifically accurate, so it provides a more realistic picture of the event."

"This translator is scalable and can be used in other simulations," Popescu says.

The animation (122 MB) can be seen online at www.cs.purdue.edu...
popescu/popescuWTCVIS07.mov

A faster-loading version (9 MB) of the video can be found at news.uns.purdue.edu...

Another estimate of core damage.

Aircraft Impact Damage

web.mit.edu...

Depending which case considered in Table 2 will be valid, the number of destroyed
core columns in South Tower will vary between minimum of 7 and maximum of 20. It should be noted that the prediction for the North Tower would be different for two reasons. First, the impact velocity is smaller and hence the kinetic energy induced by the airplane is less. Second, the airplane impacted the tower on different side correlating with the core structure orientation, so that the energy dissipated by these longer floors was larger. Taking the each of the factors above into consideration, the predicted number of damaged core columns in the North Tower will vary between 4 and 12. There will be an enormous difference between the ways in which the global collapse was initiated in both towers. Effect of the local damage on the global collapse of each tower is discussed next.

But never fear. FEMA sided with caution in there modeling.

2WTC1andWTC2

www.fema.gov...



second analysis was conducted to estimate the demands on columns immediately following aircraft impact and before fire effects occurred. Exterior columns were removed from the model to match the damage pattern illustrated in Figure 2-27. Although some core columns were probably damaged by the aircraft impact, the exact extent of this damage is not known and therefore was not considered in the model.

a reply to: NWOwned

Why are you not posting about plasma. Sorry it was easy to show it was highly improbable and has no supporting evidence.

a reply to: neutronflux

Estimated, Simulated, Calculated = GUESS.

The Truth is you do not know for sure.

Admit it.

Do you or do you not know the plane knocked off the fire insulation?

Isn't that merely an assumption?

A seemingly necessary one (for you) that backs up the collapse due to fire narrative like a talking point, for if that didn't happen then what really weakened the steel? Right? And what really destroyed the towers? Can't have random people wondering those things quietly to themselves or loudly to others.

No we have to tell them how it was step by step. Over and over and over.

While reading your 2 paragraph step by step story line I was reminded of this guy, yet another guy who had a set story but also no concrete evidence, really, to back it up. He's just some guy on a street corner telling you A Story. He even calls it 'ground zero' if you can believe that. He's probably the first to do so actually. Interesting.



You see the narrative was already invested in a plane, jet fuel and office fires. Can't very well have someone come along and say "Yeah, BUT there was fire insulation..." now can we? No.

So, 'the plane knocked off the fire insulation!'

Must've happened right? Sure. That's the ticket. You don't sound like a 9/11 investigator spouting off that nonsense you sound like some hack B movie script writer. You realize that right? 9/11 ain't Titanic or the Poseidon Adventure.

Just because there was a plane, jet fuel, office fires, time, bowing and what you think/believe is a building 'collapse' etc.

Doesn't mean there was.

All that's not Evidence that is make believe hole filling after the fact. It's not really evidence based it's more akin to wishful thinking and even DREAMING stringing that totally implausible story along. You're due for a rewrite. Nobody is buying the fire insulation tale.

Just admit, that you do not know.

That is all.

a reply to: neutronflux

I wonder what caused that explosion when the planes hit the buildings, jet fuel

a reply to: NWOwned

You

The Truth is you do not know for sure.

Know what fore sure? There is no evidence of CD. Sorry. Not in the video, audio, seismic, forensic evidence. Especially of “plasma CD”.

You

Do you or do you not know the plane knocked off the fire insulation?

A jet that broke apart, tore through steel columns, damaged floor slabs, left floor slabs hanging, and cut through fire water mains, shot through the other side of the tower is going to magically leave fire insulation intact on the floors of impact damage? You are delusional.

A seemingly necessary one (for you) that backs up the collapse due to fire narrative like a talking point, for if that didn't happen then what really weakened the steel? Right? And what really destroyed the towers? Can't have random people wondering those things quietly to themselves or loudly to others.

Question all you want. Questioning doesn’t provide a logical argument and evidence of you “unconventional plasma demolition.” Why “question” if you got actual evidence.

No we have to tell them how it was step by step. Over and over and over.

????? Because I reference the video evidence, I cite an actual article outlining the condition of the Twin towers floor connections. I ask for evidence of “plasma” and all you do is rant?

While reading your 2 paragraph step by step story line I was reminded of this guy, yet another guy who had a set story but also no concrete evidence, really, to back it up. He's just some guy on a street corner telling you A Story. He even calls it 'ground zero' if you can believe that. He's probably the first to do so actually. Interesting.

I would think if you really believed in plasma and unconventional demolition you would cite actual items concerning the WTC physical evidence. Not ramble on so.

You see the narrative was already invested in a plane, jet fuel and office fires. Can't very well have someone come along and say "Yeah, BUT there was fire insulation..." now can we? No.

What are you ranting about? You seem lost in backward logic? And your off your topic of plasma? Why?

FIREPROOFING” AT THE WTC TOWERS

www.fireengineering.com...

BY ROGER G. MORSE I investigated the fireproofing in both World Trade Center towers over approximately a 10-year period between the early 1990s and early June 2000, the last time I was in the towers. There were problems with the fireproofing in the World Trade Towers that may have rendered them vulnerable to fire.

Bad fire insulation. Then the minimal usage of concrete beyond common practice to make the towers as cheap as possible, and the long floor spans with no concrete or steel columns along their lengths played into the collapse, maximize open space to maximize profit made the buildings more susceptible to thermal stress.

With WTC 5 actually having fire / thermal stress related failures.



No plasma needed to make connections fail.

So, 'the plane knocked off the fire insulation!'

Must've happened right? Sure. That's the ticket. You don't sound like a 9/11 investigator spouting off that nonsense you sound like some hack B movie script writer. You realize that right? 9/11 ain't Titanic or the Poseidon Adventure.

Jet wreckage that had the power to bust columns, tear through and collapse floor slabs, tear through the other side of the building like grapeshot is going to remove insulation from the structure.

Just because there was a plane, jet fuel, office fires, time, bowing and what you think/believe is a building 'collapse' etc.

Doesn't mean there was.

I can make my case with logic, facts, and citing evidence.

How’s that plasma delusion treating you.

All that's not Evidence that is make believe hole filling after the fact. It's not really evidence based it's more akin to wishful thinking and even DREAMING stringing that totally implausible story along. You're due for a rewrite. Nobody is buying the fire insulation tale.

Funny. I am the one posting and referring to pictures of the WTC. Citing sources related to the WTC. Your just BS’n.

Just admit, that you do not know.

That is all.

Know what. That I have an argument based on actual evidence and studies concerning the WTC? And you can only rant, and avoid referring to actual items relating to the WTC? And your not referring to plasma anymore.

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: neutronflux

I wonder what caused that explosion when the planes hit the buildings, jet fuel