Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: neutronflux

What type/brand of box cutter did the 'terrorists' use on the planes?

Hard to say right?

Same thing.

Now you're using the word 'fell' as in the cores fell last etc. This along with the word 'Collapse' and the overriding idea of 'Gravity'. Correct?

So, Fell.
Collapse.
Gravity.

That's just one phase. Fell/fall, collapse, gravity, all denote a simple theme, a simple single phase notion/action.

And you keep hammering away. I'm surprised really, that you use the images you do even because to me, when I look at what's left of the core I see destruction, decimation, then gravity (as you use and mean) working. So that's a two phase notion/action. It's more sophisticated lol

I liken the towers destruction to the Hindenburg Disaster of 1937.

The Hindenburg 'fell' out of the sky due to 'gravity' of this there is no doubt. But was gravity the primary cause of its destruction or just an ever present benign force that acts on objects regardless of their make up? You see the Hindenburg defied and resisted gravity for all its previous flights. But coming in to land/dock at a tall docking station tower in New Jersey, somehow, the hydrogen the Hindenburg was filled with got ignited.

And it is THAT that ultimately Destroyed the airship. The fact that the outer frame, now instantly decimated, fell to the ground in a broken heap is merely the consequence of ever present gravity acting as it normally does and not as the primary cause of the destruction.

When I look at your core pics or the videos I see a two phase action. I see a core/tower that was first decimated then it falls down. And like the Hindenburg, the falling down didn't cause the decimation.

So when people look at the stills and the videos they merely have to decide is it one phase or two? Did hydrogen destroy the towers and then they fell down? I don't think so, but *something* did, and that something makes it a two phase action.

My main objection to your repeated use of these particular pictures is that the cores one is bordered by bright white and at night with the lights low it hurts my eyes to look at the screen. Otherwise I don't object because to me the pics show the utter decimation the core must've suffered in order to have nothing left to do but weakly crumble afterwards due to gravity.

I'm happy you keep posting the same pics, you know, except for the eyestrain.

a reply to: neutronflux

you didn't post a video to back up your theory? Why not?
The video I posted is not propaganda... obviously you never watched it.

Btw, Do not refer to NIST as reference, you will lose credibility. lol
OOPS sorry, you already did a long time ago.
Why should I answer your questions when I've asked you multiple questions and you just ignored them because it would be too embarrassing for you to answer.

AGAIN: Where did the extreme heat come from is MOST of the fuel burnt in the initial impact?

a reply to: openedeyesandears

You

AGAIN: Where did the extreme heat come from is MOST of the fuel burnt in the initial impact?

Again...

Again. The floor tresses at the areas of impact had their insulation damage and stripped. The much thinner floor tresses that provided lateral strength to the vertical columns heated to around the temperature of office fires. About 1000 Celsius. Rising in temperature causes steel to expand and weaken. The thin floor tresses heated to the point they lost about 60 percent of their strength, and expanded. The floor tresses that could not expand in length were forced to bow downward under load. The misshapen floor tresses contracted upon cooling. The stress caused floor system failures, and columns to bow inward. When the bowing become great enough, the load of the upper building was not transferred to the foundation. The load was “caught” in the bowing of the vertical columns. The bowing became buckling, and the collapse was initiated.

Now..

Your not answering questions..

The question was, “Is it false The cores fell last, “And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed,”
www.skeptic.com


Long lengths of vertical columns for WTC 1 and WTC 2 stood whole seconds after the complete floor of the floor systems. That is true. It’s part of the video evidence.

Why would I watch your propaganda video when I can reference the actual collapse video.

Is the below false? Is it covered in your propaganda video? Or does your video push a false narrative by ignoring that:

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation
www.nist.gov...

Is your belief in the truth movement based on a cited fact? Or faith in the fabricated mythology of the truth movement.

Again...

If you have a more credible explanation based on cited evidence, then by all means argue a theory I should believe.

Is it nukes?
Thermite ceiling tiles and paint?
Dustification?
Holograms with missiles and lasers?
Fizzle no flash bombs?
Plasma?

I gave my theory what brought down the twin towers, but you will not lay anything on the line? Why?

a reply to: openedeyesandears

If my account is soooo wrong, then outline what detailed conspiracy theory you believe is more credible. Then argument those points. What are the truth movement choices after 18 years?

Is it nukes?
Thermite ceiling tiles and paint?
Dustification?
Holograms with missiles and lasers?
Fizzle no flash bombs?
Plasma?


Did I miss any?

So which one are going going to champion?

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: neutronflux

you didn't post a video to back up your theory? Why not?
The video I posted is not propaganda... obviously you never watched it.

Btw, Do not refer to NIST as reference, you will lose credibility. lol
OOPS sorry, you already did a long time ago.
Why should I answer your questions when I've asked you multiple questions and you just ignored them because it would be too embarrassing for you to answer.

AGAIN: Where did the extreme heat come from is MOST of the fuel burnt in the initial impact?

You make a good point about the jet fuel.

What I wonder though is why the top of say the North Tower fell at all if the floor connections were the first to heat up and fail?

It seems there either should be a great delay of any collapse as the hottest few floors separate and presumably fall a few floors, the kink and fall of the outer perimeter should be delayed or just not happen at all.

OR be below where they do appear to fail because of the PRIOR floors failing and the inherent strength of the mesh.

If the floor failed what's pulling what down? The whole perimeter goes because a few floors melt off? Not likely.

The heaviest mesh like exterior fails at the same time the weaker floor connections fail? That's not right.

Those floor connections would fail long before the outer walls, really, a few floors would've only let go partially and drooped, that's what should've happened first.

Instead, the floors, whole floors and the thick mesh perimeter all went at once.

That's not right.

a reply to: NWOwned

That is right and logic has to prevail here. Not relying on NIST report as that was flawed to start with to go along with the OS.

a reply to: neutronflux

So what's your point? Even if part of some columns still stood after the collapse, it doesn't prove anything.
CONTROL DEMOLITION still did the job.
There is no way on earth that 3 buildings would collapse the very same way, on their own footprints all on the same day, same event and 1 building never got hit by a plane. Go figure.
If logic doesn't prevail here then you are missing a few screws or you're pushing a theory for a reason. ( I looked at your post history, obvious).

Office fires didn't make it hot enough to make the 3 buildings collapse, period.
Get off the meds boy.

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: neutronflux
There is no way on earth that 3 buildings would collapse the very same way

You mean down?

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: neutronflux

on their own footprints

How do buildings collapse in their own footprints AND damage or destroy other buidings?

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: NWOwned

That is right and logic has to prevail here. Not relying on NIST report as that was flawed to start with to go along with the OS.

a reply to: NWOwned

I can post something, and you two will deliberately post falsehoods when it’s right there in the thread.

It’s horrible that you two will result to intellectual dishonesty.

Quote where I ever say the bowing and contracting of floor tresses and thermal stress resulting in failure of the floor systems and bowing and buckling of the vertical columns was dependent on the heat of jet fuel burning.

Quote where I ever said “The whole perimeter goes because a few floors melt off?“ quote where I ever said anything about melting.

You

Those floor connections would fail long before the outer walls

Not laterally.
Not in the upper part of the towers where the vertical column tops were narrowed down to a smaller size and used thinner metal. The floor systems that provided the lateral support and prevented the tall columns from falling over. Especially in windy conditions. So yes. The floor systems in contraction would have the strength to laterally pull in a bow in the portions of vertical columns in the areas of the jet impacts.

Again. This is what I posted. Has little to do with jet fuel and nothing to do with melting.

Again. The floor tresses at the areas of impact had their insulation damage and stripped. The much thinner floor tresses that provided lateral strength to the vertical columns heated to around the temperature of office fires. About 1000 Celsius. Rising in temperature causes steel to expand and weaken. The thin floor tresses heated to the point they lost about 60 percent of their strength, and expanded. The floor tresses that could not expand in length were forced to bow downward under load. The misshapen floor tresses contracted upon cooling. The stress caused floor system failures, and columns to bow inward. When the bowing become great enough, the load of the upper building was not transferred to the foundation. The load was “caught” in the bowing of the vertical columns. The bowing became buckling, and the collapse was initiated.


Now..
If your done with intellectually dishonest arguments with what I posted...


If my account is soooo wrong, then outline what detailed conspiracy theory you believe is more credible. Then argument those points. What are the truth movement choices after 18 years?

Is it nukes?
Thermite ceiling tiles and paint?
Dustification?
Holograms with missiles and lasers?
Fizzle no flash bombs?
Plasma?


Did I miss any?

So which one are going going to champion?

a reply to: NWOwned

What happen to your plasma theory?

a reply to: NWOwned

Then what mechanism caused the outer vertical columns to bow straight inward if it was not from the pulling of the contacting misshapen floor tresses?

a reply to: neutronflux

What are you ranting on about?

I was addressing openedeyesandears. I started the post saying he made a good point about the jet fuel etc.

Did you think I was talking to or about you? Wasn't.

The rest of that post is me theorizing what possibly should have happened (if said fires could do it - doubtul) instead of what the video looks like.

It doesn't seem correct to me.

That post had nothing to do with you.

9/11 ain't all about You.

originally posted by: NWOwned
a reply to: neutronflux

What are you ranting on about?

I was addressing openedeyesandears. I started the post saying he made a good point about the jet fuel etc.

Did you think I was talking to or about you? Wasn't.

The rest of that post is me theorizing what possibly should have happened (if said fires could do it - doubtul) instead of what the video looks like.

It doesn't seem correct to me.

That post had nothing to do with you.

9/11 ain't all about You.

Your in an open forum where anyone can reply to any post.

Again...

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: NWOwned

That is right and logic has to prevail here. Not relying on NIST report as that was flawed to start with to go along with the OS.

a reply to: NWOwned

I can post something, and you two will deliberately post falsehoods when it’s right there in the thread.

It’s horrible that you two will result to intellectual dishonesty.

Quote where I ever say the bowing and contracting of floor tresses and thermal stress resulting in failure of the floor systems and bowing and buckling of the vertical columns was dependent on the heat of jet fuel burning.

Quote where I ever said “The whole perimeter goes because a few floors melt off?“ quote where I ever said anything about melting.

You

Those floor connections would fail long before the outer walls

Not laterally.
Not in the upper part of the towers where the vertical column tops were narrowed down to a smaller size and used thinner metal. The floor systems that provided the lateral support and prevented the tall columns from falling over. Especially in windy conditions. So yes. The floor systems in contraction would have the strength to laterally pull in a bow in the portions of vertical columns in the areas of the jet impacts.

Again. This is what I posted. Has little to do with jet fuel and nothing to do with melting.

Again. The floor tresses at the areas of impact had their insulation damage and stripped. The much thinner floor tresses that provided lateral strength to the vertical columns heated to around the temperature of office fires. About 1000 Celsius. Rising in temperature causes steel to expand and weaken. The thin floor tresses heated to the point they lost about 60 percent of their strength, and expanded. The floor tresses that could not expand in length were forced to bow downward under load. The misshapen floor tresses contracted upon cooling. The stress caused floor system failures, and columns to bow inward. When the bowing become great enough, the load of the upper building was not transferred to the foundation. The load was “caught” in the bowing of the vertical columns. The bowing became buckling, and the collapse was initiated.


Now..
If your done with intellectually dishonest arguments with what I posted...


If my account is soooo wrong, then outline what detailed conspiracy theory you believe is more credible. Then argument those points. What are the truth movement choices after 18 years?

Is it nukes?
Thermite ceiling tiles and paint?
Dustification?
Holograms with missiles and lasers?
Fizzle no flash bombs?
Plasma?


Did I miss any?

So which one are going going to champion?





a reply to: NWOwned

Then what mechanism caused the outer vertical columns to bow straight inward if it was not from the pulling of the contacting misshapen floor tresses?

a reply to: neutronflux

No you're confused and are now conflating independent opinions of other posters as perceiving it has something to do with you, your position or your opinion on the events of 9/11.

This is wrong.

If I say in a post to a member other than you: "Those floor connections would fail long before the outer walls."

That is merely my personal opinion based on my experience, understanding, research and what the videos show. That is all.

I don't for one second sanction or appreciate your co-opting my personal opinion as an individual into some personal narrative of how 9/11 and research should be or go. According to whom? You? Get out of here.

This being an open forum doesn't give you the right to include every independent thing I surmise, theorize, propose or state to another be utilized as being directed at you and involved with you or to be perceived that way by you just because you also post in here.

a reply to: NWOwned

If I say in a post to a member other than you: "Those floor connections would fail long before the outer walls."

Then in an open forum on a site that allows you to send private messages I posted

Not laterally.
Not in the upper part of the towers where the vertical column tops were narrowed down to a smaller size and used thinner metal. The floor systems that provided the lateral support and prevented the tall columns from falling over. Especially in windy conditions. So yes. The floor systems in contraction would have the strength to laterally pull in a bow in the portions of vertical columns in the areas of the jet impacts.

Find it strange you are wiggling to ignore answering

a reply to: NWOwned

Then what mechanism caused the outer vertical columns to bow straight inward if it was not from the pulling of the contacting misshapen floor tresses?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NWOwned

If I say in a post to a member other than you: "Those floor connections would fail long before the outer walls."

Then in an open forum on a site that allows you to send private messages I posted

Wait. What?

Are you now insinuating that I post private messages to others or even should so you aren't tempted to misconstrue that I mean to address you and your Opinion on the events of 9/11 when I'm clearly addressing someone else?

You think there is some Private Message Conspiracy where I contact another poster to strategize and gang up on you? You should explain yourself more clearly and I don't mean about 9/11 (though wait, maybe there too).

I do not private message, never have. I had to figure out how to post pictures again after not for so long. I barely use any features of this open forum.

My interest is not this forum, it's not you and your incessant repetitive picture posting, or your holier than thou based defense of the so called Official Story, it's 9/11 Itself and determining if it's true or not what the OS says. And by that I mean as it stands and is generally known not through your personal views, opinion and interpretation of it.

9/11 is enough of a problem to take up and deal with, thanks. I don't need to be trying to Resolve 9/11 all while trying to resolve exactly what might or not be going on with You. You understand? I do not care what your deal or issues are.

You make posting in here unpleasant and unproductive. I don't agree with the OS. You think it's some kind of Gospel. I'm telling you - I don't care, that's not why I'm here, to sit and listen to you as if you're a member of NIST and wrote the 9/11 Commission Report. You're not and you didn't.

I hope I am making myself perfectly clear.

a reply to: NWOwned

You

Are you now insinuating that I post private messages to others or even should so you aren't tempted to misconstrue that I mean to address you and your Opinion on the events of 9/11 when I'm clearly addressing someone else?

What you do as a private message is up to you, and your business.

If you post in an open forum, then it’s open game.

You think there is some Private Message Conspiracy where I contact another poster to strategize and gang up on you?

Quote where I ever posted such innuendo.

Not posting about plasma and “unconventional demolition” any are?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NWOwned

You

Are you now insinuating that I post private messages to others or even should so you aren't tempted to misconstrue that I mean to address you and your Opinion on the events of 9/11 when I'm clearly addressing someone else?

What you do as a private message is up to you, and your business.

If you post in an open forum, then it’s open game.

You think there is some Private Message Conspiracy where I contact another poster to strategize and gang up on you?

Quote where I ever posted such innuendo.

Not posting about plasma and “unconventional demolition” any are?

You were just talking about 2 of us misquoting you, with you using one of my sentences that was my sentence, not quoting or even referring to you. Then you go on some unjustified rant about "intellectual dishonesty".

You just accused me and another of intellectual dishonesty based on nothing even related to you.

Then you bring up private message in following post. You accuse two of us then talk of private message, that would involve 2 people, so I counter that you better not think I'm colluding behind your back with another just to screw with you. Just in case that's what you mean by mentioning PM. I don't even use it. Get over yourself. We already know what NIST and the OS says, so that pretty much makes your input redundant.

God forbid I might have an alternate theory, or a few posts about interesting evidence I may have discovered. It would not be able to get off the ground. You don't seem to want to debate the merits of any alternative viewpoint etc.

Go out to the forums list page. It says 9/11 Forum not neutronflux forum.

You don't have to respond to every post like a maniac, accusing people of bogus stuff because you perceive some nonexistent slight when it's not even to you, about you, or quoting you. There's more than you in here sometimes I like to interact with others too without referring to you. It's an open forum I can do that. There is no basis for you to rant and attack me for doing so. Using my own sentences no less.

It's ridiculous.

So, was building 7 the first ever steele frame building to go into freefall because of furniture fire?