Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: turbonium1

I don't see you disagreeing on the relative 'flimsiness' of the floor construction .
IE 100mm of lightweight concrete laid on corrugated iron sheets supported by lightweight trusses.
Mechanical floors were a little stronger but only by an extra 25mm of concrete.

The floors and their connections to the core and outer walls were the buildings' achilles heels. The connections even moreso than the floors themselves.

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: turbonium1

I don't see you disagreeing on the relative 'flimsiness' of the floor construction .
IE 100mm of lightweight concrete laid on corrugated iron sheets supported by lightweight trusses.
Mechanical floors were a little stronger but only by an extra 25mm of concrete.

The floors and their connections to the core and outer walls were the buildings' achilles heels. The connections even moreso than the floors themselves.

No, it's just another flimsy excuse that doesn't work, that's why I didn't address it earlier.

I addressed the relevant points, that they tested for such events before they built them, and they proved that the buildings would withstand such an event, and withstand far worse events than happened on 9/11.

But you didn't address that, so I'm bringing it up again for you...


A 'collapsing spindle' scenario did not, could not, occur. That's why nobody can replicate it, or any other collapse scenario either. It defies physics, and defies all reality. Nobody can ever replicate a fantasy collapse scenario.

a reply to: turbonium1

And yet. There was fire failures and collapsed flooring in WTC 5.



With video evidence the floor system was stripped from uncut core columns.



With research the floor connections were sheared from still standing vertical columns.

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

app.aws.org...

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.

With collapse initiation of WTC 2 on video

www.metabunk.org/the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

You have the actual collapse recorded on video, audio, with seismic evidence.
The WTC 2 and WTC 1 steel was examined.

If you spent the billions of dollars to repeat an event that happened twice that was captured in the video, audio, seismic evidence, what additional date could you collect from a 500,000 ton building collapse?

originally posted by: neutronflux
If you spent the billions of dollars to repeat an event that happened twice that was captured in the video, audio, seismic evidence, what additional date could you collect from a 500,000 ton building collapse?

Do you seriously think it would cost billions of dollars to try and replicate this event? That's complete nonsense.

Again, you are trying to avoid the simple fact that nobody can replicate such a collapse, with any means. Excuses don't work here. Either the physics prove it possible, or it is NOT possible.

You have 'cartoon' physics, which cannot be replicated in the real world, so you spew out lame excuses, about why it cannot be replicated unless they spent "billions of dollars" to do it!! Good one.

This is completely ridiculous.


These structures were not even built until they built scale models of it, smaller sections of the support structure, and tested them for THIS EXACT SCENARIO, and far beyond what happened on 911. Do you think they spent billions of dollars proving the structures would withstand such scenarios? No, of course they didn't.

They ALREADY proved these collapses would NEVER occur if planes hit the buildings, BEFORE they built them. We know that is a fact.


If it was possible for such a collapse to occur, then obviously they would have been able to replicate it, by now. They cannot replicate it, because it is impossible to replicate cartoon physics within the real world.


It's that simple.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

Do you seriously think it would cost billions of dollars to try and replicate this event? That's complete nonsense.

Then why doesn’t the fire related failures in WTC 5 count as a “scale model”?



Better yet, why do you need a model when the video, audio, seismic, physical evidence was examined from the actual collapse?

If my account is so wrong then, what truth movement fantasy should I find more credible?

Then what truth movement fantasy are you going to champion, argue, and provide physical evidence of?

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

Did I miss any?

Waiting on you to state what I should find more credible?

originally posted by: neutronflux
Better yet, why do you need a model when the video, audio, seismic, physical evidence was examined from the actual collapse?

If my account is so wrong then, what truth movement fantasy should I find more credible?

Then what truth movement fantasy are you going to champion, argue, and provide physical evidence of?

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

Did I miss any?

Waiting on you to state what I should find more credible?

It doesn't matter what specific method caused the buildings to collapse, it only matters that they did not, could not, collapse by fire and damage, which means they were controlled demolitions.

Physical principles dictate that such a collapse cannot occur, in any way, shape, or form, unless the structural supports which have held the building intact for 30 years, are first completely removed.

Anyone knows that, or certainly should know it.

Try to take an object, and drop it down on another object below it, and see if it goes straight down, right through the lower object....that is what you are saying here.

It cannot be done, in any way, because the lower object is still intact, as it was when holding up the object, which is now being dropped on it. So the object dropped on it encounters resistance, from the intact object below, and will either stop on top of the lower object, because it cannot go through it, or it will fall off the object, due to the same resistance offered by the lower object, which causes the upper object to deflect away from it, and take another path downward, where it encounters no, or much less, resistance.

You can keep trying to avoid the main issue, but it doesn't matter, because you cannot use cartoon physics, instead of real physics, just because you think it would somehow work with these fantasy-land physics, of your dreams.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

The same thing that caused boiling iron and the resulting airborne microparticles recorded by the DELTA Groups air sampling machine--extremely high temperatures.

Cascading collapses cannot generate that sort of heat, but nuclear events can and do.

a reply to: waypastvne

Do you need a picture to understand things?

I am able to understand some things without a picture.

Lateral displacement of heavy pieces are not caused by gravity.

a reply to: turbonium1

I stated a detailed explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.


You didn’t answer to

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You

Do you seriously think it would cost billions of dollars to try and replicate this event? That's complete nonsense.

Then why doesn’t the fire related failures in WTC 5 count as a “scale model”?



Better yet, why do you need a model when the video, audio, seismic, physical evidence was examined from the actual collapse?

If my account is so wrong then, what truth movement fantasy should I find more credible?

Then what truth movement fantasy are you going to champion, argue, and provide physical evidence of?

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

Did I miss any?

Waiting on you to state what I should find more credible?

a reply to: turbonium1

Physical principles dictate that such a collapse cannot occur, in any way, shape, or form, unless the structural supports which have held the building intact for 30 years, are first completely removed.

Anyone knows that, or certainly should know it.

Anyone? As in ae911? Shouldn't they know?
Why hasn't any one of their thousands of members whipped out their
engineering book and pointed to the page that says "it's impossible"????

Lets break this down to something stupidly simple.
Lets assume floor 'x' can hold the weight of 1000 kilo before it breaks.
Now if a 1000 kilo weight is dropped from 3 meters it will hit the force of 29,000 kilos.
Clearly it would not hold up to that much force.
Just a 1 meter drop give you a 10,000 kilo impact.
ae911 will not deny this as it it is just physics.

But you say the floor above didn't hit the floor below un impeded ?
Correct.
There was stuff in between.
Even if it was only a 1 meter drop you are looking at 10 times the force.

You say the supports had to have been 'removed' to allow the drop.
Well they were from the plane impact. The pictures show it.
Still the building held.
ae911 will not deny the plane took out the external supports on the impact side.

You say the remaining supports had to be taken out by charges.
NO They buckled and twisted from the heat.
ae911 will not deny that steel can buckle and twist from heat.

Remember:
It wasn't just one floor from above. It was many floors.
It wasn't a square on hit. It was twisting as it fell.
ae911 will not deny that.

The whole thing really was just that simple.
ae911 has spouted off for almost two decades.
18 years - thousands of members - millions of dollars, for what?
They have yet to produce one piece of peer reviewed proof of CD.

Now if they can't do it, what makes you think you are correct?

originally posted by: turbonium1

These structures were not even built until they built scale models of it, smaller sections of the support structure, and tested them for THIS EXACT SCENARIO, and far beyond what happened on 911

Prove It.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: waypastvne

Do you need a picture to understand things?

I am able to understand some things without a picture.

Lateral displacement of heavy pieces are not caused by gravity.

No I want a video.

Show me on video a WTC wall section flying horizontally 600'. That is what you are claiming happened. Right?

If it was flung 600" by an explosion, It should be tumbling around it's center of mass.

And It should be accelerating horizontally at a rate faster than 9'8 meters per sec per sec.

Show me that.

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Try taking Chemistry 101 before posting any more idiotic nonsense

Looks like did not take my advice ……..

Sulfur and Redundant WTF !!!

Why is a "Redundant" ??

Most high explosives do not need sulfur , everything is contained in the molecule - oxygen and fuel (carbon/hydrogen)
which undergoes rapid chemical reaction

Sulfur is only used in few low explosives mixtures like black powder or in pyrotechnic compositions

I don't know enough about the subject to claim this sulphur resulted from a nuclear explosion.

Obvious have no clue what you are taking about …….

Now explain how one places the explosives on the steel when the steel in covered over by thick later of sheet rock ?

Set off "wirelessly" - WTC had numerous radio/TV transmission facilities, that was the tall spire on WRC 1

Using wireless detonators in such any environment would have been risky - stray signals could easily set explosives

As for how sulfur corroded the steel

www.metabunk.org...

Fema did study the mechanism of how the steel was corroded by the fires

 Incorrect. High explosives that have nitrate will contain Sulfur.. Sulphuric acid contains the elements Sulphur, hydrogen, and Oxygen.
 FEMA never had a glass of this liquid that attacked the steel boundaries. What they saw under the microscope is the damage. Microstructural changes to the steel were observed and FEMA claimed a liquid formed and starting attacking the thickness of the steel. 

High Explosives require the physical mixing of chemicals has both oxidizing properties and reductant properties.  Sulfur has both oxidation and reductant properties. 
For example, the Bali Bombers told investigators they made their bomb from a mixture of potassium chlorate, sulfur, and aluminum, boosted by TNT. 
Like I told you in previous post bomb makers can add in things to make their bombs more destructive. 
FEMA findings don't rule out the use of high explosives or nanothermite on 9/11. And the debunker side still has not provided a solid theory where the sulfur came from! FEMA found the sulfur attacked the steel in three buildings therefore that suggests there some connections. 
Debunkers never test their theories about the gypsum drywall or acid rain bull#. They never prove the Sulphur was a perfectly natural thing. FEMA could not identify why it happened and NIST did even mention it in their report. FEMA clearly said in their report it may have happened inside the buildings.

Was it a result of a nuclear explosion? We need a nuclear scientist to tell us if that's possible or not. 
Do you think it's impossible to place devices on the steel? How do they attach military explosives to the hull of ships, enemy building walls, and tanks?
Stray signals? What you even on about there? Do you think one mast on top of a tower somehow would affect a false flag on 9/11?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Was it a result of a nuclear explosion? We need a nuclear scientist to tell us if that's possible or not.

No you don't.
A nuclear explosion has a HUGE pressure wave.
Also known as a loud boom.
Otherwise there's no point to using nukes.

There is no such thing as a silent explosion.
Except in the minds of conspiracy theorists.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

 Steve Jones claimed he has unpublished data research belonging to USGS (US geological survey) and they according to him found melted Molybenium spheres in the WTC dust..  

This is the inside of the World Trade Center.

The white stuff sprayed on the steel is fireproofing.

The fireproofing was a mixture of mineral wool and portland cement.

This is a portland cement kiln.

In the 70's they got rid of old tyres by throwing them in a cement kiln.

The steel belting in the tyres contain Molybenium wich would melt into small spheres and become part of the cement.

When the building collapsed the fireproofing turned to dust and released the spheres.

That is the source of Jones's Molybenium spheres, and the iron spheres, and the hollow silica spheres.

The spheres were made back in the 70's and had nothing to do with the fires on 911

It's an explanation I guess. Is there a scientific paper to prove this theory?
The USGS never published their work about it. And Why not if there nothing to hide? We know they did a dust particle study and there no mention of this Molybdenum being present in Cement. 

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Was it a result of a nuclear explosion? We need a nuclear scientist to tell us if that's possible or not.

No you don't.
A nuclear explosion has a HUGE pressure wave.
Also known as a loud boom.
Otherwise there's no point to using nukes.

There is no such thing as a silent explosion.
Except in the minds of conspiracy theorists.

Did you hear the noise of a building coming apart on TV? How loud was it? You only truly experience the noise if up close to the building.
Fact the entire building broke apart at the top to dust- means it was not silent. There was clearly a lot of destructive force happening inside the building.
Demolition- requires inward pull everything fold in and then expands violently outwards. The bowing in is what you expect to see when building imploded.
Nuclear explosion is an implosion also.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Fact the entire building broke apart at the top to dust- means it was not silent.

Clearly you were never in the military.
Ask any one who was in any of the recent wars. They will tell you that you cannot mistake an explosion for the rumbling of a building tearing itself apart.

Demolition- requires inward pull everything fold in and then expands violently outwards.

Total BS. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Nuclear explosion is an implosion also.

Utter nonsense. Totally clueless.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Sulphur is typical in some fuel-oxidizer type mixtures like black powder, thermate etc but those are not 'high' explosives at all. 'High' explosives are compounds with unstable molecules that detonate when they experience a sufficient shock. Some are very sensitive (eg glyceryl trinitrate) and others barely sensitive at all (eg ammonium nitrate, TNT etc) but there's no sulphur in those.

NH4NO3 is a good example of a solid high explosive that can detonate producing huge amounts of gas extremely quickly relative to the amount of solid compound detonated - note that it is a compound of just nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen. It's so insensitive that it was used as oxidizer for simple gunpowder for a long time before its high explosive character was discovered (catastrophically).

The buildings contained a huge amount of sulphur in the drywall material which is made from gypsum (calcium sulphate).

a reply to: Hulseyreport

And you still have the problem the demolition systems would never maintain their integrity to actuate after the jet impacts and fires to initiate the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 on the floors with the most damage as captured in the video evidence. Controlled demolition is dead on arrival.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Fact the entire building broke apart at the top to dust- means it was not silent.

Clearly you were never in the military.
Ask any one who was in any of the recent wars. They will tell you that you cannot mistake an explosion for the rumbling of a building tearing itself apart.

Demolition- requires inward pull everything fold in and then expands violently outwards.

Total BS. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Nuclear explosion is an implosion also.

Utter nonsense. Totally clueless.

Controlled implosion you want the building to collapse into its own footprint. Due to the nature of things objects often are thrown outside the footprint after the implosion occurs. There always will be uncertainty when you implode a building as big as the towers. End of the day the devices were used packed significant energy to propel the steel outwards beyond the footprint.

You think the building collapsed silently that's your opinion. I think it would sound louder than an explosion personally.

Regards a nuclear explosion it depends on the yield of the weapon, the fissile material is what is imploded. Mini nuke imploding a building never happened before so we have no examples to confirm the feasibility of it.

The problem with debunkers they deny the evidence. 
Point 1: The towers collapsed at a rate that almost near free fall. According to the official account, the undamaged portion of the building untouched by the fire offered little to no resistance when the buildings starting collapsing. In my world that's impossible since the building concrete floors are pulverizing so they're no weight strong enough to crush the undamaged floors below. 

Point 2: the Second tower collapsed in 45 minutes- this is impossible in building protected by fireproofing.
NIST explantation was removed by the plane impact. NIST theory only works if the fireproofing was removed ie steel floor trusses and steel columns. Fire theory doesn't work with fireproofing there.
The problem with this theory is hard to prove since the steel was exposed to outside conditions when in the rubble and steel was horizontally thrown sideways when the buildings collapsed--- ( probably dislodged then)

Point 3 NIST also never explained the full collapse. They gave a theory as to why it collapsed and ignored the rest. Their study is incomplete.
Debunkers and mainstream engineers ignore studies done by engineering groups in the past, that show steel high rise don't collapse due to fire. Steel was heated up to 1000c in the past in buildings of the same design and steel just sagged and there was no failure. They're literally not a single body of work that supports fire would have collapsed the buildings on 9/11.

Point 4: The pancake theory was ruled out by NIST for good reason it makes no sense. The theory they stand by is the floors did not sag and it only when the perimeter columns bowed inwards a collapse started. This theory makes little sense either since we can see large pieces of the steel hurled out sideways 100s of feet from the building perimeter. Afterall NIST claim is perimeter columns are pulled inwards to initiate collapse. Everything appears to pull in and then everything pushes outwards when the building started to fully collapse.

Point 5: Debunkers also deny molten steel was found in the basement and in the rubble. Even though firefighters, workers at the site, and people just there- said they kept finding the hot liquid. We have pictures of this river of liquid in the rubble. According to NIST, nobody reports seeing molten steel? This is a factually incorrect statement. Why did they lie?  It's unfortunate this liquid was not analyzed days after 9/11- it one of the have biggest #-ups and failures to determine what caused the collapse to happen. If that liquid contained Iron it would be smoking gun of extreme temps inside the building.

Point 6: Nobody in government tested for explosives used.