Trying to resolve 9/11

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

I trying to wrap my head around what you suggesting.
Your momentum transfer likely can only work if the upper floors are breaking the lower section and potential energy so large the rest just gives way by force That still doesn't explain free fall.
The problem with that we recognize free fall can alone only taken place if the lower section had given way first. 
Upper floors overcome the lower section when its natural collapse.
The lower floors had previously been taken out when the building collapsed.
That why NIST's own model is fundamentally flawed. The wave caused by the Penthouse came right through the roof and kept going.  In the model that NIST released the structural steel still there on the upper floors on the eastside. How can the Penthouse wreckage get through that?

The inside of the building collapsed 6 sec. before the outside of the building. It had 6 sec to build up momentum. With the inside crashing down against the outside, how could it not transfer momentum to the exterior, making it accelerate faster than normal.

You do know it fell faster than free fall don't you. The only real world explanation for that is momentum transfer.

Everything below the black line is faster than free fall.

Your information is just plain wrong.
How it can building drop quicker than free fall?
Objects with matter can't proceed faster than free fall in a vacuum.  What propelling the building to move faster? What stage of the collapse traveled faster?
You post a graph with no background, no origin for it.
There 0  evidence the inside progressively collapsed six seconds before the rest of the building. Explained multiple occasions in this thread. 
And your judgment is incorrect as you ignore the progressive collapse stages that NIST outlined. The upper half of the construction started to squeeze and buckle the lower half when the building collapsed.  Momentum transfer does not demonstrate why the building saw free fall.  For free-fall to develop the lower section already gone when the building fails- and the upper half just collides with nothing. Its impossibility in a natural collapse.  Only a new energy could have removed columns on the lower floors and happened precisely in a second or two across the entire width of the building. 
By the way the NIST models don't indicate the inside collapsed in six seconds. Another failure by you to follow their work. You timing the Penthouse failure and time the corners moved from actual video *  yes your correct that's 6 seconds.
I point it out again for you. Debunkers use the wave video to debunk the truther community explanation about the Penthouse collapse and they declare the Penthouse went right through the roof and kept moving and never stopped all the way to the bottom. But in NIST model the lower half of the building on eastside still functional and upper part only beginning to collapse with the Penthouse above collapsing. How can the Penthouse travel through the structural support at free fall? Still have obtained an answer for this question? This finding truly does show the structural resistance underneath was taken out by controlled demolition. 

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

That not true.
Provide a source where he said that.
You repeating Dr Milette claim.

It is right there in the XEDS's

Here is the Lacelede paint formula compared to one of Jones's XEDS's

I have put some lines on it to make it easy for you.

Again another post with no context or source.
You provide a formula for a paint mixture? 
What good is that?
You claim Jones found Alumumium silicate in his chips- so provide his research a proper website.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

How it can building drop quicker than free fall?

Steel can act like a spring.

The international collapse fell placing tension or strain on the exterior columns through still connected floor joints. The falling interior placed a dynamic load that caused the exterior columns to buckle. When the exterior columns buckled, the connections still connected to the items of the interior collapse through loading and spring like action caused the exterior columns to accelerate faster than free fall.

You got a better explanation for the more accurate rates of acceleration than what NIST calculated.

Now...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

If they adopted a faster wiring system example fiber optics the demolition would be fast and speedy with no lag.

How do you use fiber options with blasting caps for explosives? Or Magnesium igniters for thermite. You need current and amps. Not light pulses.

O posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

That false also - independents have analysed the chips and affirmed there was thermite materials embedded in the skin of the chips.

And there it is. Your blatant falsehoods I will net let you forget. So cite an a actual source with link. Or admit your wrong.

Is this how you want it to go down. You posting proven falsehoods?

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

Provide a source they claimed thermite.
All the lectures I read they claim nano-thermite.
Debunkers own evidence showing the Penthouse coming straight through to the bottom at freefall speeds, is impossible based off the NIST model .
Debunkers should go away and try to explain that.

History lesson:

This video is the original source for the thermite claim. It all started from here and evolved over the years to where we are now: you telling me all about nano thermite.

Some body looked at this video and said that looks like thermite.

Then photos the corroded metal pieces showed up and truthers said "see I told you that's proof of thermite". We said "it was attacked by sulphur, thermite doesn't have any sulphur". And then the truthers said,"did I say Thermite, what I meant to say was Thermate. Thermate. Thermate. No wait Nanothermite. Nanothermite. No wait a minute Military Grade Super Nanothermite. Yea that's the ticket.

And here we are now. You still don't have any evidence to support your claims. Just some hot glowing debris falling out of the side of the building.

History lesson is biased.
Just because individuals indicated it was thermite does not mean they have an argument for it. They saw yellow liquid flowing out and they hypothesized online what could have caused it And that's all.
Ae911 then tested WTC dust samples years afterward and they turned up small Nano-sized chips in the dust. They conducted a volume of tests and they claim the chips burn at low temps. Which is impossible if it was just thermite? Thermite does not flare up at low temp. Why would the two sides of the chips have different colors if it was red primer paint on the steel trusses?
Debunkers claim it paint chips based on nothing but opinion. Why would a paint Manufacturer use thermatic paint? Paint is just flaking when it cools, and in the heat, it will burn away or come off as flakes The red/gray or silver chips are hard and solid.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

There 0 evidence the inside progressively collapsed six seconds before the rest of the building. Explained multiple occasions in this thread.

That is false....

Again

SUMMARY OF EARLY WTC7 MOVEMENT

sharpprintinginc.com...

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

Then you have the window wave when the East penthouse fell into WTC 7 with breaking windows. And the kinking of WTC 7. And you have the faster than free fall acceleration of the facade.

What Hulsey falsely claims is the penthouse fell then stopped a few stories down. With no explanation why it would stop as in if the floor connections could handle the falling dynamic load of the penthouse. With no explanation other than fire / thermal stress related buckling initiated the penthouse collapse. There is no video, audio, seismic evidence the structure was attacked by pyrotechnics to initiate the penthouse collapse. There is no reason to suspect a CD system was planted, and would survive the fires. There is no logical reason to make the penthouse fall.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Ae911 then tested WTC dust samples years afterward and they turned up small Nano-sized chips in the dust.

What independent lab were the samples handed over to be verified.

The thermite claim was long debunked and seriously hurt the credibility of the truth movement.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

They conducted a volume of tests and they claim the chips burn at low temps.

But not for paint chips and industrial coatings.

Please cite where Jones actually tested the dust for free elemental Al2 to confirm it could support a thermite reaction? Please cite where the dust was tested in an inert atmosphere to prove it could sustain a thermite reaction.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Debunkers claim it paint chips based on nothing but opinion.

False statement by you

Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust

Dr. James Millette
MVA Scientific Consultants
www.MVAinc.com

February 20-25 2012
American Academy of Forensic Science
www.AAFS.org
2012 Annual Meeting
Atlanta, Georgia
www.mvainc.com...

aneta.org...

Conclusions

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

In fact. A certified lab doesn’t write a paper every time a gas chromatograph spits out a result. That’s what a lab is certified to do. For Jones to publish a paper for what a certified forensic lab should be able to do as routine on any given day is ridiculous.



After thought. Like Jones wanted to control the results and the propaganda.

Mark Basile was trained  to be chemical engineer at Worchester Polytechnic institude. Worchester Polytechnic Institude were associated with the chemical analysis the steel at ground zero for FEMA . Mark Basille was an independent scientist. He established the chip had elemental aluminum, but was seeking to get independent labs to investigate this further and give him a comprehensive report about their research. It cost a lot of cash to do this on your own., and i suspect this may be the real reason this taking so long having now looked into it.  Again i could be incorrect and there another reason. There no government funding to investigate truther findings and very much doubt Mark Basile going to bankrupt himself to substantiate these findings for a small handful of debunkers on International skeptic forum.  Mark Basile says individual samples were given him to him privately, it did come from the truth community. 

Dr Milette research was compensated for by debunkers and a debunker released a brief analysis of his conclusions on the international Skeptic forum. The debunker claimed Dr Milette would release an appropriate peer reviewed journal paper and that was 2012, and nothing new has materialized since then. We have words but know detailed notes, observations and lab image have ever been seen.. That not how you manage and succesfully debunk Harrit peer reviewed paper. Posting a summary on debunker forum, it not acceptable science.

They already have identify the chips has aluminum because the X Ray Dispersive Spectroscopy ( XEDS) established it. Plus, we already know the chips are not paint because the paint dissolves in MEK solution. All paints would dissolve in this solution. The red/grey chips they remain hard in this solution that's how we know it's not paint primer. Debunkers are just clueless to the data that were outlined in the paper.  There know paint or thermite that ignites at low temp and releases high energy.  All the Iron microspheres found in the dust is another clue a high energy reaction developed. Mick West seeking to debunk that finding, but  really his experiments are laugable and does really show how the molten Iron formed in enarmous quantitys at ground zero and what the heat source (temp) was?

XEDs results you find in the Harrit paper



Plus you write enough of gibberish about the building structure. You basically incoherent most of the time when you communicate about it. I recognize from the way you deliver the comments you have not got a clue why the building collapsed. You replay the same discussion points again and again and, I have already shown where this incorrect. Freefall can't happen if the upper lowers are crushing the bottom floors. Fact 100 percent. That you continue to believe otherwise reveals to me you not that bright or just so close-minded you can't figure out the difference between truth and fakery? 

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Was the Jones results ever verified by an independent lab to complete the discovery process.

No

Did Jones ever preform a test to verify there was actually free elemental Al2 to carry a thermite reaction. No. He assumed because he claimed there was aluminum oxide. Gosh forbid If the aluminum was bonded with something else like silicate.

Did Jones ever conduct a test to show his chips could sustain a thermite reaction. No.

You

Debunkers claim it paint chips based on nothing but opinion.

A false statement.

This qualified person, Replication of Bentham Thermite study by James Millette, PhD
of MVA Scientific Consultants

Determined this

Conclusions

aneta.org...

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.

For you to defend the junk science and intellectual dishonesty of the Jones’s thermite paper is sad and telling.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Plus you write enough of gibberish about the building structure. You basically incoherent most of the time when you communicate about it. I recognize from the way you deliver the comments you have not got a clue why the building collapsed.

The you explain how the facade accelerated faster than free fall? Is it covered in Hulsey’s model? Or just another point to add up on the inaccuracies of Hulsey’s assumptions and modeling?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Was the Jones results ever verified by an independent lab to complete the discovery process.

No

Did Jones ever preform a test to verify there was actually free elemental Al2 to carry a thermite reaction. No. He assumed because he claimed there was aluminum oxide. Gosh forbid If the aluminum was bonded with something else like silicate.

Did Jones ever conduct a test to show his chips could sustain a thermite reaction. No.

You

Debunkers claim it paint chips based on nothing but opinion.

A false statement.

This qualified person, Replication of Bentham Thermite study by James Millette, PhD
of MVA Scientific Consultants

Determined this

Conclusions

aneta.org...

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.

For you to defend the junk science and intellectual dishonesty of the Jones’s thermite paper is sad and telling.

Nanothermite research study was published by the Open Physics Journal. Credible scientists sit on the board reviewing each study. It false the study was not independently peer-reviewed. A study is submitted and will be seen by people that are not associated with the truth movement.
Maria Pileni said she quit because the research paper has a political viewpoint behind it. ( I think she means its a conspiracy paper) and others at the Open Journal Physic journal did not say to her it was going to be published. I surmise we know why since she was not informed- she would have repudiated it!  The fact she quit her role says she very closed-minded. Researchers found she was a staff member of Georgia Tech that have contracts with the US military. So perhaps another reason there she quit. Truther information, not something you want to be associated with if you care about your job.

Stop claiming Dr Millete work scientific. We have never looked at his red/grey chips. The truther refused to provide him a sample.  So we have no indication of what he even tested. Plus, he was involved in writing fake papers claiming the WTC dust was not harmful effects to humans. That was a significant scandal that you seemingly don't remember and was a mainstream news story ( look it up) Debunkers picked someone who was engaged in cover-ups and released limited information about his work on a debunker site and then abandoned his research. Why did the debunkers use him and not someone else who was indifferent and neutral? The debunkers would never acknowledge how he made contact with them and why he got involved? So no he has zero credibility for the truther side. There would be higher acceptance if they got someone like has no relationship with 9/11 research to lab analyze the chips. 

The aluminum is not bonded in the red/gray chips, that shown in tests. There know separate chemicals mixed with the elemental alumimum. So you speaking a whole lot of nonsense about Jones's paint chips. 

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Plus you write enough of gibberish about the building structure. You basically incoherent most of the time when you communicate about it. I recognize from the way you deliver the comments you have not got a clue why the building collapsed.

The you explain how the facade accelerated faster than free fall? Is it covered in Hulsey’s model? Or just another point to add up on the inaccuracies of Hulsey’s assumptions and modeling?

Where does it fall faster? It's your claim.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Stop claiming Dr Millete work scientific. We have never looked at his red/grey chips.

Sad to see you resort to false arguments.

Link to study below.

A false statement ?

This qualified person, Replication of Bentham Thermite study by James Millette, PhD
of MVA Scientific Consultants

Determined this

Conclusions

aneta.org...

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.

Please quote the study on what analysis was conducted, the result. And cite what test Millette should have conducted and did not?

Debunkers claim it paint chips based on nothing but opinion.

So you admit this is a false statement by you.

You

That false also - independents have analysed the chips and affirmed there was thermite materials embedded in the skin of the chips.

Quote where you posted cited evidence and linked to cited evidence that “ independents have analysed the chips and affirmed there was thermite materials embedded in the skin of the chips.“. Or is that a false statement by you.

I asked, “Please cite where Jones actually tested the dust for free elemental Al2 to confirm it could support a thermite reaction? Please cite where the dust was tested in an inert atmosphere to prove it could sustain a thermite reaction.”

Quote what posts you answered the above.

You

The you explain how the facade accelerated faster than free fall? Is it covered in Hulsey’s model? Or just another point to add up on the inaccuracies of Hulsey’s assumptions and modeling?

And You

Where does it fall faster? It's your claim.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

More here:

Discussion of femr's video data analysis

www.internationalskeptics.com...

By femr2

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Why not use the high degree curve I was using earlier...
femr2.ucoz.com...


...rather than the lower degree curve produced for clarification of trend...
femr2.ucoz.com...


You can see the differences in trend, including early gradient, time of peak and post peak oscillation differences.

It's not like you don't already know how the profile changes as poly degree is increased. You've seen this...
femr2.ucoz.com...

...more than enough times.

In fact, why would you choose to not check the accuracy of this acceleration profile graph...?
femr2.ucoz.com...

More here too
www.internationalskeptics.com...

a reply to: Hulseyreport

So yes. Chances are part of the facade did accelerate faster than what can be attributed to free fall.

Now.

You

Plus you write enough of gibberish about the building structure. You basically incoherent most of the time when you communicate about it. I recognize from the way you deliver the comments you have not got a clue why the building collapsed.

The you explain how the facade accelerated faster than free fall? Is it covered in Hulsey’s model? Or just another point to add up on the inaccuracies of Hulsey’s assumptions and modeling?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Plus you write enough of gibberish about the building structure.

Truth movement speak for, “Damn. Another
Freaking cited fact or credible point not covered by the truth movement talking points. Not programmed to address. Not programmed to address. Error error rrrreeeeeeee.”

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

You provide a formula for a paint mixture? 

That is not a paint formula, It's the paint formula.

Its the formula for the Laclede standard steel joist paint that was sprayed on the WTC 1&2 joist, made by the Leclede Steel Company.



There was around 600,000 sq meters of this paint sprayed on the joist. When one floor collapsed on to the next, the joist stretched and buckled, the paint and fire proofing chipped off, and was blown out the windows by the collapsing floors.



This is how the paint chips and the iron spheres from cement in the fire proofing were blown around the city along with the dust.

It's a paint chip not thermite.

a reply to: waypastvne

I would say you have painted Hulseyreport into a corner. But the individual will move some goalpost? Or cite something not connected to the actual science and physical damage. Will it be the old “the BBC announced the collapse of WTC 7 before collapse”? The “pull it” miss quote out of context? Or will it be the old, “the calls from the jets were impossible?”