UA Anchorage releases the final report on WTC-7: Fires DID NOT cause the collapse

originally posted by: waypastvne


This is a lie. There was 6.5 seconds in between the failure of column 79 and the failure of the remaining columns.

That is not near-simultaineous by any stretch of the imagination.

Based on the available evidence, and the rigorous scientific analyses conducted by these highly qualified individuals, your assessment does not dismiss the indication of mad/man-made intervention(s).

Like I originally said, if you have difficulties (which it appears you do) understanding the paper and/or its conclusion, then take it up with the appropriate direction.

originally posted by: UnearthlyEarthling

How do groundscrew cut thick steel?

They cut it with a thermal lance. A burning aluminum rod in a pure oxygen bath. No iron oxide is used: so no it is not thermite.

Why were there numerous witnesses sharing their experience of feeling and hearing explosions after the initial attacks? Why? What's your "logical" explanation?

You give us the witness you feel gives the best evidence for secondary explosions. If you are going to spread lies at least have the morals to provide the evidence to back it up.

originally posted by: M4ngo


Like I originally said, if you have difficulties (which it appears you do) understanding the paper and/or its conclusion, then take it up with the appropriate direction.

So you are going to promote a paper with a beyond obvious lie printed in it.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: M4ngo


Like I originally said, if you have difficulties (which it appears you do) understanding the paper and/or its conclusion, then take it up with the appropriate direction.

So you are going to promote a paper with a beyond obvious lie printed in it.

I never said I agreed there is a lie in the paper.

Could you please provide an equally opposing scientific rebuttal to what you are claiming? You can post it here if you wish, or you can contact the appropriate authors of said paper and present it to them, and then come back here with your exchange.

I'll happily be waiting for your detailed, scientific analysis, BTW.

originally posted by: UnearthlyEarthling

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: UnearthlyEarthling

You

Here we have molten metal pour from the sides of the building.

How would there be pure metal? You mean lead and copper mixed with molten and burning plastic from a battery backup room?

Metal does not automatically equal structural steel.

How do groundscrew cut thick steel? Thermite. The colour of the liquid indicates its burning at over 1000 degrees celcius. A higher temperature than what just fire can achieve. You are really trying hard to make sense of it all because your brain can't handle the truth.

Try to debunk some of the other information i posted. You can't. In the end the evidence is clear and making up false conclusions on how and why is just blowing air.

Why were there numerous witnesses sharing their experience of feeling and hearing explosions after the initial attacks? Why? What's your "logical" explanation?

What are you ranting about? What does the molten lead and copper which are metal mixed with molten plastic and burning plastic from a battery room have to do with collapse initiation on the floors of the jet impact.

Pictures of the core after stripped of the floor system.






Notice the core columns are standing in long lengths, with no cuts, with no molten cuts.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: waypastvne


The whole story is just hokey.

You are trying to tell me and everyone else that AA77 didn't crash into the Pentagon when in fact it did. It is your story that is hokey

originally posted by: M4ngo

I never said I agreed there is a lie in the paper.

It is an obvious lie and when it is pointed out to you, you still aren't smart enough to see it.

a reply to: waypastvne

And how hot does that lance have to be to cut the steel? And what happens to the steel when it is cut?

At least 100 fire fighters reported feeling explosions. Did you want me to find all the information about witness reports? Will it matter? Will arguing about all this make a difference and change your narrow mind to expand a bit?

If you believe a bunch of men with box cutters and knives conducted the worlds most serious terror attack then you are dumb. Simply stupid.

We can go at this until the time comes when our generation is just about dead and the official report is that it was an inside job. Then if you are still alive your mind may finally expand.

Go ahead prove that you aren't dumb. Its been 19 years and we are still [after credible evidence and analysis] arguing that a bunch of men brought down 4 planes with box cutters.

What a clown show.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: M4ngo

I never said I agreed there is a lie in the paper.

It is an obvious lie and when it is pointed out to you, you still aren't smart enough to see it.

I take it you will not be providing a scientific rebuttal?

Gotcha.

originally posted by: UnearthlyEarthling
a reply to: waypastvne

Did you want me to find all the information about witness reports?

No I want you to pick just one and show it to us.

That is what I said. It should of been pretty easy to understand.

a reply to: UnearthlyEarthling

You have a picture of the liquid? You needed to know the material to have a accurate gauge. And considering it wouldn’t be a pure anything mixed with burning material. Your analysis is flawed.

a reply to: UnearthlyEarthling

Considering thermite burns over 3000 degrees Fahrenheit, your off by a few thousand degrees.

a reply to: waypastvne

You are trying to tell me and everyone else that AA77 didn't crash into the Pentagon when in fact it did. It is your story that is hokey

How do you know? You can't know that for sure because it some how fit
in between frames of the surveillance video tape. Hokey

a reply to: UnearthlyEarthling

You

At least 100 fire fighters reported feeling explosions.

Explosions are expected in a fire. Again from things like batteries and air conditioning units.

Were any firefighters injured by shrapnel or splintered steel from steel columns being cut by explosives? Ruptured ear drums?

Do you have any evidence of steel columns cut by explosives? Or explosions with the force to cut steel columns. Hint. Nothing in the seismic evidence.

originally posted by: M4ngo


I take it you will not be providing a scientific rebuttal?

Gotcha.

Dude. You are the one who posted the lie here. Explain to us how the penthouse collapsed into the building without the supporting columns underneath failing.

If the columns under the penthouse failed 6.5 seconds before the rest of the columns, Then the "near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building" is a lie.

It is that simple.

Why are you posting lies here?

a reply to: UnearthlyEarthling

Long thread on the sound of explosions that applies here...
riginally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

See your pushing your old manufactured evidence. You are falsely pushing sounds of fire and building collapse that has nothing to do with charges columns. Your narrative in not supported by the seismic and physical evidence.

Again...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Again with your recoding.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

You created your own “evidence”.
Now again... "I counted them on the video did i not?"
Is that after your claim you tweaked the audio? So you are manipulating the sound? Where, if the “explosions” actually had the force to cut steel columns, the detonations would be clear, obvious, and would have echoed about manhattan. Let’s say you claim eight loud bangs that are expected from any large building fire, or from a structure failing by overloading. Eight bangs who’s audio you manipulated, is that false?

Tweaked and manipulated the sound...oh sweet baby Jeesus.

Tell you what

1.Download the original Huibregtse clip:
archive.org...

2.Get a decent Audio Editor (i use WavePad)

3.Since explosive detonations create low frequencies this is where you want to concentrate on. So a Band-Pass filter must be used.
See where i whipped mine: 96-169Hz
Essentially this operation disregards the helicopter and random street noise, leaving the juicy bits.

4. Report back if your results vary.

Don’t have too. Your created evidence and frequencies are not reflected in the seismic data for detentions with the force to cut steel columns. By frequency, how can you tell if a fire cracker sets off vs a pressurized air conditioning unit exploding in a fire. Other then the ac unit exploding would be more forceful. Again, nobody is say there were no explosions. But, keep on making your own reality.

And the whole argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

With ease:

The same old out of context with no attempt at quantification argument.

Nobody disagrees there was explosions from closed pressurized systems like refrigeration units and air conditioning units cutting loose in the fires. And nobody disagrees there wasn’t a pop when floor connections failed as in WTC 5 being an example.


A detonation that makes a transient pressure wave in the atmosphere where the pressure wave has the force to cut steel columns is entirely different.

And your easily debunked again.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

You didn’t hit a nerve with me. You created your own “evidence”.

Now again...

I counted them on the video did i not?

Is that after your claim you tweaked the audio? So you are manipulating the sound? Where, if the “explosions” actually had the force to cut steel columns, the detonations would be clear, obvious, and would have echoed about manhattan.

Let’s say you claim eight loud bangs that are expected from any large building fire, or from a structure failing by overloading.

Eight bangs who’s audio you manipulated, is that false?

Next, there is no way CD systems would survive the jet impacts and fires to initiate collapse on the floors impacted by the jets as attested to by the video evidence.

Next you claim:

Nature of material used to cut core colums (Nano-thermite anyone)?

If you are saying nano-thermite cut the columns by shockwave, it still would have to create a pressure wave to cut the columns. The energy created by that shockwave is still going to produce audible energy of at least 130 dB.

If you are saying thermite cut the core columns, then why is the no visible white hot sparking from the WTC video evidence. Why would there be “explosive” sounds. Thermite burns relatively slow. Why is there no glowing metal from the collapse video?



Next. You.

Would, lets say, a normal shaped cutting charges even leave this evidence in the first place? Provide evidence for your claim!

But you are not claiming shape cutting charges are you?

You claim eight explosions from the video you “tweaked”?

I did some tinkering with the original video/audio and ended up with this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh. Sorry. You tinkered. Nice that you “tinkered” to create your “evidence” that should be obvious.

Anyway.

You again.

Would, lets say, a normal shaped cutting charges even leave this evidence in the first place? Provide evidence for your claim!

Let’s say you claimed eight loud bands you
Tinkered into “evidence”.

You claim eight cutting charges? Well, flight 175 probably took out about 7 core columns, and the tower did not fall.

Some estimates are more than 7 core columns taken out by Flight 175, with no serious consideration the tower would have collapsed from the jet impact.

That indicates your eight supposed “explosions” could not be cutting charges on individual core columns to take out enough of the 44 core columns to initiate collapse. For you fantasy to work, the supposed explosives would had to be wide area in nature. Not eight shape charges only taking out eight columns. Explosions that would need to take out multiple core columns with each detonation. Explosions that would look like the one event that is known to have taken out 7 core columns, and produced a seismic event of .7 magnitude.




Again. CD systems would not have survived the jet impacts and fires to initiate collapse of the twin towers as attested to by video evidence.

You are falsely confusing expect sounds of “explosions” from a building fire, and expected from a building failing from being overloaded.

You have produced no evidence of explosions with the force to cut steel columns. Explosions that would be obvious, awe inspiring, and echoed about manhattan.
Very similar to the explosive sounds starting around 4:14 mark of the FDR drive video

18 Views of "Plane Impact" in South Tower | 9/11 World Trade Center [HD DOWNLOAD]
m.youtube.com...

How far is FDR drive fromWTC 2?

But you only have audio you “tinkered” with from expected normal building fires, or sounds from a building being overloaded.

You cannot produce physical evidence of columns cut by pyrotechnics. Especially when the truth movement claims the resistance of each floor had to be removed by removing the structural steel of each floor.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: waypastvne

You are trying to tell me and everyone else that AA77 didn't crash into the Pentagon when in fact it did. It is your story that is hokey

How do you know? You can't know that for sure because it some how fit
in between frames of the surveillance video tape. Hokey

But the plane is there and it is exactly where it should be.



AA77 hit the Pentagon. Your lies are not going to change that fact.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: M4ngo


I take it you will not be providing a scientific rebuttal?

Gotcha.

Dude. You are the one who posted the lie here. Explain to us how the penthouse collapsed into the building without the supporting columns underneath failing.

If the columns under the penthouse failed 6.5 seconds before the rest of the columns, Then the "near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building" is a lie.

It is that simple.

Why are you posting lies here?

Please stop diverting. Either provide your scientific rebuttal to support your "claims" or do not.

It is that simple.

a reply to: neutronflux

The towers just happened to collapse in the way that anyone can
see looks exactly like controlled demolition but it wasn't.

Hokey

originally posted by: M4ngo

Please stop diverting.

Diverting?

You posted a lie. I pointed it out to you. I explained to you why it's a lie. You still aren't smart enough to figure it out.

There is no diverting.

Why are you posting obvious lies.