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

a reply to: neutronflux

That
Or the columns sat butt to butt and the plates holding the columns inline sheared.

a reply to: neutronflux

Interesting idea, but we are still short on WTC7 exterior column facade assembly data yes?

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Interesting idea, but we are still short on WTC7 exterior column facade assembly data yes?

No. It’s right there in the pictures you posted with zero evidence of columns being worked on by planted pyrotechnics.

a reply to: democracydemo

I would think parts of an actual truth movement argument would outline what connections were in the columns, what charges were specifically used, how many, and how the supposed changes interacted with actual connections.

It’s like the truth movement doesn’t wasn’t to model an actual specific CD theory that is easily proven to be BS. It’s like they want to stick to the shadows of shady innuendo of CD.

a reply to: democracydemo

Oh. And using common sense. The lengths of the columns were not a continuous 47 stories long. But in lengths that could be shipped to site. Then assembled on site.

a reply to: neutronflux

Oh. And using common sense. The lengths of the columns were not a continuous 47 stories long. But in lengths that could be shipped to site.

No s-hit

Then assembled on site.

The "how" -adverb is what we need to know, hard data.
Ie WTC7 exterior column facade assembly data. Nut, bolt and weld.

a reply to: democracydemo

You

The "how" -adverb is what we need to know, hard data.
Ie WTC7 exterior column facade assembly data. Nut, bolt and weld.

Stange seems like this was posted.

That
Or the columns sat butt to butt and the plates holding the columns inline sheared.



originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Interesting idea, but we are still short on WTC7 exterior column facade assembly data yes?

No. It’s right there in the pictures you posted with zero evidence of columns being worked on by planted pyrotechnics.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

I would think parts of an actual truth movement argument would outline what connections were in the columns, what charges were specifically used, how many, and how the supposed changes interacted with actual connections.

It’s like the truth movement doesn’t wasn’t to model an actual specific CD theory that is easily proven to be BS. It’s like they want to stick to the shadows of shady innuendo of CD.

a reply to: democracydemo

Back to this

The "how" -adverb is what we need to know, hard data.
Ie WTC7 exterior column facade assembly data. Nut, bolt and weld.

WTF? There is no evidence columns were actively cut at the WTC. None.

The is no evidence of six hundred charges doing the below.


There is no evidence of over six hundred thermite fueled fires when even Architects and Engineers said the fires at the WTC 7 were no hotter than normal office fires.

There is no possibility that controlled demolition systems would have survived jet impacts, the shower of debris, and the building wide fires to carry out the precise and sophisticated fantasy of the truth movement. Let alone thermite itself doesn’t burn fast and consistent enough to carry out the fantasy.

There is is no evidence that valuable and expensive rental space was encroach upon by the installation of planted pyrotechnics.

How many strikes is that against the controlled demolition fantasy?

a reply to: democracydemo

Oh the point.

Why would anyone believe in WTC controlled demolition when there is zero evidence of planted charges.

Zero evidence of detonations with the power to cut columns.

Zero evidence of columns being actively cut.

Zero physical evidence of cut columns.

And the truth movement has to lie and create pseudoscience studies not supported by the actual video, photographic, audio, seismic evidence to use innuendo to imply of an event there is no nameable mechanism of ever occurring.

a reply to: neutronflux

Stange seems like this was posted.

Please do repost.

That
Or the columns sat butt to butt and the plates holding the columns inline sheared.

No
They still wouldn't be burnt localized.

a reply to: democracydemo

Still no evidence columns cut by explosives and / or thermite.

Just you trying to stir up crap on a dead subject.

Got it.

a reply to: democracydemo

Again....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Now. For the argument, questions, and observations you are ignoring because you have no valid argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

So now it's a broken weld.

Weld with a fresh burn mark like that. Prove me there was even a weld?

The crap attached and hanging off the column at the area of the broken weld shows no sign of being exposed to thermite, explosives, it’s not burnt, melted, nor charred.

Wtf? You prove it was pyrotechnics.



There is what is the thinning of paint near the broken weld with the grey of the steel showing through. The weld shows signs of mechanical tearing/shearing. No Indication of being worked on by explosives/thermite. There is no slagging indicating being cut by thermite. There is no indication of a thermite charge working on the column.



What an actual thermite charge does to a painted surface. And the 1000 pound thermite charge couldn’t even cut through the roof of a 4000 pound SUV laying on the vehicle horizontally.

As far as conventional explosives. There is no washed out appearance or eroding with pitting of the metal. No indication of shrapnel/splintered steel. No indication demolition shrapnel hitting the crap hanging off the steel. No indication explosive forces acted like sandblasting on adjacent columns.

And off the pictured columns, there are thinner pieces of steel hanging off the large columns with no indication of being exposed to high heat, explosives. Pyrotechnics you claim cut through much thicker vertical columns leaving thinner metal with no indication of being exposed to pyrotechnics being adjacent to explosive / pyrotechnic charges.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

From you picture



Looks like thinner sheet metal.

There is no melting, charring, shrapnel holes from being in a building where in your fantasy supposedly over six hundred charges of explosives/thermite cut columns? Ending up right by the columns in your fantasy was supposedly cut by thermite/explosives?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

So now it's a broken weld.

Weld with a fresh burn mark like that. Prove me there was even a weld?

The crap attached and hanging off the column at the area of the broken weld shows no sign of being exposed to thermite, explosives, it’s not burnt, melted, nor charred.

Wtf? You prove it was pyrotechnics.



There is what is the thinning of paint near the broken weld with the grey of the steel showing through. The weld shows signs of mechanical tearing/shearing. No Indication of being worked on by explosives/thermite. There is no slagging indicating being cut by thermite. There is no indication of a thermite charge working on the column.



What an actual thermite charge does to a painted surface. And the 1000 pound thermite charge couldn’t even cut through the roof of a 4000 pound SUV laying on the vehicle horizontally.

As far as conventional explosives. There is no washed out appearance or eroding with pitting of the metal. No indication of shrapnel/splintered steel. No indication demolition shrapnel hitting the crap hanging off the steel. No indication explosive forces acted like sandblasting on adjacent columns.

And off the pictured columns, there are thinner pieces of steel hanging off the large columns with no indication of being exposed to high heat, explosives. Pyrotechnics you claim cut through much thicker vertical columns leaving thinner metal with no indication of being exposed to pyrotechnics being adjacent to explosive / pyrotechnic charges.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Back to this

The "how" -adverb is what we need to know, hard data.
Ie WTC7 exterior column facade assembly data. Nut, bolt and weld.

WTF? There is no evidence columns were actively cut at the WTC. None.

The is no evidence of six hundred charges doing the below.


There is no evidence of over six hundred thermite fueled fires when even Architects and Engineers said the fires at the WTC 7 were no hotter than normal office fires.

There is no possibility that controlled demolition systems would have survived jet impacts, the shower of debris, and the building wide fires to carry out the precise and sophisticated fantasy of the truth movement. Let alone thermite itself doesn’t burn fast and consistent enough to carry out the fantasy.

There is is no evidence that valuable and expensive rental space was encroach upon by the installation of planted pyrotechnics.

How many strikes is that against the controlled demolition fantasy?

There is ample evidence of explosive charges, that it was a planned event. Big structural pieces were blown horizontally into adjacent buildings.

Human bodies were blown into sometimes hundreds of pieces.

Yes, explosive charges were present.

a reply to: Salander

You

There is ample evidence of explosive charges

No. And you cannot cite evidence that proves otherwise.

Big structural pieces were blown horizontally into adjacent buildings

There is zero evidence of explosions blowing out large pieces of buildings horizontally.

There is video evidence of the tall core columns tumbling outward.




Which has been repeatedly posted for with no credible rebuttal by you.

Human bodies were blown into sometimes hundreds of pieces.

No. They were crushed by 500,000 ton buildings. There is no evidence that splintered steel, or demolition shrapnel acted on the human remains. There was zero splintered steel, and zero demolition shrapnel recovered from the streets, from the injured, from the dead, and zero found with the Human remains.

There is zero evidence of explosions from planted pyrotechnics.

There is zero evidence of explosions with the force to cut steel columns columns.

For the twin towers, the structures did not fall through the the path of greatest resistance. The floors systems completely failed, and the core columns fell only after the shearing away of the floor system. The core columns fell last.

neutronflux No matter what the evidence shows, you will dismiss it.

I will try one more time.

Explain precisely what taking place here in this image? I highlighted the point of interest, for you.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

No. You explain how over supposedly six hundreds charges were planted undiscovered. How over supposedly six hundred charges survived and a large sophisticated ignition survived being hit by WTC debris, failures that distorted WTC 7, caused detectable movement before building collapse, and wide spread fires to instantaneously actuate. Please show video and audience evidence where over six hundred charges actuated in the same instance. Please explain how the facade had acceleration faster than free fall by the most accurate measurements.

Please explain all the items not covered by the Hulsey model..

Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report: Analysis

www.metabunk.org...

By Oystein

www.metabunk.org...

His Section 4.6 simulation conjures up a totally unexplained disappearance of columns - and manages to replicate only one feature of the collapse - the FFA. Which is entirely trivial: If you make something fall freely, it will fall freely.
But he didn't replicate...
the collapse or the East Penthouse correctly, as Mick showed earlier
the kink that formed in the east part of the roof
the flectures
the counter-clocwise rotation of the building
the fall of the north wall onto the roof of Fiterman Hall
Essentially, Hulsey himself erected a standard of precision that he wants to hold NIST to (without actually giving a reason), and then fails that standard.

Hulsey’s model is a joke. Based on junk science. And unethically peer reviewed...




UAF WTC 7 Evaluation Simulation Plausibility Check (Leroy Hulsey, AE911Truth)
m.youtube.com...

The real issue isn’t NIST.

The real issue is there is zero evidence of planted pyrotechnics bringing down the WTC, AE 9/11 Truth lies, and AE produces junk science bolstered by unethical peer review. A manufactured narrative sold to a target audience.

neutronflux Your post is the reason, your're a joke. Such as in any investigation you have to look at every component that may have caused a failure.

Real issue isn't NIST?

This is another example why people should stop entertaining this guy nonsense.

originally posted by: Jesushere
neutronflux Your post is the reason, your're a joke. Such as in any investigation you have to look at every component that may have caused a failure.

Real issue isn't NIST?

This is another exampple why people should stop entertaining this guy nonsense.

You got something to actually post concerning supposed WTC 7 CD? Or you just here for a BS rant, and reduced to personal attacks?

So sad to see conspiracists acting like the authoritarians they supposedly despise.

a reply to: neutronflux

The crap attached and hanging off the column at the area of the broken weld shows no sign of being exposed to thermite, explosives, it’s not burnt, melted, nor charred.

Wtf? You prove it was pyrotechnics.

Crap hanging off the column side is nontrivial

That blackened, horizontally severed exterior steel beam is point of interest.
It's burnt and melted. There was no weld in that exterior column position.

a reply to: democracydemo

Again...

The WHOLE argument

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Again....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Now. For the argument, questions, and observations you are ignoring because you have no valid argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

So now it's a broken weld.

Weld with a fresh burn mark like that. Prove me there was even a weld?

The crap attached and hanging off the column at the area of the broken weld shows no sign of being exposed to thermite, explosives, it’s not burnt, melted, nor charred.

Wtf? You prove it was pyrotechnics.



There is what is the thinning of paint near the broken weld with the grey of the steel showing through. The weld shows signs of mechanical tearing/shearing. No Indication of being worked on by explosives/thermite. There is no slagging indicating being cut by thermite. There is no indication of a thermite charge working on the column.



What an actual thermite charge does to a painted surface. And the 1000 pound thermite charge couldn’t even cut through the roof of a 4000 pound SUV laying on the vehicle horizontally.

As far as conventional explosives. There is no washed out appearance or eroding with pitting of the metal. No indication of shrapnel/splintered steel. No indication demolition shrapnel hitting the crap hanging off the steel. No indication explosive forces acted like sandblasting on adjacent columns.

And off the pictured columns, there are thinner pieces of steel hanging off the large columns with no indication of being exposed to high heat, explosives. Pyrotechnics you claim cut through much thicker vertical columns leaving thinner metal with no indication of being exposed to pyrotechnics being adjacent to explosive / pyrotechnic charges.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

From you picture



Looks like thinner sheet metal.

There is no melting, charring, shrapnel holes from being in a building where in your fantasy supposedly over six hundred charges of explosives/thermite cut columns? Ending up right by the columns in your fantasy was supposedly cut by thermite/explosives?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

So now it's a broken weld.

Weld with a fresh burn mark like that. Prove me there was even a weld?

The crap attached and hanging off the column at the area of the broken weld shows no sign of being exposed to thermite, explosives, it’s not burnt, melted, nor charred.

Wtf? You prove it was pyrotechnics.



There is what is the thinning of paint near the broken weld with the grey of the steel showing through. The weld shows signs of mechanical tearing/shearing. No Indication of being worked on by explosives/thermite. There is no slagging indicating being cut by thermite. There is no indication of a thermite charge working on the column.



What an actual thermite charge does to a painted surface. And the 1000 pound thermite charge couldn’t even cut through the roof of a 4000 pound SUV laying on the vehicle horizontally.

As far as conventional explosives. There is no washed out appearance or eroding with pitting of the metal. No indication of shrapnel/splintered steel. No indication demolition shrapnel hitting the crap hanging off the steel. No indication explosive forces acted like sandblasting on adjacent columns.

And off the pictured columns, there are thinner pieces of steel hanging off the large columns with no indication of being exposed to high heat, explosives. Pyrotechnics you claim cut through much thicker vertical columns leaving thinner metal with no indication of being exposed to pyrotechnics being adjacent to explosive / pyrotechnic charges.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Back to this

The "how" -adverb is what we need to know, hard data.
Ie WTC7 exterior column facade assembly data. Nut, bolt and weld.

WTF? There is no evidence columns were actively cut at the WTC. None.

The is no evidence of six hundred charges doing the below.


There is no evidence of over six hundred thermite fueled fires when even Architects and Engineers said the fires at the WTC 7 were no hotter than normal office fires.

There is no possibility that controlled demolition systems would have survived jet impacts, the shower of debris, and the building wide fires to carry out the precise and sophisticated fantasy of the truth movement. Let alone thermite itself doesn’t burn fast and consistent enough to carry out the fantasy.

There is is no evidence that valuable and expensive rental space was encroach upon by the installation of planted pyrotechnics.

How many strikes is that against the controlled demolition fantasy?