WTC Core Column Lies from NIST

How many years has pteridine fought ignorance? And never a response after 8 years?

Can someone please post an original un edited photo of one of the impact zones of the twin towers? I am on my phone and I am unable to post pics.

I personally do not think that people actually look into detail and study the impact zones.

I have spent many upon many hours studying these towers. I have been through two years of welding technologies that deal with structural steel. I am currently a sheet metal worker that directly deals with and handles the construction of buildings.

I have done research on the viscoelastic dampers that connect the trusses to the structural steel, research the shear strength and size of the bolts that connect the structural steel together, and also have attempted to calculate the weight of the floor sections.

I do not adhere to ignorance on the matter and quite frankly some people seem to make themselves seem a little silly trying to explain such matters.

I honestly have not seen one picture of the actual damage to the exoskeleton of the towers on this thread.

a reply to: liejunkie01

I honestly have not seen one picture of the actual damage to the exoskeleton of the towers on this thread.

That's because facts have no place in a conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theories are based on:
Hunches
Conjecture
Preconceived notions
Pseudoscience

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: liejunkie01

I honestly have not seen one picture of the actual damage to the exoskeleton of the towers on this thread.

That's because facts have no place in a conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theories are based on:
Hunches
Conjecture
Preconceived notions
Pseudoscience

That is exactly why I really don't reply to any of the 911 threads anymore.

I enjoy reading your comments/posts on the subject.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: liejunkie01

I honestly have not seen one picture of the actual damage to the exoskeleton of the towers on this thread.

That's because facts have no place in a conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theories are based on:
Hunches
Conjecture
Preconceived notions
Pseudoscience

Says the guy on the conspiracy theory site.

....who supports the government's story.

......and only posts in the 9/11 forum.

........

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: liejunkie01

I honestly have not seen one picture of the actual damage to the exoskeleton of the towers on this thread.

That's because facts have no place in a conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theories are based on:
Hunches
Conjecture
Preconceived notions
Pseudoscience

Says the guy on the conspiracy theory site.

....who supports the government's story.

......and only posts in the 9/11 forum.

........

Can you quote the individual in that they ever wrote they 100 percent support or 100 percent believe the official narrative.

Just another conspiracist's attempt at unwarranted character assassination while trying to distract from the fact there is no evidence of CD, missiles, or no jets.....

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: liejunkie01

I honestly have not seen one picture of the actual damage to the exoskeleton of the towers on this thread.

That's because facts have no place in a conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theories are based on:
Hunches
Conjecture
Preconceived notions
Pseudoscience

Says the guy on the conspiracy theory site.

....who supports the government's story.

......and only posts in the 9/11 forum.

........

Can you quote the individual in that they ever wrote they 100 percent support or 100 percent believe the official narrative.

Just another conspiracist's attempt at unwarranted character assassination while trying to distract from the fact there is no evidence of CD, missiles, or no jets.....

Can you give it a rest already? What I wrote was true and doesn't require proof to anyone who has eyes.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

This is how you reply when you could champion a theory and provide evidence to support your case?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

This is how you reply when you could champion a theory and provide evidence to support your case?

This "theory" has been championed many times over the past 16 years, you've just chosen to deny the blatant evidence and instead distract people with technicalities unrelated to the core facts, laws of physics, etc.

I'm currently at work, but I'll supply a more in depth response later. Not for you. But for those with discernment who may be on the fence.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

How about starting with Jones, thermite, bogus papers, experiments never replicated, and jones testing "his" WTC dust years after 9/11.

Jones never reporting the results of testing his samples in an inert atmosphere to prove there was thermite in the dust.

The claims of thermite ceiling tiles?

Thermite paint that would never have cut any thing?

Richard Gage and AE9/11Truth? Towers that fell way slower than free fall speed. Towers that somehow fell in their own footprints, but caused lateral ejection? Directly destroyed, or caused damage in buildings beyond the ability to safely repair them. In reality, parts of the outer and core vertical columns were left stand for whole seconds after the tower decks completely collapsed. All do to fizzle no flash explosives?

Wood and Dustification? But she debunks other theories?

The truth movement is based on a misconception. The towers never fell at free fall speed.

Theories that avoid and do not directly address the clip of inward bowing, and buckling of vertical columns that indicate the collapse. A collapse of the upper part of the towers that slammed into the decking. Overloading and breaking deck connections, and leaving the remaining vertical columns standing. The vertical columns tumbling in sections only when they lost support of the decking.

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

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

This is how you reply when you could champion a theory and provide evidence to support your case?

This "theory" has been championed many times over the past 16 years, you've just chosen to deny the blatant evidence and instead distract people with technicalities unrelated to the core facts, laws of physics, etc.

I'm currently at work, but I'll supply a more in depth response later. Not for you. But for those with discernment who may be on the fence.

If you can cite actual evidence, or science, there is no "on the fence".

This is a powerful post by MrBig2340, www.abovetopsecret.com...

And closer to the truth than any other theory....

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

......and only posts in the 9/11 forum.

That only goes to show how little you know and how little you look into things.
I have recently posted in:
CHemtrails
Space
Other Current
Science

Pretty much where ever I find ignorance oozing out of the seams.
911 just seems to have the most ignorant ideas out there.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

......and only posts in the 9/11 forum.

That only goes to show how little you know and how little you look into things.
I have recently posted in:
CHemtrails
Space
Other Current
Science

Pretty much where ever I find ignorance oozing out of the seams.
911 just seems to have the most ignorant ideas out there.

An endless task........

a reply to: turbofan

You know what is total horse doo doo people on the net that think digital video between 25-29 FRAMES per second can show any detail of a high speed impact.

Here are 2 pictures from the impact of a small B25 BOMBER on the Empire State Building





A plane a fraction of the size and weight and at a much SLOWER speed than the planes that hit the Towers yet one of its engines went clean out the other side of the ESB and landed on the roof of another building setting the penthouse on fire, Cables on a lift were cut and fuel dropped to lower floors. Also a person on the plane hitching a ride to another base went out the plane and his body was found 2 days later down a lift shaft.

All that happened before idiots had the internet to create fantasies.

As for causing damage to the core steel.



Once inside no one can know for certain what hit what.

Your concrete floors are only 4 and a half inches thick whith a 12 feet gap between floors PLENTY of space for major parts of the wing structure to get in AND as half the walls are also GLASS that has to be taken into account.

Also if you look at the holes you can see failure was at spandrel plates where the column trees joined.





So lets see YOU give an example of a small light object a bird that damges a plane yet the plane which is the smaller lighter object can't damage the building can YOU not see the IRONY of that

As for the nose out PROVE IT WAS THE NOSE !

a reply to: l_e_cox

Have a look at this DON'T assume how materials react at high speed.

a reply to: turbofan

My whole argument from the start has always been; how the heck did so many floor-pans wind up missing?

Sure, explosives can pulverize concrete, but can they turn steel to ash/dust particles?
Hm, I guess they can.

Wasn't a bunch of iron-oxide found in the dust particles? I guess iron-oxide particles could be mistaken for thermite or whatever?

Without all the fury them clouds of dust could produce in a viewers mind, the story can't be told so well?
The theater has a curtain, but it's not really there to block us from seeing back-stage- or is it?

originally posted by: loveguy
a reply to: turbofan

My whole argument from the start has always been; how the heck did so many floor-pans wind up missing?:

What makes you think they were?

Do you expect that they would be stripped cleanly off and stacked in a neat pile at ground level inside the ext columns cuz some preliminary animation that in no way claims to be an accurate depiction of the event shows that?

And if not, do you expect that every piece of floor pan and chunk of concrete would be identified, weighed, photographed, and put up on a master schematic for you to look at cuz this would presumably convince crazy conspiracy believers that 9/11 wasn't an inside job?

Please.

Just cuz "you" have some preconceived notion of how things should, or could of been done or how things should of looked doesn't make you right.

nvr mnd

originally posted by: loveguy
nvr mnd

Yeah that's prolly the best route cuz your rant exposed your naivety.

I read it before you deleted it.

You expect BOTH options.

In your rant, you expect to see 110 floors of intact floor pans at the bottom AND for there to be photos of it.

Ridiculous.

You also exposed just how poorly you have researched the construction techniques used in the towers. You stated that you believe the floor trusses were welded to the columns. They weren't. They were bolted.

You would know this if you woulda done some honest research. It's obvious that you haven't. This info is readily available.

originally posted by: loveguy
nvr mnd

Heres some floor pans for you.





Hope this Brightens up your day.