Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

a reply to: turbonium1

Ever think the likely reason there is no evidence of CD because the towers were not brought down by CD.

You have the false claim the towers fel at the rate of free fall.

False claim the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance. Proven wrong by the fact the vertical columns fell last. Proven wrong by the fact the weaker floor connections were sheared or bent. Not cut by CD.

The false claim the towers fell in their own footprints.

You will not cite how much dynamic load a floor of the towers were rated for to show that anything greater than the equivalent of six stories falling into the floor system would not lead to the floor system failing.

You claim too much dust, which was proven false.

The claim the explosives were the mythical fizzle no flash explosives.

The claim Fzzle no flash explosives some how caused lateral ejection?

Cases of structural steel failing because of fire have been cited. Structures that totally failed, or were saved by a concrete core the WTC did not have.

Cases of spontaneous building collapse because of the structure being overload were cited.

Your false statement on the outer vertical columns “were not critical to the overall structural integrity of the building.”

You false claim the core columns were not damage by the jet impacts.

Your false claims that my statesmans violate the law of physics. Still waiting on you to quote me to prove your case.

The false claims the WTC site and ruble was not search for evidence.

Your false claim that failed structural components were not analyzed for failure mode. Remember these cited works.

This report analyzed failed floor connections in fire effected zones vs fire free zone.
Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
app.aws.org...

On page I think 220
Metalgraphoc analysts of elements exposed to fire.
ws680.nist.gov...

What is it like to be shown you have false arguments with no credibility.....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Ever think the likely reason there is no evidence of CD because the towers were not brought down by CD.

You have the false claim the towers fel at the rate of free fall.

False claim the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance. Proven wrong by the fact the vertical columns fell last. Proven wrong by the fact the weaker floor connections were sheared or bent. Not cut by CD.

The false claim the towers fell in their own footprints.

You will not cite how much dynamic load a floor of the towers were rated for to show that anything greater than the equivalent of six stories falling into the floor system would not lead to the floor system failing.

You claim too much dust, which was proven false.

The claim the explosives were the mythical fizzle no flash explosives.

The claim Fzzle no flash explosives some how caused lateral ejection?

Cases of structural steel failing because of fire have been cited. Structures that totally failed, or were saved by a concrete core the WTC did not have.

Cases of spontaneous building collapse because of the structure being overload were cited.

Your false statement on the outer vertical columns “were not critical to the overall structural integrity of the building.”

You false claim the core columns were not damage by the jet impacts.

Your false claims that my statesmans violate the law of physics. Still waiting on you to quote me to prove your case.

The false claims the WTC site and ruble was not search for evidence.

Your false claim that failed structural components were not analyzed for failure mode. Remember these cited works.

This report analyzed failed floor connections in fire effected zones vs fire free zone.
Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
app.aws.org...

On page I think 220
Metalgraphoc analysts of elements exposed to fire.
ws680.nist.gov...

What is it like to be shown you have false arguments with no credibility.....

NIST said the towers both fell at nearly free fall speeds, so you think they've made false claims?

Didn't NIST research the collapses, and was the only group who had access to all of the evidence? The only group who examined the evidence?

How is their estimate of collapse time not accurate, to you?

What makes you so sure of it, while NIST wouldn't have a clue?


How did you estimate your absurd collapse times, anyway?

What are you measuring?


Observing the collapses on video clips allows for valid measurements of speed.

Nothing else can measure the speed.

The buildings can only be measured when visible, but it cannot be measured through very thick dust clouds.

It is impossible to measure what cannot be seen. But it IS possible to measure it's speed of collapse, which is the only measurement that matters.

The only accurate way to measure the collapse speed is from measuring the visible sections of floors during the collapse.

This is likely how NIST was able to measure the speeds, and state it within their report.

NIST is completely accurate on the collapse speeds, which are nearly at free fall speed. Beyond a doubt.

You cannot dispute the speed of collapse, in fact.

And you can even measure it for yourself, if you still doubt it....


The first thing to know is the height of one floor. Most of the floors were the same height, and must be all the same height on any floors we're measuring for collapse speed.

So then we select the highest quality video clips available, showing the collapse.

Identify a section of floors which remain visible throughout a period. Perhaps 10 or 20 floors.

Each floor can be measured with the same, single, reference point, which remains visible throughout the period.

We find another reference point for each floor as it falls down, or the first floor to the 10th, or 20th, floor, or whatever floor you've selected.

Measure the time accurately. Add a stopwatch, to the clip.

Repeat it over and over, with various angles, and so on. This will allow you to confirm that the time you measured for the period of collapse is truly accurate. A slight variance doesn't matter, of course.


Try it out, and you'll see it WAS IN FACT nearly collapsing at free fall speed.

a reply to: turbonium1


What about this

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You seem to have DELIBERATELY avoided giving an answer.

a reply to: turbonium1

So now you want to cite NIST!

NIST said the towers both fell at nearly free fall speeds, so you think they've made false claims?

Are they credible to cite, or not? Your a hypocrite.

This has been repeatedly posted for you...

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

BY CHRIS MOHR

www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

a reply to: turbonium1

One, the original lie of the truth movement was the towers fell at the rate of free fall.

Two. quote the actual NIST statements concerning the duration of collapse.

Nutty 9-11 Physics

www.uwgb.edu...

People who take that stance aren't merely scientifically illiterate; they're verbally illiterate as well. Insisting that ten seconds is meant to be a scientifically definitive finding in a paragraph dealing with firefighting efforts shows a complete lack of critical reasoning. A person who reasons like that is completely lacking in the critical reasoning necessary to sort out the events of 9-11.

The technical information on the building collapse is in the NIST reports, not the 9-11 Commission Report. There is little discussion of the chronology of the collapse once the buildings began to fall, but the NIST FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) site has the pertinent information.

The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds.
So according to the seismic record, the first impacts are about ten seconds after the onset of collapse. That's the free-falling debris. Seismic signals continued for 15 more seconds. So it took at least about 25 seconds for the buildings to collapse. The seismic records are probably the best information because the last stages of collapse were obscured by dust, but a time indexed series of video frames on the 9-11 Research site shows the collapse of one tower still in progress after 19 seconds. So the collapse speed was less than half of free-fall speed. Also:

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
And the people who like to take "ten seconds" and "essentially in free fall" literally don't seem to care much about paragraphs like this:

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
9-11 troofers are a lot like some Biblical fundamentalists. Anything that they want to believe is to be taken with absolute literalness, and anything that contradicts what they want to believe, they just ignore

a reply to: turbonium1

This was posted by you....

NIST said the towers both fell at nearly free fall speeds, so you think they've made false claims?

Quote and cite NIST documents to back this claim.

Another false argument by you.

By the way, what supported the loads of the towers floor trusses on the exterior? Can you answer a simple question. No, because it’s not part of your agenda of false arguments.

a reply to: turbonium1

It was designed to withstand impact from airplanes. You seriously think they'd design 60% of the support to be exposed to direct impact, when the core columns were NOT exposed to any impact? Nonsense.

In regards to aircraft impacts, Port Authority made a calculation to see if aircraft impacts would topple the building

Found it would take lateral force of 17 million foot pounds to topple the tower

Aircraft impact would generate 13 million pounds - ergo building would still be standing, but suffering horrific damage
to load bearing structures. The surviving columns formed an arch to take up the stress

Problem is the subsequent fires which weakened the steel until no longer able to resist the loads

REALITY: "The Twin Towers collapsed from the impact points downward, due to the structural damage caused by the planes, and the ensuing weakening of the steel because of the fires."

CT'er: "But the buildings were designed to withstand an impact by the plane!"

REALITY: "You left out the part about the ensuing fires."

CT'er: "But no building has ever collapsed due to fire!"

REALITY: "You left out the part about the damage done by the planes."


16 YEARS AND COUNTING, AND THEY STILL PLAY THIS GAME. You're wasting your time.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: turbonium1


What about this

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You seem to have DELIBERATELY avoided giving an answer.

Isn't this the building that didn't completely collapse to the ground? If so, I addressed this already.

I told you that it doesn't even compare to the WTC collapses - 1, 2, or 7 - all which collapsed completely to the ground.

You showed me a building that didn't totally collapse to the ground, so it has no relevance to the WTC.

If it is NOT this same building, then simply tell me what the building was, so I can find a video clip of it.

Then, I'll be happy to address it.


I'll wait for your reply...

a reply to: turbonium1

Did you address the buildings were very different in construction. More false arguments by you.

Like how you have to ignore items and questions pointed directly at you to creste false arguments.

The towers fell around half the rate of free fall.


Please quote and cite from NIST documents to prove they ever claimed the towers fell near free fall speed.

For the exterior side of the towers, the only thing the floor trusses were tied to and supported by were the exterior steel columns. Columns you claimed were not a important part of how the structure carried the load of the floor trusses.

You post truth movement lies and myths. Why? Do you not understand Richard Gage, Steven Jones, and Dr. Wood are charlatans?

a reply to: turbonium1

And you are ignoring the Tehran high rise collapse from fire with no intial damage to the structure.

Like how you ignore the towers did not have a traditional concrete core, used less concrete than common practice to reduce cost, and had failed exterior and core columns.

Oh, that was another false argument by you. You implying the jets could not damage the core columns.

a reply to: turbonium1

And still waiting on you to show where a high rise building was ever brought down by a top down demolitions CD? Much less a top down CD of a building over 50 stories using mythical fizzle no flash demolitions.

Using you twisted logic of never before, your false narrative is impossible.

originally posted by: neutronflux
Are they credible to cite, or not? Your a hypocrite.

Unlike someone who deliberately ignores the fact it was NIST who stated the towers collapsed at nearly free-fall speed, and says it was a falsehood, and/or a lie, made up by 'truthers'. And after being told that NIST had actually stated it, in their report, you STILL don't admit to it, and spout about me being a 'hypocrite' for TELLING YOU WHO ACTUALLY SAID IT.

There is nothing hypocritical about referencing the NIST report. You think if I agree with anything they state, I'm a hypocrite? Which would also mean you are a hypocrite, because you DON'T agree with everything they state! That is, should you ever have the nads to admit to anything at all - that NIST stated it, and that you tried to ignore that, and insist that us 'truthers' made it all up, and that it's a complete falsehood, a lie.

Who is lying here, and can't face up to the truth?

Everyone is allowed to agree and/or disagree with NIST, just like anyone can both agree and disagree on points made within the same document, same report, same article...or even the same author, of two different papers, one you agree with, one you do NOT agree with.

Just like I both agree and disagree with NIST, on various points in their report.

I totally disagree with NIST's conclusions that fire and impact damage were the only causes of both collapses. I've mentioned a few reasons already - it ignores their very own physical evidence, showing steel was never exposed to temperatures high enough to weaken or fail the steel. That was THEIR OWN EVIDENCE, THEIR OWN FINDINGS.

So they didn't deny their own findings, and that's good. All scientists should be honest, and forthcoming, about their results, regardless of whether or not they would have preferred different results...

That's where scientists consider if their theory of fires as causing steel to weaken, and fail, might be incorrect. Because their own evidence virtually rules it out. Because, as they said, they had specifically sought out, and collected, any fire-exposed steel. They don't mention if all the steel was looked at, and selected for fire-exposure. Most likely, they didn't, and/or couldn't, sift though every piece of steel debris. But they obviously had most of it available, for further studies.

Anyway, the steel showed the fires were - almost certainly - NOT a cause of EITHER collapse. Their own research, their own statements, rule out fires.

Nowm that's the point when NIST sells it into pure imagination, wild conjectures, where a 0.00001% chance result is what happened, twice. Nearly anything can happen, because virtually ANYTHING has a chance of happening, even if it's an infinitely small chance.

So NIST made computer models of the collapses, because they wanted to ignore their actual evidence, and their actual findings. At this point, NIST showed - beyond a doubt - that they were NOT looking into the actual causes of collapse. Since they had just proven that fire was most likely not a cause.

There was a CHANCE of fire causing collapse. Because THEY DID NOT HAVE ALL OF THE STEEL DEBRIS AVAILABLE TO STUDY!

WHY wasn't all of the steel available? Because they'd already shipped tons of it off to China! Why would they remove evidence? This was one of the greatest crimes of all history, without a doubt. They have always preserved any, and all, of the evidence, and any possible evidence, of a crime. Especially if the crime is a homicide, or a possible homicide.

There have been some serial killers that were investigated for many years, where they preserved 50 acres of farmland as the crime scene, and it was off-limits to everyone. That is a large crime scene to investigate, compared to most. It took them longer to investigate than most crimes, as well. It was more expensive to investigate compared to most.

This is always how any investigation is done... whether large in scale, and scope...or very small....whether it takes a few days to investigate, or takes a few years, we follow the same procedures. This was SUPPOSEDLY an investigation of a crime scene. It was one of the most gruesome, horrific, and tragic of all crime scenes. Most of the debris remained within the same area where the towers once stood. There was a lot of debris elsewhere, even miles away.

Every single piece of it, even all the dust particles, was evidence. And every piece of it, every dust particle, is evidence to be collected. Tons and tons of steel is collected as evidence. All of it is required for an investigation. If some of it is not collected, the investigation could fail, if the uncollected evidence is crucial. On the other hand, evidence collected at the crime scene has often appeared to be garbage, or insignificant, but when they investigated all the garbage, it was found to be crucial evidence.


Ask yourself who would remove evidence of a crime scene. Where a murder of someone took place. Where everyone knows it is the scene of a murder, and the murderer got away.

Let's say it was someone's best friend, or father, who was murdered. How would he look at someone who comes along and steals evidence that may prove who murdered his father?


They decided there was so much steel at the crime scene, it wouldn't matter if they took a few tons of it away. Who really cares, or even notices, a few tons of evidence is taken out, power-washing any blood stains, human fragments, etc....all at no charge, btw....That saves a lot of time, and hard work, and money, for the investigators!


I find it totally sickening that they would go into the pile of debris that still contains, or may contain, untold thousands of human remains, in small slivers, and tiny particles, blood-stained shreds of their clothing, perhaps a piece of skull, a mashed finger, on and on...


THIS WAS A MASS GRAVE.

So why not sift through the rubble for steel, and sell it to China.

But you don't even give a s#%t???!!!


disagree with NIST on this.



This has been repeatedly posted for you...

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

BY CHRIS MOHR

www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

originally posted by: neutronflux

The towers fell around half the rate of free fall.


Please quote and cite from NIST documents to prove they ever claimed the towers fell near free fall speed.

As stated by Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator of NIST, in an interview with NOVA...

SHAYM SUNDER: The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds

www.pbs.org...


I don't know if it's in any of the reports, but I sure the hell know NIST's lead investigator SAID IT!


And now, you know it. too..

a reply to: turbonium1

I asked you to cite the actual documents, you cannot?

a reply to: turbonium1

And NIST is credibile to quote now?

Is the time cited just for the floor system? Not the core and exterior vertical columns?

Video and seismic data shows the statement is wrong for the load supportimg members of the towers.


Again, quote and cite from the offical written NIST reports concerning the WTC that the offical stance is the Towers fell at near free fall.

This is the current stance by NIST

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

www.nist.gov...

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

a reply to: turbonium1

I don't know if it's in any of the reports, but I sure the hell know NIST's lead investigator SAID IT!

when you say this

NIST said the towers both fell at nearly free fall speeds, so you think they've made false claims?

and this

Unlike someone who deliberately ignores the fact it was NIST who stated the towers collapsed at nearly free-fall speed, and says it was a falsehood, and/or a lie, made up by 'truthers'.

implies you are saying this is documented somewhere in NIST documents.


Now you go say a lead investigator said this, so it wasn't NIST but a investigator that was giving an interview.

One could bring up interpretation but its interpreted as its said.

Why?

because of an ignorant and stupid society, when people of intelligence that have expertise in certain things, they need speak in lamen's terms so the wider public can grasp whats said.

But here it creates an issue because people like yourself don't understand that near free fall speed would need to be within milliseconds to say its near free fall speed based on whats being measured.

It wasn't near free fall speed but is explained that way so the stupids of society get it, but as evidenced here it just confuses them even more.

a reply to: turbonium1

False argument by you. To say the WTC was not treated as a crime scene or evidence is a lie.

Again, every piece of the WTC pile humanly possible was collected.

Is this a false statement. The removal of WTC debris was methodical out of fear it was holding up the slurry wall?

Is this a false statement. There was great effort to recover anything of interest from the WTC debris. Even recovery of keys and credit cards by hand searching. Over 18,000 pieces of human remains. 6,000 that could fit in a test tube.

Is this a false statement. Removal of debris was stopped when humans remains and evidence was found. The remains and/or evidence was removed by hand before clean up continued.

Is this a false statement. All steel and ruble was taken to lay down yards. The steel was examined, pieces of interest set assaide for further examination. The steel ID number for its placement in the structures recovered.

Is this a false statement. Ruble of the WTC was run on conveyors hand searched up to three times for remains, personal effects, and evidence.

CRIME SCENE – WORLD TRADE CENTER
www.npdf.org...

The third Crime Scene occurred on 9/11, when over 2,700 men, women, and children were murdered by terrorists. The death toll from this terrorist attack continues to rise every year with the passing of more of the First Responders at Ground Zero.

Recovering personal property from Ground Zero
m.youtube.com...


Fresh Kills (Landfill) - WTC Debris Burial Ground, pt. 1
m.youtube.com...

Fresh Kills (Landfill) - WTC Debris Burial Ground, pt. 2
m.youtube.com...

911 locating human remains
m.youtube.com...

9/11 WTC Structural Steel Investigation NIST
m.youtube.com...

9/11: Archiving the WTC - Relics from the Rubble web clip
m.youtube.com...


First pictures of WTC debris
m.youtube.com...

a reply to: turbonium1

And the recovered human were treated as evidence, and any other items of interest.

They were the ones murdered after all.

a reply to: turbonium1

This actually shows how LITTLE YOU UNDESTAND ABOUT CONSTRUCTION, that building is individual towers sharing walls the point I was showing is that just ONE yes ONE floor slab dropped on the slab below and collapse stopped at ground level.

Something YOU truthers say can never happen.

Also on a post further down you go back to the old truther claim that it was stated that it was the fires that brought the towers down. We DON'T ever claim that you had structral damage, fires which WEAKENED steel and the simple fact that floor slabs like my example could dropped within the tower.

So do you understand now and do you know what DYNAMIC LOADING is and what that means.