The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

a reply to: turbonium1

More false arguments by you. Let’s just start with this.......

You

And they found that NONE of the steel reached temps high enough to cause failure. None.

Can you quote where I said the steel failed from fire.

For you again. The remaining lightweight floor trusses in the area of jet impacts had fire insulation knocked off. The trusses were boxed in by remaining columns, and tried to expand when heated. They could not, so drooped down as they became more workable due to heat under load. The long lengths of floor spans had no mid span columns to prevent drooping. Upon cooling, they regained their rigidity, and contracted. The floor trusses contracted, pulling in on the vertical columns. The side loading on the remaining vertical columns was sufficient to pull the columns towards the interior of the tower. The bowing became so great, the load of the upper stories was not transferred to the tower’s foundation. Load was caught in the geometry of the bowing. The bowed columns could not hold the load and buckled.

The bowing and buckling is seen in the video in the link below.

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

Now quote were the outer vertical columns failed because of fire damage to initiate the collapse.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Failure

c : a fracturing or giving way under stress structural failure

Quote where anything fractured or gave way in the context of fracturing because of fire.


Note: after thought. The jets took out columns and floor trusses. Is that false? This caused load redistribution, is that false? Placing more force on the remaining structure, is that false? Steel can bend if enough force is applied at room temperature, is that false? Steel can fail if enough force is applied at room temperature, is that false? As steel increases in temperature degree by degree, it becomes easier to bend? Any increase in steel’s temperature above room temperature makes it easier to bend, is that false? As steel increases in temperature, it expands. Is that false. If expanding steel is boxed in, it will compensate at the point with the lease binding. Is that false.

a reply to: turbonium1

Now, it is your turn to give the reason for the towers’ inward bowing of outer vertical columns that resulted in buckling to initiate the collapse as seen the the video in the link below?

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...

What truth movement fantasy will you go with.......

a reply to: neutronflux

Not a contradiction at all, watch the footage. It was obviously not your standard implosion. Material was ejected in plumes as the buildings fell straight down, no toppling. Of course it wasn't a clean implosion, and it's not difficult to grasp why.

I would like to hear your explanation on how the hole in the ground in Pennsylvania, with almost zero debri, was an airliner.

So are you going to ignore the other points? The fact the PNAC document was released one year prior, describing a new pearl harbor as justification to launch a war on terror home and abroad? Which btw, was written by the same people selling the idea we need a department of homeland security, patriot act, and that Iraq had wmds. You think it was also one big coincidence this happened on the same day a simulation of a similar scenario took place, causing confusion and delays in scrambling fighters? Yeah ok.

a reply to: CymaticA

Things you have to explain.

1. How an implosion rig suffered the high speed impacts/explosions and, did not immediately explode/still functioned later.
2. How come the insurance company/FBI came to the conclusion that almost 92% of the wreckage of Flight 93 was recovered from either the hole in the ground or the surrounding land.
3. How come after the spring thaw, there are still very small pieces of airliner found at the Flight 93 crash site.
4. What the actual PNAC document says. To help you the words Pearl Harbor, appear twice.


"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor".

and

""Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age".

Neither time is it used in reference to starting a war on terror or toppling Hussein, but, in both cases refers to the US military still being better suited for a Cold War slugfest with Russia, rather than the conflicts we were more likely to see.

a reply to: CymaticA

One, I noticed you dropped “in their own footprint.” Now that was a false argument by you, and you got caught up in the truth movement lie.

Two, you are just ignoring that whole sections of structural steel weighing tons destroyed WTC 3, 4, and 6.

Three. How is a building supposed to fall that was over 95 empty when pulled down only by gravity?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: CymaticA

Things you have to explain.

1. How an implosion rig suffered the high speed impacts/explosions and, did not immediately explode/still functioned later.
2. How come the insurance company/FBI came to the conclusion that almost 92% of the wreckage of Flight 93 was recovered from either the hole in the ground or the surrounding land.
3. How come after the spring thaw, there are still very small pieces of airliner found at the Flight 93 crash site.
4. What the actual PNAC document says. To help you the words Pearl Harbor, appear twice.


"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor".

and

""Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age".

Neither time is it used in reference to starting a war on terror or toppling Hussein, but, in both cases refers to the US military still being better suited for a Cold War slugfest with Russia, rather than the conflicts we were more likely to see.

You didn't read it did you. Here's a quote from the opening statement:
“As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the
world’s most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in
the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does
the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of
past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a
new century favorable to American principles and interests?



Of course the document does not directly name Suddam Hussain. Not very complicated to see why.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: CymaticA

One, I noticed you dropped “in their own footprint.” Now that was a false argument by you, and you got caught up in the truth movement lie.

Two, you are just ignoring that whole sections of structural steel weighing tons destroyed WTC 3, 4, and 6.

Three. How is a building supposed to fall that was over 95 empty when pulled down only by gravity?

I watched the footage, had nothing to do with a truth movement lie when the buildings fall straight down. Severall witnesses that day said the same thing before any 911 truth movement started.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: CymaticA

2. How come the insurance company/FBI came to the conclusion that almost 92% of the wreckage of Flight 93 was recovered from either the hole in the ground or the surrounding land.
3. How come after the spring thaw, there are still very small pieces of airliner found at the Flight 93 crash site.

Key phrase, either the hole or surrounding area. Pictures and footage of the crater show almost no debri. Most of the wreckage was probably in the surrounding area, which some was found miles away. This indicates it did not crash into the ground. I would imagine it was intercepted and blown out of the sky. You can look at other crash sites, there's pics all over the internet, I haven't seen one where 90% of the aircraft was missing from the impact site.

a reply to: CymaticA

So? your argument is WTC 1 and 2 fell straight down in their own footprints while falling debris destroyed WTC 3,4, and 6 from the top down. Heavily damaged WTC 5. And WTC 7 had a 20 story gash in its side from the towers collapse which was one block away and across the street?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: CymaticA

So? your argument is WTC 1 and 2 fell straight down in their own footprints while falling debris destroyed WTC 3,4, and 6 from the top down. Heavily damaged WTC 5. And WTC 7 had a 20 story gash in its side from the towers collapse which was one block away and across the street?

Here's a 31 story 378 ft implosion.
youtu.be...

You can clearly see in this controlled demolition, parts of the building are not directly in the footprint, the majority of it is though. Now imagine 2 buildings, 3x larger. You really think the distance of one city block is relatively that far away? This video of a controlled demolition, of a building 1/3 the size, clearly proves my statements are not contradictory. I really don't see how you can have such a hard time grasping a building that tall, can fall into it's own footprint, yet still damage surrounding buildings.

You are also ignoring the fact that there are documented controlled implosions that have ejected material at far greater distances than a city block.

Trying to make an argument that a controlled demolition didn't happen, because surrounding buildings were damaged, is ludicrous if you do 5 minutes of research.

a reply to: CymaticA

Again.....

So? your argument is WTC 1 and 2 fell straight down in their own footprints while falling debris destroyed WTC 3,4, and 6 from the top down. Heavily damaged WTC 5. And WTC 7 had a 20 story gash in its side from the towers collapse which was one block away and across the street?

a reply to: CymaticA

This is your original post

They collapsed into their own footprints. You can clearly see them fall straight down. Then several hours later, a 3rd one never hit by a jet did the same.

How can you so blatantly ignore what your eyes can see?

But now you talking about lateral ejection?

So which is it? The towers fell straight down? They fell in their own footprints? It had to be CD because they fell straight down in their own footprints? It had to be CD because the towers didn’t fall in their own footprints because other buildings were destroyed outside the base of the towers? By debris, and actual whole pieces of building falling into WTC 3,4,6? By pieces that toppled over out of the towers, not laterally ejected? Or laterally ejected in the total absence in the video or audio evidence of a detention with the force to cause 5 to 20 ton pieces of building to be laterally ejected?


Would you please make up your mind?

a reply to: CymaticA

Avery simple argument. So now there is lateral ejection with any CD?

Below is a link that has the video of the inward bowing of WTC 2 that resulted in buckling of the outer columns, and initiated the collapse of the top of the building into the tower below.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...

There is no evidence of CD. Sorry.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: CymaticA

Avery simple argument. So now there is lateral ejection with any CD?

Below is a link that has the video of the inward bowing of WTC 2 that resulted in buckling of the outer columns, and initiated the collapse of the top of the building into the tower below.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...

There is no evidence of CD. Sorry.

There is more visual evidence of the collapse process than that tiny corner. The other building never showed that inward bowing, it had less than half the weight on the top section and the building came down at the exact same speed.

So the factors that brought down the buildings were incosistant, yet produced consistant results?

I think you are missing a factor that is consistant in both towers that was required for both collapse to occure at consistant speeds. Not free fall, but equal enough that their collapse innitiation had to come from equal forces.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: CymaticA

Avery simple argument. So now there is lateral ejection with any CD?

Below is a link that has the video of the inward bowing of WTC 2 that resulted in buckling of the outer columns, and initiated the collapse of the top of the building into the tower below.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...

There is no evidence of CD. Sorry.

There is more visual evidence of the collapse process than that tiny corner. The other building never showed that inward bowing, it had less than half the weight on the top section and the building came down at the exact same speed.

So the factors that brought down the buildings were incosistant, yet produced consistant results?

I think you are missing a factor that is consistant in both towers that was required for both collapse to occure at consistant speeds. Not free fall, but equal enough that their collapse innitiation had to come from equal forces.

You do realize the top of WTC 2 started to lean before collapse. Is that false. I think WTC 1 showed signs it would fail, and also had a slight lean.

But once the bowing that cased the leaning changed to buckling, the building was past the point of no return. The columns buckled, and the remaining columns had to fallow suit. Once the vertical columns lost all resistance to uphold load, gravity took over to pull straight down.

9/11 - The Top of the North Tower Is Leaning - NYPD Warning

m.youtube.com...

I gues saying the buckling was in a narrow band around the circumference of the building in an area relative to the jet impacts can be worded better? How about the buckling occurred in a narrow one to two story band relative to the jet impacts?

Anyway, here is more?

www.911myths.com...
AN ANALYSIS OF THE TIPPING OF THE UPPER SECTION OF WTC 2 By
F.R. Greening

5.0 Summary and Conclusions
The collapse of WTC 2 began with a tilting or rotational motion of the upper section of the Tower about a “hinge” at the 80th floor. This rotational motion, which commenced at a tilt angle  2, was caused by an almost instantaneous multi-column failure that eliminated the structural support on one side of WTC 2 near the impact zone. Once set in motion, the upper block moved with a nearly “free” rotational trajectory of a body pivoting under the constant force of gravity. This behavior was sustained at tilt angles up to about 25. Thereafter the motion of the block changed somewhat although the suggestion that the tilting suddenly stopped is not correct.
What appears to happen is that the tilting upper section was continuously crushed near the 80th floor by its own momentum so that the rotation was no longer that of a rigid body. Eventually the "hinge" at the northeast corner failed and the descending block took on a more vertical motion. Interestingly, once the hinge failed, and the pivot became frictionless, the motion of the center of gravity is predicted to become vertical, causing a shift in the rotational axis. Unfortunately, however, details of this stage of the WTC 2 collapse were obscured by smoke, dust and flying debris.
F. R. Greening
[email protected]
June, 2006

a reply to: neutronflux

It 's not hard to grasp what I said. The buildings fell straight down while pieces were laterally ejected. What is so hard to understand about that? There were isolated explosive ejections some 60 stories down from the impact zone. If you watch the footage you can see it. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes. There was molten steel at the base.

You can try and play a game of semantics all you want and ignore the actual visual evidence. I'll just keep repeating myself.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: CymaticA

Avery simple argument. So now there is lateral ejection with any CD?

Below is a link that has the video of the inward bowing of WTC 2 that resulted in buckling of the outer columns, and initiated the collapse of the top of the building into the tower below.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...

There is no evidence of CD. Sorry.

There is more visual evidence of the collapse process than that tiny corner. The other building never showed that inward bowing, it had less than half the weight on the top section and the building came down at the exact same speed.

So the factors that brought down the buildings were incosistant, yet produced consistant results?

I think you are missing a factor that is consistant in both towers that was required for both collapse to occure at consistant speeds. Not free fall, but equal enough that their collapse innitiation had to come from equal forces.

You do realize the top of WTC 2 started to lean before collapse. Is that false. I think WTC 1 showed signs it would fail, and also had a slight lean.

But once the bowing that cased the leaning changed to buckling, the building was past the point of no return. The columns buckled, and the remaining columns had to fallow suit. Once the vertical columns lost all resistance to uphold load, gravity took over to pull straight down.

9/11 - The Top of the North Tower Is Leaning - NYPD Warning

m.youtube.com...

I gues saying the buckling was in a narrow band around the circumference of the building in an area relative to the jet impacts can be worded better? How about the buckling occurred in a narrow one to two story band relative to the jet impacts?

Anyway, here is more?

www.911myths.com...
AN ANALYSIS OF THE TIPPING OF THE UPPER SECTION OF WTC 2 By
F.R. Greening

5.0 Summary and Conclusions
The collapse of WTC 2 began with a tilting or rotational motion of the upper section of the Tower about a “hinge” at the 80th floor. This rotational motion, which commenced at a tilt angle  2, was caused by an almost instantaneous multi-column failure that eliminated the structural support on one side of WTC 2 near the impact zone. Once set in motion, the upper block moved with a nearly “free” rotational trajectory of a body pivoting under the constant force of gravity. This behavior was sustained at tilt angles up to about 25. Thereafter the motion of the block changed somewhat although the suggestion that the tilting suddenly stopped is not correct.
What appears to happen is that the tilting upper section was continuously crushed near the 80th floor by its own momentum so that the rotation was no longer that of a rigid body. Eventually the "hinge" at the northeast corner failed and the descending block took on a more vertical motion. Interestingly, once the hinge failed, and the pivot became frictionless, the motion of the center of gravity is predicted to become vertical, causing a shift in the rotational axis. Unfortunately, however, details of this stage of the WTC 2 collapse were obscured by smoke, dust and flying debris.
F. R. Greening
[email protected]
June, 2006

A lot of babble and nothing noting the issue i raised. Then again you did offer something consistant... you dont know what fruck your talking about.. again.

originally posted by: CymaticA
a reply to: neutronflux

It 's not hard to grasp what I said. The buildings fell straight down while pieces were laterally ejected. What is so hard to understand about that? There were isolated explosive ejections some 60 stories down from the impact zone. If you watch the footage you can see it. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes. There was molten steel at the base.

You can try and play a game of semantics all you want and ignore the actual visual evidence. I'll just keep repeating myself.

No, you originally posted

They collapsed into their own footprints. You can clearly see them fall straight down. Then several hours later, a 3rd one never hit by a jet did the same.

How can you so blatantly ignore what your eyes can see?

Noticed you are not using “own footprint” anymore?

I then asked if they fell in their own footprints, how did the collapse of the buildings destroy other buildings. Then you started with the back pedaling and no longer seem to use the term in their “own footprints”? And if a building ejected material away from the building, it did not fall in its own footprint by definition?
Is that false?

How about this for semantics?

www.canberratimes.com.au...
Katie Bender's family commemorate 20 years since Royal Canberra Hospital implosion

The girl was hit by flying steel 400m away, did that implosion stay in its own footprint? What is the point of implosion again?

Then I asked for evidence of detonations with the power to propel pieces of building weighing 5 to 20 tons? And we all know saying a building collapsed in its own footprint really means it ejected pieces weighing 5 to 20 tons to destroy at least 4 other buildings?

You have not provided any evidence of detentions with the force to ejection pieces of building weighing 5 to 20 tons from a curtain of falling rubble? What can be explained by pieces toppling out. Or pieces bouncing off each other, hitting the floors at odd angles before the floors gave totally away, or bouncing off the vertical columns that remained standing whole seconds after the complete collapse of the towers’ floor system.

If you don’t think gravity an cause lateral ejection, you better look at a video of a Newton’s cradle. Think of the towers’ collapse as 3D billiards?

Amazing Demonstration Of A Giant Newton's Cradle!
m.youtube.com...

By the way, detentions used to implode a building are clearly heard above the noise of the buildings collapse. Is that false?

The towers didn’t truly fall straight down too

WTC2 Initial Tilt with Draft Overlay
m.youtube.com...

9/11 - The Top of the North Tower Is Leaning - NYPD Warning
m.youtube.com...

What was your point again?

Oh, this.....

They collapsed into their own footprints. You can clearly see them fall straight down. Then several hours later, a 3rd one never hit by a jet did the same.

How can you so blatantly ignore what your eyes can see?

All the while, you cannot produce actual physical evidence of a detention with the power to cut steel at the WTC?

edit on 12-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: CymaticA

Avery simple argument. So now there is lateral ejection with any CD?

Below is a link that has the video of the inward bowing of WTC 2 that resulted in buckling of the outer columns, and initiated the collapse of the top of the building into the tower below.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...

There is no evidence of CD. Sorry.

There is more visual evidence of the collapse process than that tiny corner. The other building never showed that inward bowing, it had less than half the weight on the top section and the building came down at the exact same speed.

So the factors that brought down the buildings were incosistant, yet produced consistant results?

I think you are missing a factor that is consistant in both towers that was required for both collapse to occure at consistant speeds. Not free fall, but equal enough that their collapse innitiation had to come from equal forces.

You do realize the top of WTC 2 started to lean before collapse. Is that false. I think WTC 1 showed signs it would fail, and also had a slight lean.

But once the bowing that cased the leaning changed to buckling, the building was past the point of no return. The columns buckled, and the remaining columns had to fallow suit. Once the vertical columns lost all resistance to uphold load, gravity took over to pull straight down.

9/11 - The Top of the North Tower Is Leaning - NYPD Warning

m.youtube.com...

I gues saying the buckling was in a narrow band around the circumference of the building in an area relative to the jet impacts can be worded better? How about the buckling occurred in a narrow one to two story band relative to the jet impacts?

Anyway, here is more?

www.911myths.com...
AN ANALYSIS OF THE TIPPING OF THE UPPER SECTION OF WTC 2 By
F.R. Greening

5.0 Summary and Conclusions
The collapse of WTC 2 began with a tilting or rotational motion of the upper section of the Tower about a “hinge” at the 80th floor. This rotational motion, which commenced at a tilt angle  2, was caused by an almost instantaneous multi-column failure that eliminated the structural support on one side of WTC 2 near the impact zone. Once set in motion, the upper block moved with a nearly “free” rotational trajectory of a body pivoting under the constant force of gravity. This behavior was sustained at tilt angles up to about 25. Thereafter the motion of the block changed somewhat although the suggestion that the tilting suddenly stopped is not correct.
What appears to happen is that the tilting upper section was continuously crushed near the 80th floor by its own momentum so that the rotation was no longer that of a rigid body. Eventually the "hinge" at the northeast corner failed and the descending block took on a more vertical motion. Interestingly, once the hinge failed, and the pivot became frictionless, the motion of the center of gravity is predicted to become vertical, causing a shift in the rotational axis. Unfortunately, however, details of this stage of the WTC 2 collapse were obscured by smoke, dust and flying debris.
F. R. Greening
[email protected]
June, 2006

A lot of babble and nothing noting the issue i raised. Then again you did offer something consistant... you dont know what fruck your talking about.. again.

Then you explain what caused WTC 2’s outer columns to bow in, and then buckle to initiate collapse?

Or post actual evidence of detentions with the force to cut steel to initiate the twin towers’ collapse? A system that survived jet impacts and fires to initiate the collapse at the point of the jet impacts? A system the truth movement claims had to takeout the resistance of every floor to achieve the witnessed collapse rate?

a reply to: neutronflux

Ok, they fell in their own footprint while ejecting concrete and steel latterly in certain spots. If "falling straight down", and " into own footprint " causes you to think i backpedaled, then you are just going to the extreme on semantics and ignoring the entire point. Obviously when I said straight down, I was reinforcing the point that they went straight down just like an imploded building would.

You did completely ignore the fact that implosions can eject material much further than a city block. You completely ignore the fact molten steel was discovered at the footprint. How about over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes during the fall. How about thermite discovered in the dust samples. How about NIST refusing to make public the data they used in their simulations.