The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

And there are at least two other studies that support fire related collapse of WTC

Are you referring to the Arup engineering investigation or some other investigation? Be specific so I able to talk about it?

neutronflux NIST study is a fraud we have enough evidence to confirm the building came down unnaturally.

Eyewitness, NIST lied about. NIST fraudulent model of the collapse. Freefall cannot happen in a natural building collapse. FEMA found cracked, broken corroded steel only high temp does that,. FEMA found an Iron liquid on the steel.

Its over Truthers are right about this.

a reply to: Jesushere

In case you don't already know, here is a bit of information on the personnel running NIST, and their connections with George Bush. This, from Bollyn's article from June 28, 2002

President GWBush asked NIST to conduct an investigation into the collapse of WTC buildings. Dr. Arden Bement Jr, appointed by Bush in August 2001, directs NIST, a bureau of the Department of Commerce. Bement was previously head of Purdue University's School of Nuclear Engineering. Prior to joining Purdue, he was VP of science and technology for TRW Inc and worked for DARPA.


NIST will report its findings to Sec Commerce, Donald L. Evans through his deputy Phillip Bond.

Evans is "almost like a brother" to Bush, according to Karen Hughes, Bush's WH counselor. Evans raised $100 million for Bush's presidential campaign as his national finance chairman.

a reply to: Salander

What does you rants have to do with there is absolutely no proof of planted explosives at the WTC 7.

a reply to: Jesushere

Nice if you to create a false argument by leaving out simple facts.

Ome, the interior of WTC 7 was not a instant global collapse of pancaking floors. It was a local collapse that turned to a east to west interior collapse.

Two, you for got all the interior columns failed in the core of the building. And only after the core columns failed, did the facade fall.

www.nist.gov...

Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

Three. You for got this last key part. Only after all the core columns buckled, did the facade move. The north side of the facade in phase two of its collapse was measured at free fall. NIST never claimed WTC 7’s floor system fell at the rate of free fall. Is that false?

a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

It must be sad realizing you cannot make a case of CD at the WTC using Video, Audio, seismic evidence, and cite specific material evidence. It is embarrassing to see you use half truths and right out misrepresentation of facts to create truth movement fantasies.

And we have not even covered how a CD system in WTC 7 would maintain its integrity after impact damage from WTC 1 and 2, and the fires in WTC 7

a reply to: Jesushere

Nice of you to create a false argument by leaving out simple facts.

One, the interior of WTC 7 was not an instant global collapse of pancaking floors for example. It was a local collapse that turned to a east to west interior collapse.

Two, you forgot all the interior columns failed in the core of the building. And only after the core columns failed, did the facade begin to fall.

www.nist.gov...

Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

Three. You for got this last key part. Only after all the core columns buckled, did the facade move. The north side of the facade in phase two of its collapse was measured at free fall. NIST never claimed WTC 7’s floor system fell at the rate of free fall. Is that false?

a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

It must be sad realizing you cannot make a case of CD at the WTC using Video, Audio, seismic evidence, and cite specific material evidence. It is embarrassing to see you use half truths and right out misrepresentation of facts to create truth movement fantasies.

And we have not even covered how a CD system in WTC 7 would maintain its integrity after impact damage from WTC 1 and 2, and the fires in WTC 7

a reply to: Jesushere

Funny, you keep posting like thermite was not debunked. You have actual video evidence of planted WTC 7 explosions? The exterior facade columns being cut on every floor for example.

Oh, sorry, got ahead of myself. You cannot get past Harrit has no proof of active thermite. His research is a fraud. Or you could answer:

What test did Harrit run to show there was elemental aluminum in his sample to prove active thermite.

What lab did he submit the samples to verify active thermite to complete the discovery process.

Yet Harrits claim of thermite was in a mix containing “an epoxy resin and kaolin clay “ and “iron oxide pigment and plates of aluminum/silicon consistent with reference samples of kaolin“

Why would anyone mix thermite in paint? Maybe because there was no thermite. No free aluminum for a thermite reaction

originally posted by: Jesushere
And there are at least two other studies that support fire related collapse of WTC

Are you referring to the Arup engineering investigation or some other investigation? Be specific so I able to talk about it?

Can you name one report that is signed deposition for proof of CD at WTC 7.

Again, what is it like only being able to turn to debunked truth movement snake oil salesmen? Only being able to create false narratives? Never being able to cite evidence of planted explosives from the video, audio, seismic record? Not one bit of proof of a column cut or melted by thermite?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

What does you rants have to do with there is absolutely no proof of planted explosives at the WTC 7.

nutronglush.....found only in 911 threads....someone pull that plug

originally posted by: GBP/JPY

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

What does you rants have to do with there is absolutely no proof of planted explosives at the WTC 7.

nutronglush.....found only in 911 threads....someone pull that plug

Then please provide some credible evidence of planted explosives at the WTC?

Metal shards ejected at 140km/h?

Demolitions shrapnel from victims?

Audio of detonations with the force to cut steel columns?

Proof of a floor to floor CD system the truth claims had to exist to remove the resistance of every floor? That survived jet impacts, building damage, and wide spread fires?

Any video of columns being cut floor to floor?

Any video or photos of columns cut to induce Collapse from the rubble pile?

Any thermal imaging evidence of thermite burning at 4000 f to cut columns floor to floor?

a reply to: GBP/JPY

I xsee what you mean GOT TAM HAL 9000....TIME FOR A NEUTRON FLUSH, WHERE'S THAT SILVER HANDLE??!!!!

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
a reply to: GBP/JPY

I xsee what you mean GOT TAM HAL 9000....TIME FOR A NEUTRON FLUSH, WHERE'S THAT SILVER HANDLE??!!!!

Where is that evidence of planted explosives at the WTC? It should be right there in the video and audio of the multiple views of collapsing buildings at the WTC? Not one piece of steel splinter or cut column by demolitions from buildings that supposedly had to have the resistance of every floor removed to achieve the witnessed collapse speed?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

Nice if you to create a false argument by leaving out simple facts.

Ome, the interior of WTC 7 was not a instant global collapse of pancaking floors. It was a local collapse that turned to a east to west interior collapse.

Two, you for got all the interior columns failed in the core of the building. And only after the core columns failed, did the facade fall.

www.nist.gov...

Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

Three. You for got this last key part. Only after all the core columns buckled, did the facade move. The north side of the facade in phase two of its collapse was measured at free fall. NIST never claimed WTC 7’s floor system fell at the rate of free fall. Is that false?

a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

It must be sad realizing you cannot make a case of CD at the WTC using Video, Audio, seismic evidence, and cite specific material evidence. It is embarrassing to see you use half truths and right out misrepresentation of facts to create truth movement fantasies.

And we have not even covered how a CD system in WTC 7 would maintain its integrity after impact damage from WTC 1 and 2, and the fires in WTC 7

Well, you have not understood the steps that lead to the collapse then

NIST is claiming fire heat knocked the floor girder off its seat at Column 79 and 44. Did it get so hot the steel beam thermally expanded and moved the girder off its seat?

As I have explained already in another post-NIST removed shear studs, girder stiffeners, lateral plates to support their collapse model. What NIST is saying occurred could not have taken place. There was no cascade of floors from 12 down to 5 stories and this lead to chain reaction from east to west.

Have you truly studied and watched the NIST model of the collapse and the real actual collapse closely? NIST has all these deformations occurring in the middle of WTC7 and WTC 7 westside right corner wall starts bowing in almost to the middle of the building. That never happened yes your eyes are not deceiving you!

My guess what happened is silent charges went off underneath bottom floors on the east side that brought down the east Penthouse, then the middle cores got taken out and then to right near the west corner wall. That's why the right corner wall fell down almost in straight line neatly to a nice pile of wreckage.

Yes, they did in Stage 2. The top of the roof when fell roughly about 8 to 10 floors NIST claim there was no columns, steel framing, girders, steel beams there it was gone. Freefall is essentially something falling at speed of gravity.
NIST never claimed WTC 7’s floor system fell at the rate of free fall.

a reply to: Jesushere

You

I have explained already in another post-NIST removed shear studs, girder stiffeners, lateral plates to support their collapse model.

One. Name the computer modeling that proves they would stop collapse.

Two. What scientific law states shear studs would stop beams from expanding when heated.

Thee. What scientific law states steel does not weaken when heated because of shear studs?

Four. What scientific law states shear bolts will stop the contraction of cooling steel.

Five. The shear bolts wouldn’t break when the thermal expansion / contraction broke floor connections? Why?

Six. If there was buckling from twisting of beams, how would shear studs stop that?

Seven. Shear studs made the structure more rigid? That would introduce more strain in the structure. Leading to more mis-shaping of the structure, if the shear bolts didn’t break.

Your shear studs are not even part of AE’s Tony S’s debates on metabunk. It’s a dead end argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jesushere
And there are at least two other studies that support fire related collapse of WTC

Are you referring to the Arup engineering investigation or some other investigation? Be specific so I able to talk about it?

Can you name one report that is signed deposition for proof of CD at WTC 7.

Again, what is it like only being able to turn to debunked truth movement snake oil salesmen? Only being able to create false narratives? Never being able to cite evidence of planted explosives from the video, audio, seismic record? Not one bit of proof of a column cut or melted by thermite?

NIST never tested for explosives for thermite so how would we know?

That doesn't even make sense when NIST even stated on their own website they never tested for explosives or thermite. That CD or thermite brought down the building has never been debunked.

The FEMA study is fascinating though because they found steel beams with huge sized holes in it. That requires a high temp. The damage we see could have resulted from CD and nano-thermite? FEMA found a liquid containing Iron and sulphur, therefore, that debunks the Skeptics that nobody saw a melted liquid steel. Do Skeptics not realise melted steel contains Iron. Temps in WTC7 was not hot enough to result in melted Iron.

a reply to: Jesushere

You still have to prove active thermite in dust samples...

You are trying to change the topic again...

What test did Harrit run to show there was elemental aluminum in his sample to prove active thermite.

What lab did he submit the samples to verify active thermite to complete the discovery process.

You did not answer the question.

Yet Harrits claim of thermite was in a mix containing “an epoxy resin and kaolin clay “ and “iron oxide pigment and plates of aluminum/silicon consistent with reference samples of kaolin“

Why would anyone mix thermite in paint? Maybe because there was no thermite. No free aluminum for a thermite reaction

You will not get to the truth pursing truth movement con artists....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You

I have explained already in another post-NIST removed shear studs, girder stiffeners, lateral plates to support their collapse model.

One. Name the computer modeling that proves they would stop collapse.

Two. What scientific law states shear studs would stop beams from expanding when heated.

Thee. What scientific law states steel does not weaken when heated because of shear studs?

Four. What scientific law states shear bolts will stop the contraction of cooling steel.

Five. The shear bolts wouldn’t break when the thermal expansion / contraction broke floor connections? Why?

Six. If there was buckling from twisting of beams, how would shear studs stop that?

Seven. Shear studs made the structure more rigid? That would introduce more strain in the structure. Leading to more mis-shaping of the structure, if the shear bolts didn’t break.

Your shear studs are not even part of AE’s Tony S’s debates on metabunk. It’s a dead end argument.

Well exactly that's what you need a new investigation and you need to look at all parameters and scenarios. NIST study is flawed. Even their model of the collapse does in no way resemble the actual collapse. Do you not find it strange NIST has the west right wall bowing into the middle?

a reply to: Jesushere


You still have to prove active thermite in dust samples...

You are trying to change the topic again...

What test did Harrit run to show there was elemental aluminum in his sample to prove active thermite.

What lab did he submit the samples to verify active thermite to complete the discovery process.

You did not answer the question.

Yet Harrits claim of thermite was in a mix containing “an epoxy resin and kaolin clay “ and “iron oxide pigment and plates of aluminum/silicon consistent with reference samples of kaolin“

Why would anyone mix thermite in paint? Maybe because there was no thermite. No free aluminum for a thermite reaction

You will not get to the truth pursing truth movement con artists....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You still have to prove active thermite in dust samples...

You are trying to change the topic again...

What test did Harrit run to show there was elemental aluminum in his sample to prove active thermite.

What lab did he submit the samples to verify active thermite to complete the discovery process.

You did not answer the question.

Yet Harrits claim of thermite was in a mix containing “an epoxy resin and kaolin clay “ and “iron oxide pigment and plates of aluminum/silicon consistent with reference samples of kaolin“

Why would anyone mix thermite in paint? Maybe because there was no thermite. No free aluminum for a thermite reaction

You will not get to the truth pursing truth movement con artists....

Skeptics have already ruled out one paint. They still think it might be Laclede paint but Dr Milette found no strontium chromate in his sample this cannot be ignored.

He carried out a methyl ethyl ketone and saw the Aluminum was not mixed or bonded with the other compounds. If you think this test was not good enough, provide some answers for why you believe this?

The nano-thermite is going to mix with the paint on the steel that's where they have to place it. Nano-thermite sitting next to a steel beam is not going to do much damage is it?

Harrit clearly said the Aluminium was separate from the silicon. Skeptics are trying to say its Kaolin to match it with the Leclede paint but as i have already pointed out a key ingredient is missing.

a reply to: Jesushere

He carried out a methyl ethyl ketone and saw the Aluminum was not mixed or bonded with the other compounds. If you think this test was not good enough, provide some answers for why you believe this?

How does MEK, which softens epoxy, indicate the presence of free aluminum for a thermite reaction? Does MEK react with aluminum to give some indication of aluminum’s presence? How would it show it was aluminum not bound to oxides, or other compounds?

Again, what specific analysis did Harrit conduct to prove active thermite, and publish a result only active thermite could produce?

The nano-thermite is going to mix with the paint on the steel that's where they have to place it.

One, how would iron oxide powder and aluminum powder mix with cured paint? When thermite supposedly cut and burnt the beam away?

Two, why would there be detectable amounts of a active thermite in WTC dust anyway.

Three. Why are all of Harrits chips supposedly thermite when you claim it would mix with paint. Harrit found no paint chips. Seems impossible from the dust from over 1,400,000 tons of collapsed buildings.

Four. How do you know where the paint contractors acquired all the paint? What paint was used from year to year.

Skeptics have already ruled out one paint. They still think it might be Laclede paint but Dr Milette found no strontium chromate in his sample this cannot be ignored.

What Skeptics?

Who ruled out paint? Harrit backed by a unethically peer reviewed paper in a pay to play journal that did not complete the discovery process with independent lab analysis?