It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

page: 59
29
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: completion1
a reply to: Spacespider

"never find out" or "never accept"?


Bingo! The role of cognitive dissonance in how some see 911 cannot be denied.




posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: completion1
a reply to: Spacespider

"never find out" or "never accept"?


Bingo! The role of cognitive dissonance in how some see 911 cannot be denied.


And still waiting on you to cite evidence of nuclear weapons used at the WTC. Not truth movement lies, innuendo, and pseudoscience. And you want to talk about cognitive dissonance when the video, audio, and seismic record holds absolutely no evidence of charges setting off or cutting at the WTC. The irony.....



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 12:03 PM
link   
i've found that. can anyone guess what was at the origin of the exceptionally high temperatures and to the persistent heat at Ground Zero until december 2001?

i mean, there are even thermal photos by the NASA (EarthData).

911research.wtc7.net...

please, halp me to understand what produced such heat for 3 months!

i dare to add those facts, you know:


Firemen reported seeing “molten steel” running in the rubble like “lava in a volcano.


www.911tap.org...



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Bernardo1871

One, there would be no pure molten anything. It would be a mixture of plastics, ash, copper, aluminum, lead, and solder.

Two, you


i mean, there are even thermal photos by the NASA (EarthData).

Please cite from that evidence where the WTC rubble was hot enough to support molten steel?

Three, the pile was smoldering from a slow combustion process. The smoldering materials would flash when exposed to fresh air.

The smoldering at the WTC was similar to


Chapter 5 - Earth pits for charcoal making
www.fao.org...
Using earth as a shield against oxygen and to insulate the carbonising wood against excessive loss of heat is the oldest system of carbonization and surely goes back to the dawn of history.


It wasn’t thermite. The reaction provides its own oxygen. Thermite would be consumed in moments.

It was not from nuclear reactions. If the heat was from nuclear reactions, you would see radiation levels higher than Fukushima. The radiation source would have had to have more material than a nuclear reactor. People would have died within hours after being at the pile.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Bernardo1871

And when water contacts molten steel, it causes violent releases of steam. With the WTC rubble exposed to rain and sprayed with water, any reposts of water contacting molten steel?



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   
A reply to: neutronflux

Let's count all the levels you keep failing at.

1. and 2. Not worth any attention, since this and many other threads are full of my answers to this type of redundant posts. It's getting stale and certainly suspicious. Because it seems you do not view nor read them.

3. Very simple. Put the cutter charge and its watertight radio controlled ignition in a big container filled with a lot of water. Boiling water can not get hotter than 100 degrees Celsius. And the walls of the container also not, when you contain the bulk of the water by letting off just a little bit of steam/minute via a pressure release valve. I doubt the water will ever reach its boiling point of 100 C if those well known nylon m3 containers were used. It takes far more than 30 minutes to heat up 1000 L water to 100 Celsius, by office fires.
And video filmed facade room fires in WTC7 did not last more than 30 minutes per room, before all combustibles in that office environment were consumed and the fire eventually hopped to the next room. But essential core columns were not really in office space, only column 79 and 44.
These type of fires will not even heat the massive INSULATED steel beams and columns up to more than 150 C in that short time. I think, not even over 80 C. By the way, there were very little fires in WTC7. And those that we have on video, f.ex. at the east side, you can easily see them hopping from one room to the other, extinguishing or dying down to a very low level, quite fast, max 30 minutes, but mostly shorter. Same goes for the very late fires, around 4 to 5 P.M., at the lower north side facade floors.
And for the rest of the PERHAPS burning inner fires, it's pure guess work. There is simply no visual evidence for them.
And all these nice NIST fire progression diagrams, hang them in the toilet.
BECAUSE NO STEEL EVIDENCE for WTC7 is ever preserved. And that would have provided the ONLY HARD EVIDENCE of the exact steel temperatures endured in WTC7.
Only those two tiny "Swiss cheese" steel pieces. Know where they are? I would like to know...
And no US State lawyer will be able to defend NIST's fire diagrams, as long as they do not open up their software (ABACUS ? ) its data files, where they based their collapse animations on. Even they know that NIST will get a new tale pipe ripped, whenever they will be forced to show them at last.
They have them declared a case of National Security...Yep, sure. What a creepy mess they made.

4. On-site blueprints are about the best you can come up with, as A&Efor9/11Truth have come up with.
Next to actual photographs of column 79, and its real world adaptions on it, like this one I posted years ago already :

files.abovetopsecret.com...


5. Structural failure by fire is quite different from THREE total collapses by fire....WTC6 burned like hell all day, but failed only totally inside that near perfect round hole that was gauged out inside its center roof area, going all the way to the lowest floors. By what exactly.? There is very little HUGE debris to be seen at the bottom of that hole in WTC6...
WTC5 its remains also still stood erect on 9/12/2001...Partially collapsed, yep....there's a damn huge difference between partial, and global, fire induced, collapses.

6. Go to your favored Debunking sites. They have numerous threads on that subject.
See for that my points C. and D. in my last post on page 58. Are you too lazy to read them, surprise surprise, in your own favorite forums.???
Because there's no reply to Tony Szamboti's arguments?

And even more curious, I offered you that photo of column 79 with its clearly by NIST omitted steel parts, already in other threads, but you do not want to see these omitted steel parts, it seems. Your online behavior is very curious and suspicious, you do not want to engage in honest, structurally sound debate. You just keep re-posting endlessly, very stale, long time ago debunked arguments.
You waste our precious online time with that stubborn online behavior. Start addressing the evidence laid out in front of you, instead of just endlessly re-posting about ten of your stale questions.

7. It is also well known that even non insulated vertical steel like in the Cardington fire tests, did not collapse even after many more hours than in WTC7, being subjected to far more intense fires. And the connected beams had bowed just a few inches. While that steel was subjected to evenly spread heat over its full length, not like it happened inside the WTC7 floors, if you use some good old logic. Where we however have no exact heating scenario for....see 9.

8. I think it's your arguments, that fails on far too many levels. They are stale arguments. See, the same nnnn nutty professor technique of debate.

9. ""they differ in their conclusions only because they make different but reasonable assumptions about unknowable variables (most importantly--the exact heating scenario). The fact that they all differ on such assumptions and yet all come to the same overarching conclusion re the vulnerability of the building to a fire-induced progressive collapse is not something that calls that overarching conclusion into question.""
That's a damn easy one. They all three are GOVERNMENT institutions, or/and are heavily depending on government funds.
You really think they are neutral ? Then you will wake up one day and loose all confidence in these kind of institutions.
And of course in any kind of US government, which is totally made up by interest groups. Not by concerned citizens.

10. You missed that boat too, by not or not well listening to his September interview, while I gave you the perfect transcript too. One post-graduate Hulsley-team student made it to his Doctorate. The other is going for that by publicizing three thesis about fire induced steel building failures and solutions to stop them. Which make them susceptible to solid peer review by his own University its Engineering department members and a few more from other worldwide Universities. And you can recon that they will fry him, where ever they can.
The main study about WTC7 its collapse mechanism is planned to be offered to a panel of internationally well known and reputed peers, invited by an European Engineering Journal, as intended by Prof. Hulsley. Because he has seen by now, what kind of vitriol is spend on "honest" critiques in the USA on a paper that till now, nobody has seen in full.
Thus, he took the right decision, and opted for publication in a non-US journal. If he can find one that dares to accept it...
And then you post that clear explanation by Prof. Hulsley....Do you even understand his perfectly laid out motives.? It's damn clear to me.

And your last point? Read the transcript of Prof. Hulsley's Sept. 2018 interview : archive.is...



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   
A reply to: wmd_2008

NIST explained to you, that any damage to WTC7 from debris impacts at the collapse of WTC1, was not detrimental to the 17:20 collapse. So, it's a quite stale argumentation. And if it would have been a real influence, the collapse should have looked totally different, the SE and SW corners would have folded into the southern facade center where that supposedly failing gash in that supposed case then was, and then the building would have toppled southwards.

""also want to explain how the lower floors on the elevation the videos are viewed from is ON TOP of the rubble pile does that show the collapse was truly vertical as claimed ""

Firstly, how do you conclude these are lower floor facade panels? Did someone provide you with secret numbering?
These panels could come from any level, as far as I see it.
Secondly, it is not important to your question about "truly vertical as claimed". In fact it proves that the whole internal structure fell faster than the outer shell. As expected by that 2.35 seconds period of free fall acceleration at the real onset of the global collapse of WTC7. Which means after some simple math calculations, that ~28 meters worth of internal height, spread over 8 floors between the 13th and the 5th floor, were OBLITERATED by some external force.
And don't dare to come up with stale arguments that there was no FFA, or I wash your ears with lots of ironclad evidence.
Wait, I'll do that in my further, upcoming posts.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   
A reply to: wmd_2008

Care to explain yourself?
Otherwise I have to complain to ATS staff about spreading totally unfounded, baseless and ignorant lies about my postings.
I have never engaged in any moonstones discussion anywhere in the world.
The rest of your post also shows the level of your debating style. Priceless unethical Trump style.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:14 PM
link   
So-called experts getting it all wrong in the first 10 years after 9/11 :
YouTube title : 9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert
youtu.be...


Note especially the burst out of flames from that window in WTC7, at 9:59 / 18:14.
Note also at 10:55 / 18:14 minutes, that despite some Nat. Geographic "experts" declared that "thermite cannot melt a steel beam", Jonathan Cole demonstrated at 11:14 and at 11:55, it could easily do that...
Note again, at 12:09 in the video, that all these ill informed 9/11 truth debunkers posting their hilarious counter-punches here at ATS and elsewhere, about the impossibility of thermite to take out steel structures, for example that "WTC 7 fell in relative silence, no detonation capable of cutting steel", that already in 1935 a three million pound steel tower, the Skyride Tower, by the way taller than WTC7, was demolished by 1500 lbs (+/- 700 kilos) of thermite, packed around and melting its bottom steel legs....Popular Mechanics, Nov. 1935. (12:19 / 18:14)
Well, 700 kilos thermite / thermate on a pellet car, they could easily roll into a freight elevator in WTC7...or in several parts on several smaller pellets.

Thus, especially view, after viewing the above notes, the comments on "high tech quieter explosives" at 9:17 / 18:14.
Then read the below excerpts of those two there mentioned thermite patents. I found them back for you, the neutral reader :

Inventor : Murakami, Taku
Assignee : Kabushiki Kaisha Komatsu Seisakusho
Application No. 297610 filed on 08/29/1994
Taku Murakami, US Patent 5532449 - Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish concrete.
(LT : Steel demolishing is even easier.
Since it is a far better heat conducting material then concrete, which is more of an insulator material) :

www.patentstorm.us...
We get used to it : No search result.
But, we have the WayBackMachine website and that one gives for April 29, 2009 a snapshot of that web page :
https ://web.archive.org/web/20090429085052/http ://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5532449/description.html
Just copy the above line in the address bar of your browser, then connect the https and the http again to the two :// pieces. Then Enter.
Then you read some damn important excerpts from those patents below, enforcing the use of nanothermite and its discussions over at AEfor9/11Truth.org and Metabunk.org :


-SNIP-
For example, such proposed methods for demolishing concrete structures include: an impact demolition method using hammers and chisels, impact breakers, steel balls, or the like; a mechanical demolition method using lock jacks, crushers, cutters, drills, or the like; a thermite demolition method using metallic-wire thermite, thermite moldings (refer to Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 48-67414), or the like; a flame demolition method using jet flame or the like; an explosive demolition method; a gas expansion demolition method; an electrical demolition method using arc discharge, laser, plasma arc (refer to Japanese Patent Application Laid-open No. 55-145294), or the like; and a jet demolition method using water jet, sand jet, or the like.
-SNIP-
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
It is an object of the present invention to provide a method and an apparatus which can demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like.
According to the present invention, a concrete demolishing method which melts a surface of a concrete structure comprises: generating a plasma arc from the plasma torch of a plasma arc generator, mixing thermite powder with a supply gas for the plasma torch, passing the mixture of thermite powder and supply gas to the plasma arc, directing the plasma arc at the surface of the concrete structure, and controlling the rate of supply of the thermite powder to the plasma arc in response to the operation of the plasma torch, preferably including initiating and stopping the supply of the thermite powder to the plasma arc in a manner coordinated with the initiation and stoppage of the plasma arc, thereby controlling the heat generated by the thermite reaction and melting at least a portion of the surface of the concrete structure.
In addition to mixing the thermite powder with the supply gas for the plasma torch, at least one material selected from the group consisting of agents to control a thermite reaction starting temperature and agents to lower the melting point of concrete can be included as an ingredient of the mixture.
-SNIP-
A concrete structure having a thickness of several meters can be immediately melted by this method.


This method works even better on steel, since it has much better heat conduction values than concrete, which is more of a heat insulator at temperatures up to 400 Celsius.
It's also quite simple to add those same agents to lower the thermite reaction starting temperature and the agents for lowering the steel melting point temperature, to a thermobaric mixture, and then especially the disc-shaped gas plasma spitting ones.


By skillfully combining a plasma arc demolition method, which is compact and easy to carry out under electrical control but which is poor in thermal efficiency when applied to nonconducting concrete, and a thermite demolition method, which provides a large quantity of heat but in which the thermite reaction is difficult to control, their merits not only offset their demerits but synergize each other. Needless to say, an essential feature of both methods, i.e., a reduced occurrence of the secondary problem of noise, flying dust and chips, and the like is maintained intact in the combination.


--more--



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:16 PM
link   
The following is quite interesting for the Prof. Harrit et al team their nanothermite proposals for the red layered WTC-dust chips they had in their possession, that ignited at a surprisingly low 430 C and spat out iron and silica micro-spheres, just as in any thermite or nanothermite reaction, where concrete and steel are both involved :


(1) Agents to control thermite reaction starting temperature

Thermite powder T is basically a mixture of finely-divided metallic aluminum and ferric oxide that, when ignited, produces extremely high temperatures as the result of the union of the aluminum with the oxygen of the oxide. The thermite reaction on the surface of a concrete structure is so intensive that it easily melts concrete and rock with a melting point in the range of about 1200 to about 2500° C. However, the finer the particulate size of the thermite powder T, the more the thermite powder T tends to induce dust explosion at a room temperature. This tendency is stronger than that of iron dust, coal dust, or the like. Hence, from a safety point of view, it is essential to provide means for externally controlling the start and the stop of the thermite reaction. Also, it is desirable to use the thermite powder T itself for controlling the start of the thermite reaction.

In detail, it is desirable that the thermite powder T be admixed with a material such that the occurrence of the thermite reaction be prevented or minimized at temperatures up to 1000° C. To attain this object, in addition to a consideration of the grain size of each ingredient of the thermite powder T and the characteristics of the supply gas G and other factors, an agent to control a thermite reaction starting temperature is added to the thermite powder T in advance. The additional agent or agents can be premixed with the thermite powder T in the hopper 40, or one or more separate feeding mechanisms can be employed for adding the additional agent or agents to the supply gas.
Any suitable temperature controlling agent can be utilized. Suitable temperature controlling agents include the powders of iron, nickel, manganese, carbon, calcium, magnesium, barium, zirconium, copper, and admixtures of any two or more thereof. For securing safety, it is quite important to control the thermite reaction starting temperature by studying the temperature controlling agents and their grain size and compounding ratios, the characteristics of the supply gas G and others so that the thermite reaction occurs at a desired temperature.

(2) Agents to lower the melting point of concrete

When melting concrete, the plasma torch can face not only horizontally or upwardly but downwardly in many cases. Molten concrete is high in viscosity, and hence does not naturally flow out of a groove in a generally horizontal surface. When melting concrete with the plasma torch facing downwardly, it is desirable that the plasma torch be equipped with a gas nozzle to blow such molten substance (dross) out of the groove. However, since concrete can contain gravel with a melting point higher than that of the concrete, the gas jetted from the gas nozzle may not be able to blow out both the gravel and the molten concrete. As a consequence, a desired progress of the melting process is difficult to achieve.

In order to blow out such gravel as well as the molten concrete, the viscosity of the molten concrete needs to be low. To attain this object, a substance which lowers the melting point of the concrete when it melts and mixes with molten concrete, is added to the thermite powder T in advance. The additional agent or agents can be premixed with the thermite powder T in the hopper 40, or one or more separate feeding mechanisms can be employed for adding the additional agent or agents to the supply gas G. Such agents to lower the melting point of concrete include aluminum, magnesium, iron, sodium, lead oxide, chlorides like sodium chloride, fluorides like fluorite, and admixtures of any two or more thereof.


Steel its melting point when hit with such a nanothermite mixture, can be lowered with the same additional agent(s).

In a Thermobaric explosion, the supply gas G forms a plasma when the main gas explosion is triggered, which then forms f.ex. disc shaped gas plasma's that exceeds speeds of 20,000 m/second.
High Explosives (HE) cutter charges their (f.ex. copper metal) plasma's go up to no more than a maximum of 9,300 m/second.
Just add the additives, which lower steel and concrete melting points. And lowering the thermite reaction starting temperature.
And these TB explosions their very low pitched noise, do not resemble in any way the normally used HE copper based cutter charges noise, which are very high pitched in noise signature.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Many Harrit et al thermite / thermate debaters wondered if there really was the possibility to ignite nanothermite powders at 430 C.
Well, it was long before 9/11/2001, already a well known possibility :

Albert Gibson et al, Integral low-energy thermite igniter.
US Patent number: 4464989, Issue date: Aug 14, 1984
www.google.com...


What is claimed is:
1. In a thermite igniter/heat source comprising a container holding an internal igniter load, the improvement wherein the container consists essentially of consumable consolidated thermite having a low gas output upon combustion, whereby upon ignition, substantially all of the container and said load is consumed with low gas production.
2. A thermite igniter/heat source of claim 1, wherein the consolidated thermite is a combination of aluminum metal and MnO2, MoO3, CuO, Fe2O3, Fe3O4, PbO2, Cr2O3, WO3, Cu2O, Pb3O4, NiO or a mixture thereof.
3. A thermite igniter/heat source of claim 1, wherein the consolidated thermite is a combination of aluminum metal and CuO, Fe2O3, Fe3O4, Cu2O, NiO or a mixture thereof.
4. A thermite igniter/heat source of claim 1, wherein the consolidated thermite is a combination of aluminum metal and Cu2O.
5. A thermite igniter/heat source of claim 1, wherein the consolidated thermite is a combination of about 11 weight percent of Al and about 89 weight percent of Cu2O.
6. A thermite igniter/heat source of claim 1, wherein the consolidated thermite is prepared by hot pressing thermite powder.
7. A thermite igniter/heat source of claim 1, wherein the smallest dimension of the container is about 250 mils.
8. A thermite igniter/heat source of claim 1, wherein the largest dimension of the container is about 4 inches.
9. A thermite igniter/heat source of claim 1, wherein the container has side walls and a bottom wall and which further comprises,
two electrodes passing through the bottom wall into the inside of the container, and
a fuse inside the container and in contact with the ends of the two electrodes which are inside the container.

10. A thermite igniter/heat source of claim 9, wherein the container has cylindrical side walls and wherein the internal igniter load comprises discrete, compositionally distinct zones.
11. A thermite igniter/heat source of claim 10, wherein said internal igniter load comprises a primer mix in contact with said fuse, a low density thermite mix over said primer mix, a thermal barrier over said low density thermite mix, a burnable barrier over said thermal barrier, and a consolidated thermite charge over said burnable barrier.
12. A thermite igniter/heat source of claim 6, wherein the consolidated thermite is hot-pressed at 460.degree - 500.degree C. and at least 10,000 psi for 15-30 minutes to achieve 80-100% of theoretical maximum density.

Drawings :
files.abovetopsecret.com...


Page 2


Sadly enough, I can't find that page 2 anymore.
But the texts above shows you, that it was already for many years before 9/11 possible to engineer your nanothermite in 2001 in such a manner, that it would ignite around that 430 degrees Celsius point that Prof. Harrit and Prof.Em. Jones et al found. And agents could be mixed in with the nanothermite, that will lower the steel melting temperature, when hit with that exploding nanothermite mixture (made f.ex. with method 12).
A thermobaric mixture can also be engineered with those lowering melting point mixtures as additives, no problem at all.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I'll give you now, Tony Szamboti's post #1209 to chew on. It's Post #1212 at the Metabunk thread page 31, titled :
AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project

It's Tony Szamboti's reaction on a post by benthamitemetric (#1210), reacting on Tony's post #1209, which is of utter importance for the upcoming Prof Hulsley et al team their peer review in (hopefully) a solid reputation European Engineering Journal. Here is Tony's post #1209 its text :


John85 said: ↑
What do you believe happened to column 79?


What others here (LT : Metabunk.org) may not tell you is that while the vertical kink in the east penthouse does point to a failure of column 79 it only tells you it failed below the penthouse, not where that failure occurred. Interestingly, the evidence shows the east penthouse only came down into the main building a couple of stories which would indicate that column 79 only failed high in the building. The points of evidence for this are :

1. Daylight can only be observed through the windows of the top story.
2. The shock wave goes top to bottom.
3. Window breakage only occurs from the roof line down 15 stories.
4. There is no exterior column deformation observed on the east side as there would be if lateral support was lost.
5. There is no dust emanating from windows on the east side until the exterior starts coming down and the east penthouse dropped into the building 6 to 7 seconds before that.
(LT : During those 7 seconds, no dust. NIST calculated them in their earliest draft report as 8.3 seconds, by the way)

What this also means is that all 24 core columns were still intact for most of their height after the east penthouse fell. To cause a simultaneous drop of all four walls of the building, as observed, all 24 core columns would have to be pulled nearly simultaneously, starting in the center a fraction of a second earlier.

A reason the east penthouse might have been taken down separately first is that it was eccentrically located in the northeast corner. The screen wall and west penthouse, which also sat on the roof, were located in the center of the 144 foot wide building.

Of course, this situation is a lot more plausible and would explain the observations much better than the Rube Goldberg situation that NIST and some others are trying to feed us. Several years after the release of the NIST WTC 7 report, when the drawings were released, it was found that NIST needed to deceptively ignore, omit, and distort several pertinent structural features to even make it have any plausibility. Their analysis looks and sounds like a classic cover-up, where things don't naturally add up and the situation is then contrived.
Last edited: Dec 10, 2017
Tony Szamboti, Dec 10, 2017. Post #1209


All the 5 counter points that benthamitemetric posted then directly after in his post #1210, Dec 10, 2017, are in fact based on his assumption that Tony had no video pictures to show his above excerpted by me, 5 points, that prove according to Tony, that column 79 only failed high in the building.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Thus, Tony countered by posting in his post #1212, this video, titled :
WTC Building 7 Collapse - 23 angles
Source: www.youtube.com...




Tony Szamboti : One can see the types of things I am talking about concerning the east penthouse in the below video. It is quite clear in the views seen at about 5:32, 5:50, 8:00, and 9:30, that dust doesn't come out of the broken east side windows on the north face until the exterior starts coming down. This alone says the east side interior did not start collapsing low in the building to cause the east penthouse to fall.

Benthamitemetric's attempts to diminish what I am saying need to be seen from the reality that he is a lawyer and is apparently working for the defense of a guilty party here.
Last edited: Dec 10, 2017
Tony Szamboti, Dec 10, 2017. Post #1212.


Post #1216 by John85, posted Dec 11, 2017, is another take on the 5 counter-points made by benthamitemetric at the Metabunk.org forum, on Dec 11, 2017, which were a response to Tony Szamboti's post #1209.
In John85's last point, he sums up NIST's structural engineering materials omissions in their Final WTC7 Report.
So utterly important for their theory of column 79 failure by fire heat :


Whatever you think of Hulsey's integrity, NIST's errors are errors. The missing sideplates were missing, whoever funded Hulsey's study. The web stiffeners were absent whether or not Hulsey declared his conclusions prematurely. The support plate was incorrectly identified by NIST no matter how many PhDs peer-reviewed it.

Do you recognise the possibility that a government agenda can influence the objectivity of a government agency's scientists, the parameters of their study, and the reliability of their conclusions?
John85, Dec 11, 2017. Post #1216


Then benthamitemetric reacts with his next post #1218 : www.metabunk.org...
He spoils it all, by then remarking :


At the end of the day, no one knows with certainty the exact fire conditions in the building, so it's sufficient to demonstrate the building was vulnerable to progressive collapse in reasonable fire scenarios, which has been done.


That's why it's so damn obvious, that NIST did everything in their might to arrive at the column 79 failure scenario, WITHOUT any scenario that involved human intervention by explosives.
And then came up with several fire scenario induced collapse animations that they published, of which none of them even had a partial resemblance to the real time WTC7 collapse videos.
And one animation, with the most unrealistic, intense simulated fires, burning for crazy long times, was just as all the other simulations, showing in its totality of just a mere 2 seconds playtime, directly a crumbling of the top portion's 4 top floor sides, which is NOT to be found anywhere in anyone of the many 6 seconds lasting, real time WTC7 collapse videos of the collapse on that sunny, 11th September day in 2001.

Thus, we at ATS, and them at Metabunk.org, are now cautiously holding our breaths.

Because Prof. Hulsley promised in his radio interview of Sept. 10, 2018, that they will come up with their collapse event initiation reasoning, and their resulting collapse sequence animation made in ABAQUS and one of the other simulation programs they used, which will mimic the real time collapse videos shot on 9/11/2001 of WTC7, when played side by side.

PS : the next posts in that Metabunk.org thread are worth reading too.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Trouble is I'm a seasoned pilot........they were sending airliners east to a ready zone over water then to airports.....and Shanksville and the pent had choppers with vdeocrews....sp.......saying not enough debris to fill a suitcase, plus a man with ABC on the ground same thing at Pentagon

I remember seeing the segment....it was a brand-new bell with the 4 color paint job.....a new Jet Ranger Long Ranger from Bell
edit on 10-10-2018 by GBP/JPY because: IN THE FINE TEXAS TRADITION



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   
On page 32 of that same thread, Tomi posts post #1253, these are his thoughts about the objectives that must be fulfilled to let any WTC7 demolition appear to have been a reasonable endeavor.
He's questioning this proposed demolition process :


Not sure I understand the thermite idea either, because melting a 5 inch thick steel plate that is predominantly in compression is only likely to squish it under extreme circumstances.


He did not think it fully through. If the planners have chosen to cut these lower floor columns with their flanges of 4.9 inch thick, they would have cut them in two places, with a disc shaped TB with nanothermite addition, diagonally opposed to each other, like this :
_______________________________________
__________V________________V___________

Think of it as standing upright as a column piece, not laying like I could only provisionally roughly modeled it.
That center piece with those two diagonal cuts at both its ends, will be pushed slowly out of the gap forming by the force of the dead load on it from above, that gap forming slowly between the upper full extend of f.ex. column 79, and the lower full extend.
This can explain the 8.3 seconds time it took for the eastern, then western penthouse, to disappear into the roof area of WTC7.

Go look again at my edited seismogram in my opening post in this eye-opener thread about WTC7 its collapse by me :
Title : WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And then you see that huge explosion evidence staring you in your eyes, namely that first peak, its highest bunch of amplitudes on that seismogram, showing a sudden, very high energy outburst, that shook the bedrock under WTC7.

I still am flabbergasted, that not a single main stream journalist ever, seems to have read my thread.
And understood it's total and clear evidence that WTC7 was blown up.
However, it clearly has never reached any News outlet.
Could that be evidence, that all main media is repressively controlled by its governments, in these "fake national security" kind of cases.?



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:45 PM
link   
ThermoBaric (TB) explosions are incredibly fast energy releases (> 20,000 m/sec), their resulting period of vibration; vibration number (which is its frequency); and their vibration's width (amplitude); will travel nearly just as fast as that explosion through all connected to that explosion, vertical steel columns parts.
And is on its way down somewhat dampened while parts of its vibrations are also horizontally spreading outwards, through all the on those columns connected horizontal steel beams their steel parts. Then it reaches the bedrock in which the steel is secured. And shake that bedrock much much more energetic per part of a second, than the seconds later following impacts of the first debris pieces on the ground around the building, and into the fast growing debris pile. Which took at least 6 full seconds of minor shaking of that same bedrock. As you see in my edited seismogram in the opening post of my WTC7 evidence thread :
Title : WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Notice the 2 secs between that very deep explosion sound, and the moment that the eastern penthouse starts tumbling into the roof area, and then notice also the 2 + 7 explosion sounds you hear in the Ashley Banfield video, before the real global collapse of all visible facade parts in that WTC 7 - HUGE DEEP EXPLOSION video, starts.
And this is the same info, put on video by David Chandler :
Building 7 - Sound Evidence for Explosions (10 min) :
www.youtube.com...


Which means that the second, lower and longer lasting bunch of vibration amplitudes are probably those 9 explosions, mixed thereafter with the far minor vibrations of building debris hitting the ground, at last.
Debris hitting the ground is far less energetic per second than explosions. And that's why only a minor and lower vibrations part of that second bunch of vibration amplitudes have reached the 34 km further situated seismographs at Palisades institute at Columbia University.

This is the audio print-out of the deep explosion sound and the rest of the WTC-7 collapse sound signals as in this FOIA freed video, titled : Huge explosion before the destruction of building 7 WTC .mov - AE911Truth.org :

files.abovetopsecret.com...


You see in the above sonogram from that Huge Explosion etc. video, clearly the first huge deep explosion (red arrow)at the far left side of that sonogram, then 2 secs silence, then the 8.3 seconds "relatively silence" between the start of the East Penthouse roof denting and before the global collapse starts, in which you can count at the left of the center of the graph, the 9 smaller explosions that you hear in the Ashley Banfield video interview with that young mother and her baby on her arm, before she starts yelling "That's it ! ".
Then you see the witnessing of the start of the global collapse, as a bunch of short loud yells from bystanders but mostly from that reporter ("ho,ho,ho"), picked up by the video camera's microphone, in that Huge Explosion etc. video.
And then you see the sound peaks of the debris starting to hit the still standing lower building portions first, which lower portions are also obliterated in the next few seconds, and all that debris is starting to impact the ground level. It's the thinner longer part, to the right of the center of that sonogram's graph. And in the smaller center area are the somewhat bulkier peaks with all those voice spikes, showing the surprised yells of the reporter and the bystanders. It's all in the first 5 pages of my above linked to, thread.

Explosions on 9/11 :
YouTube title : WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions. By David Chandler July 5th, 2010
youtu.be...



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:47 PM
link   
A reply to: GBP/JPY

To which post, and what in it, are you responding here ?



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   
The damage visual at the South facade of WTC7 filmed from helicopters :
NEW FOR 2017: What Happen...
youtu.be...


The smoke you see billowing upwards against the southern facade is sucked up by the effect from the NE winds blowing that day, forming a somewhat lower pressure area along that smaller southern facade, combined with the heated smoke plumes emanating from the really raging fires in WTC 5 and WTC6, directly on the opposite side of Vesey Street.

The 30th to 40th floors clean vertical gash is probably formed by some straight heavy steel WTC1 part, like a Vierendeel triplet from the facade of WTC1, that ripped with one end through the glass and aluminum cladding there. One end, because otherwise you would see it had been stuck at the 30th floor.
It also did not started fires. And the smoke is sucked up from WTC5 and 6. Because the whole top floor including its two penthouses is clean of smoke and not any part of it is smoking too.
And the NIST declared after viewing this, that the reported damage at the south face and its south west corner did not cause the later collapse.

Of course they had to say that, since otherwise every engineer in the world would have asked them how WTC7 could then fall nearly cleanly into its own footprint, with some minor left, right and northern facade pieces stuck into buildings at these 3 sides, and thus clearly did not topple over to the south, where the debris impacts of WTC1 should have caused such southern toppling. If those debris impacts at its southern facade side would have been the main cause of its global collapse at 17:20 on 9/11/2001, it would have been toppling to the south onto Vesey Street and WTC6, and folding in to its own southern center first, because of this gash, if it was that severe. Which it thus definitely wasn't.

This member said it short and strong :

Originally posted by: kyleplatinum
A reply to: neutronflux



There is zero evidence of CD.


Evidence:
(1)Synchronicity of the removal of support across the whole width of the building, evidenced by (2)the levelness of the roof-line as it came down, and (3)the suddenness of onset of collapse, and (4)the immediate transition from full support to total free-fall.
(5)Natural collapse resulting in free-fall is simply not plausible. It did not happen. It could not happen. (6)Yet Free-fall did in fact happen.
(7)This means it was not a natural collapse. Forces other than the falling upper section of the building (8)suddenly destroyed and removed the supporting columns for at least eight stories across the entire length and width of the building.


I added those bracketed numbers, for clarity.

And realize, that 8.3 seconds earlier the eastern penthouse roof started to bend, and then that whole three stories high structure folded and toppled down into the 47th floor its roof area, showing sunlight shining suddenly thereafter, through the northern facade louvers of its two somewhat higher maintenance floors 47 and 46.
Which could mean that either a few or one columns under that EPH were buckling, which I strongly oppose, since there was not a trace of damage or fire to see in those floors, the whole day long.
Or, these few columns were failing far much lower between f.ex. the eighth to thirteenth floor areas, double diagonally cut at some eight floors, one at that lower fifth floor, and one at the thirteenth floor again, by f.ex. disc shaped TB cutter charges" :
_______________________________________
__________V________________V___________

(Column is standing upright instead of laying. Center piece will be pushed out)

Causing that loud deep sound 2 to 3 seconds earlier than those following 8.3 seconds toppling of both penthouses, registered in the first seconds of that FOIA freed NIST video.
And in those 8.3 seconds we hear the 9 softer sounding explosions that were cutting top floors beams in the Ashley Banfield video.
And listen to what Graig Barthmer described in his video interview : ""And then I heard boom, boom, boom, boom... I know explosions when I hear them.""
And the "Cap man" interview : "When I returned home later that evening, the media had already cut out all the explosion sounds we heard all day, in their endlessly repeated videos."

And then the upper floors subsequently slowed down the weight of that EPH and following WPH debris and then one floor held at last under that, by natural steel resistance slowed down, compressed weight of both penthouses debris (EPH and then WPH) that crumbled during those 8.3 seconds that it took to demolish that roof area.
And during those 8.3 seconds they also cut with f.ex. much more silent thermite TBs, all inner core and outer core steel columns with the same pairs of diagonal cuts, instigating global collapse. Probably they only needed to cut all core columns, that event would have forced failure of all surrounding facade columns.

Which timed process is standard demolition technique. First cut essential beams high up, to prevent those upper floors their facade to umbrella outwards and damage other valuable buildings and objects to all its sides, during the final collapse initiation explosions.
Then cut as quick as you can, nearly all inner core and perhaps all outer core columns too, under the thirteenth floor down to the fifth floor, to instigate global collapse followed by those 2.35 seconds of Free Fall Acceleration indicating there was no resistance left at all in those 28 meters high, covering eight floors its full space.
That FFA was thus caused thereafter by the natural dead load of that building above the gutted 8 floors high areas that suddenly gets the chance to fall down those eight floors, which FFA is then followed by the unstoppable following natural collapse of that downwards set in motion of myriads of tons of building debris on its way down to the ground. Which then is followed by its natural deceleration when the first debris started to hit the ground floors area.

Just to remind the reader : The by David Chandler, and later on also acknowledged by NIST, calculated 2.35 seconds of FFA, indicates without any doubt that there was no resistance at all in those 8 floors its 28 meters heights. Simple math will show that to you, to be found about everywhere on the Internet.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:54 PM
link   
And waypastvne, it wasn't an avalanche, as you proposed as a possible cause for the 2.35 secs free fall acceleration in the beginning of WTC7 its collapse, in another thread, where perhaps speeds even higher than free fall could occur, as you thought.
That it definitely wasn't an internally started, naturally occurring avalanche in WTC7, by the failure of that fat steel column number 79 as NIST proposed, is quite eloquently proven by the SAE measurements of WTC7 its measured descent curves, proven by Charles M.Beck in his WTC7 paper, revision 4 :
arxiv.org...

Some of his best evidence for human intervention in the collapse of WTC7, in my opinion :

arxiv.org...
Title : Descent curves and the phases of collapse of WTC 7, by Charles M. Beck.
His redacted Version 4 is now dated August 29, 2018. It's Beck's revised, BRAND NEW version.

Beck offers on page 18/24 his conclusive evidence that those first, 2.35 seconds into the global collapse of WTC7, were indeed proof of free fall acceleration, and not, like NIST and others tried to propose, an interior avalanche as a result of failure of just column 79 :

Note : SAE = Sum-of-Absolute-Errors.
See Beck's page 10 its bottom, then page 11, 12, 13 for a thorough explanation of the SAE and his determination of it :

files.abovetopsecret.com...




Page 18 : In Fig. 6 we show the data set “C,” the respective theoretical trajectories and their accelerations, and SAE.
Here, SAE is calculated over the first 13 points of the data set “C” and the positions predicted by each theoretical model. We note that the free fall has SAE ~= 2.09 m, on one hand side, and on the other, that SAE for the entire three-zone crush-up model over 25 points (~= 3.82 m) is less than SAE for either of the 0-opposition avalanche models (~= 4.69, 4.94 m).
This finding reaffirms our previous conclusion that Phase I is a free fall for H1 ~28 m and not an avalanche that started somewhere in the building (LT : somewhere at floor thirteen, around column 79, as NIST proposed) and propagated for the same distance.


In page 14 part B , and some further following pages, Beck explains that the NIST hypothesis regarding the collapse initiation is not valid.
Column 79 was NOT the start of a cascading avalanche inside WTC7.
That NIST theory does not fit and disagrees with the full descent curve C (based b.t.w. on measurements by David Chandler), in Fig 3 on page 10.
Note that later on, after Chandler noticed NIST of his calculations for a 2.35 secs real free fall acceleration period at the real start of the WTC7 global collapse, NIST recalculated this with their own data measured from existing video material, which came even closer to Free Fall acceleration, than Chandler.


Page 19/24 : It is a reasonable assumption that the seismic signal is excited by changes in the apparent weight of the building, δw, given by δw=fˆ∆W/(M g), where f is the sampling rate, while ˆ∆ is a difference operator acting on a time series of W collected at the sampling rate.


Another interesting remark by Charles M. Beck, page 9/24 :


We believe that W', and in particular its time derivative, can be used in interpretation of the seismic signal of the building’s collapse.
As an attempt to connect the two, brings forth numerous additional complications which need to be properly addressed, we leave this topic to future publications.


W' is an apparent weight that the top section exerts during the collapse, on the Earth’s crust, W′/(M g) .
It's the weight of the top section, above the ~28 meters high building section that must have been instantaneously destroyed, to provide the means for a 2.35 secs free fall accelerated descend of the rest of the building mass, situated above that obliterated ~28 m building section.

Perhaps Charles M. Beck has read my WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved thread, and seen my seismic evidence in my opening post its seismic diagram there. We'll wait and see if he did.
He may use it at will. Someone should tell him that. He offers his email address at the bottom of his papers.
I do not want to be influenced too much by off site contacts.
I really want to keep up to the flow of my own analysis over all these years, I'll rather be not influenced too much, by other researchers their line of thoughts within a complicated email or PM exchange.
I had to abandon quite some partial analysis, after reading solid counter arguments. I really want to keep it that way.
I'm not a group person, I'm the quite old, lone wolf type. And I'm still happy with it.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Can you actually post video, audio, seismic evidence that WTC 7’s exterior columns were cut to achieve the witnessed collapse speed? Or all you can do is misrepresent the three or so studies that conclude fire related collapse.

How many finished and published studies can you cite that concludes CD? Any that were signed depositions to a court case?
edit on 10-10-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join