The last WTC column, Column No. 1,001 B of 2 World Trade Center

All the same old crap arguments. Until you can explain scientifically how the building could have fell so fast it doesn't matter what is the cause. People simply do not except demolition in spite of what the video evidence. We have no other video evidence, computer model, or experiments showing how a building could fall from fire. Buildings have never fell this way before. And never since.

The real crime is without proven good scientific explanations on how a fire can bring down a steel cement building then it will happen again. The building codes need to be updated. The cheesy superstitious explanations put forth by NIST are not good science. The basis of their conclusion was never given to the public for scrutiny. What NIST is promoting is delusional.

a reply to: neutronflux

And somehow this large 58 ton piece of steel was not too radioactive to handle despite supposed China syndrome, remained unmelted despite the supposed thermite, remained unmelted despite the rivers of supposed molten metal, remained standing despite the supposed underground nuke that fractured the WTC foundation , and was not shipped off to China?

I am not sure what you are on about about nukes, but 58 tonnes of steel is next to nothing.

Depending on the exact ratios of constituents of the specific alloy, in volume 58 tonnes of industrial steel is about one tenth of that of a standard shipping container.

a reply to: DupontDeux

What does that have to do with the impossible claim all the structural steel was shipped to China in the first few weeks, and none of the steel was examined?

While I keep finding the relics that were saved for memorials. The document efforts to treat the rubble as a crime scene, to find human remains, personal effects, and evidence. The efforts to inspect structural steel at the pile, then have it shipped to sites like Fresh Kills. I can find reports and results of the steel being inspected, sampled, and analyzed.

Two of the more easier reports to get ahold of:

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
app.aws.org...

Characterization of Submerged Arc Welds from the World Trade Center Towers: As- Deposited Welds and Failures Associated with Impact Damage of the Exterior Columns
files.aws.org...

Remember, the claim by the truth movement is the structural steel was all sent to China without being inspected, which is a blatant lie.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Until you can explain scientifically how the building could have fell so fast it doesn't matter what is the cause.

What?

Below is scientific study to while WTC 7 fell. Would you like to clean up or better define “explain scientifically”.

www.metabunk.org...

other-wtc7-investigations-aegis-insurance-v-7-world-trade-company-expert-reports.t7112/

Your “explain Scientifically” is a hollow straw man argument.

One, you cannot provide evidence of CD.
Two, you cannot provide an explanation how CD systems survive the jet impacts and fires to initiate collapse of the towers on the floors of the impacts took place.
Three, you create false arguments by incorrectly stating the nature of the collapse of the twin towers.
Four, the collapse of the towers was caught on tape from many different angles.
Five, police from helicopters reported the towers were buckling and leaning minutes before collapse.
Six, I can post video of columns buckling.
Seven, buckled columns were recovered, and examined.
Eight, you cannot provide on video evidence of columns being cut.
Nine, I can site examination of the steel, see the two examples below:

Characterization of Submerged Arc Welds from the World Trade Center Towers: As- Deposited Welds and Failures Associated with Impact Damage of the Exterior Columns
files.aws.org...

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
app.aws.org...

Ten, simulation of the jet hitting WTC 2 that shows the amount of core damage.

Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center
m.youtube.com...

Or how about this?

What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?
Zdeněk P. Bažant, Hon.M.ASCE1; Jia-Liang Le2; Frank R. Greening3; and David B. Benson4

cee.northwestern.edu...

Conclusions
Several of the parameters of the present mathematical model have a large range of uncertainty. However, the solution exhibits small sensitivity to some of them, and the values of others can be fixed on the basis of observations or physical analysis. One and the same mathematical model, with one and the same set of param- eters, is shown to be capable of matching all of the observations, including: 􏰀1􏰁 the video records of the first few seconds of motion of both towers; 􏰀2􏰁 the seismic records for both towers; 􏰀3􏰁 the mass and size distributions of the comminuted particles of con- crete; 􏰀4􏰁 the energy requirement for the comminution that oc- curred; 􏰀5􏰁 the wide spread of the fine dust around the tower; 􏰀6􏰁 the loud booms heard during collapse; 􏰀7􏰁 the fast expansion of dust clouds during collapse; and 􏰀8􏰁 the dust content of the cloud implied by its size. At the same time, the alternative allegations of some kinds of controlled demolition are shown to be totally out of range of the present mathematical model, even if the full range of parameter uncertainties is considered.
These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demoli- tion to be absurd and leave no doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects of fire.

Unscientific because it doesn’t fit the lies and absurdities of the truth movement?

More here

Was the NIST report on the World Trade Center towers peer-reviewed?

www.quora.com...

The reports themselves were not. However, papers that drew extensively on significant portions of them were published in Fire Technology, which is peer-reviewed:

Overview of the Structural Design of World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 Buildings
Structural Response of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7 to Impact and Fire Damage
Structural Analysis of Impact Damage to World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7
The articles are available in pre-published format at the NIST site.

Or

Twin Towers Forensic Investigation Helps Revise Building Codes, Despite Critics
www.scientificamerican.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

I don't think it was the Romulans either. So you debunked everything.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: neutronflux

I don't think it was the Romulans either. So you debunked everything.

Contracting floor trusses causing bowing of vertical columns lead to buckling and initiated collapse.

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

www.metabunk.org...

It’s right there in the video evidence.

a reply to: dfnj2015

People ignore the evidence.

Yes so true

Regardless, if you are going to claim jets are capable of bringing down steel cement buildings at near the acceleration of gravity speeds, then such extraordinary claims will require extraordinary evidence.

But there is


dont you remeber you just said

People ignore the evidence.

and will defiantly say this

the evidence is not valid.

when they push ignorance to the ignorant like nukes.

Why not watch YouTube videos about nukes and atomic weapons to learn about them if YouTube is the holy gospel.

If you can't provide such evidence, then don't question someone else's theories based on real evidence. Put up or shut up!

exactly


a YouTube video

doesn't matter if its 24 hours, days or years long is not evidence of anything other than indicating the kind of person that is pushing such nonsense.

But I can't consider it until I get an explanation on how the buildings fell so fast.

you say that a YouTube pushing nukes is convincing.

I doubt any explanation will suffice or will even be understandable unless its presented in way to convince you like .....YouTube videos pushing nukes have.

a reply to: markovian

the buildings where built to handle a 707 yet a slightaly larger plane took it down i think a plane even smaller than a 707 would of taken it down why was it rated for a 707 when the fire from the fule of most planes would do the same thing

they were built to handle a 707?

what does that mean?


were they built for that size of a plane to hit the towers at incredible speeds like they did or were they built to withstand a plane that size coming to land at one of the 2 or 3 airports in the basic vicinity?

a reply to: dfnj2015

People simply do not except demolition in spite of what the video evidence.

and when one looks at the video evidence and compares to all other videos of demolitions there is one big difference.

that difference is only on the towers compared to all others and on the towers its slightly different again compared to each other.

Hmmmm but don't think, you may hurt yourself.

The real crime is without proven good scientific explanations on how a fire can bring down a steel cement building then it will happen again.

so explain?

What steel and cement building was brought down by fire that you are referring too?

we are talking about the twin towers, they were hit by planes, remember?

The cheesy superstitious explanations put forth by NIST are not good science.

can you honestly say that and show you can or are you again just saying what you are being told by ..... whoever?

There were so many clues that the os is bull, but what did it for me is the diagonally cut colum. That clearly shows demolition. That colum was enough for me to understand that the buildings were brought down by demo, no matter how you cut and slice it (no pun intended).

originally posted by: 2Faced
There were so many clues that the os is bull, but what did it for me is the diagonally cut colum. That clearly shows demolition. That colum was enough for me to understand that the buildings were brought down by demo, no matter how you cut and slice it (no pun intended).

I hope its not this nonsense again.


can you post a picture?

I mean you must have seen this from a picture or else how?


How do you know that the steel column diagonally cut wasn't done after when clearing the rubble?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: dfnj2015

You just show you don’t understand the actual facts of the WTC.

Start with this.

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...

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

The floor trusses tried to expand while being heated by fires in areas of the jet impacts. The floor tresses boxed in by stable outer and core columns could not expand in length. The floor trusses were forced to bow downward. Metal will expand in length when heated, even if it has to change shape.

Upon cooling, the bowed columns contacted. The pulling action pulled in on the outer columns. The pulling bowed in the outer columns. There are reports of the towers starting to structurally fail and they starting to lean minutes before collapse. This is also on video. Especially made evident for WTC 1 by it’s antenna.

Below in the link is a video of WTC 2’s inward bowing that initiated collapse.

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

The bowing became great enough, the strain of holding up the 29 upper stories was no longer transferred to the foundation. The stain of the load caught up in the bowing lead to buckling and collapse.

The buckling was in or near the same floors hit by the jets.

For WTC 2, the buckling caused the up 29 floors to fall into the building below.

Before and during the buckling, there is no audio evidence of a blast with the energy to cut steel. There is no ejection of shredded steel. No indication of a shockwave from a detonation with the force to cut steel columns.

The falling mass stripped or sheared floor connections from the vertical columns. The vertical columns were left standing in the wake of the collapse floor system. The vertical/core fell after the collapse of floor system from toppling from loss of lateral support.

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers

app.aws.org...

There is a reasonable real world explanation based on actual video evidence, science, and study of failured structural components that does not involve planted pyrotechnics.

While you have an explanation that ignores video evidence, uses myths, ignoring facts right on video, and ignoring errors of scale.

There is video of columns buckling. Please post or link to video of columns being cut?

That doesnt explain how the dozens of floors below (which were not expanded or contracted or heated or cooled) just buckled and fell at free fall speed.

All of it. Except for your one beam in one out of 3 buildings.

And dont you think its strange, the Expanding trusses were unable to Push the outer beams, but when they Contracted they were able to Pull the beams... It seems like there would be more resistance pulling those beams inward against the entire building, than pushing them out away from the building, but I wont worry too much about that because that still only explains the floors that were heated and may have expanded/contracted.

Imo, there shouldve been like 40 or 50 floors still standing after the collapse.

Imagine how much of a nightmare that would be to clean up the rubble and still have to demolish the remaining 40 or 50 floors. The buildings would not even be safe to enter. So how would they do that? Whos gonna place and set the charges? But "luckily" they just... came down all on their own. That saved a lot of money, effort. It cost more lives, but, we can get more people, there's no shortage of people.

Also

Building 7 recieved WAY less damage and barely had Any weight to support compared to towers 1 and 2, but it fell at free fall speed as well...

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: neutronflux

I don't think it was the Romulans either. So you debunked everything.

Contracting floor trusses causing bowing of vertical columns lead to buckling and initiated collapse.

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

www.metabunk.org...

It’s right there in the video evidence.

I don't think anyone here knows what really happened or why, but the visual facts exist that three buildings collapsed completely, after two planes struck two buildings. And it all looked a bit hinkey. Perhaps it was just a once in a lifetime odd occurrence X 5, or perhaps it was something else.

I think the bigger picture here is that the government and the media and the wealthy have proven themselves to be so untrustworthy that you really can't blame them for wondering if weapons from space or holograms were involved.

Then there's people like you who are still trying futily I might add to hold the old reality together somehow: "Well yeah, i know they constantly lie and dont really care about us, but it's okay, guys, its gonna be all okay, because I'M smart enough to know when they're lying and when theyre telling the truth! Just, listen to me and we can still pretend like everything is gonna be okay..."

No its not going to be ok. The elites have made the words Government and Media synonymous with Lying Corrupt Thieves and this situation is not sustainable.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: smurfy

molten streams of metal

Metal does not indicative iron. You mean like lead, copper, silver, aluminum, mixed with solder and molten plastics.

How was there pure molten anything?

Please cite where the pile was hot enough to support molten steel.

The pile was cooled with water which causes violent steam releases when mixed with molten steel.

There was no frozen pools of metal around the bases of the columns that were still standing in the bedrock at the last stages of cleanup. If there was rivers of molten metal, it had to pool and cool somewhere.

Tell these guys....

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: smurfy

molten streams of metal

Metal does not indicative iron. You mean like lead, copper, silver, aluminum, mixed with solder and molten plastics.

How was there pure molten anything?

Please cite where the pile was hot enough to support molten steel.

'As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running'...Leslie Robinson, structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC.

Go and look up something...anything, I don't have the air time to re-research just for you.





the only person who said there wasn't molten metal was the NIST man....and he never looked.

a reply to: smurfy

Never heard or read any reason for this either...

a reply to: 3n19m470

Grrr. Again, the floor system did not fall at free fall speed. They fell at 2/3rds the rate of free fall. WTC 2, 29 floors above the buckling falls into the floor below. That floor is rated for only a dynamic load equivalent to 6 falling stories. The falling mass shears the floor connections from the vertical and core columns. Then the falling mass lays into the next floor, with greater mass.

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers

app.aws.org...

After the collapse of the floor system, then the vertical/core columns toppled.

www.skeptic.com...

The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4

a reply to: smurfy

Again, how was there pure molten anything? They did spray the pile with water, is that false? Water causes violent steam releases when in contact with molten steel, is that false. Where was the violent steam expansions and releases. There is no thermal imaging that supports the pile was hot enough to cause molten steel. Do you have pictures of partially melted columns. Thermal imaging evidence. The supposed rivers of molten steel had to go someplace. Yet, there was no large frozen pools of steel in what was once the basements?

I understand the quote you refer to. It has no context in there is absolutely no evidence of rivers of molten steel, with no way the person could ever validate such a claim, with it being impossible not being a mixture of lead, aluminum, copper, solder, plastics, and ash.

Molten rivers of steel? But they were able to recover silver and gold at the WTC from vaults that operated as designed?

www.quora.com...

. The banks later states that “All of the silver, gold, platinum, and palladium stored in its vaults at 4 World Trade Center” has been relocated to a depository in Brooklyn. Other gold is discovered in a service tunnel below WTC 5. According to the London Times, this was being transported through the tunnel on the morning of 9/11 (see (Before 9:59 a.m.) September 11, 2001).

Melting point of silver 970 Celsius.
Melting point of gold 1070 Celsius.
Melting point steel 1300 Celsius.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: neutronflux

I don't think it was the Romulans either. So you debunked everything.

Contracting floor trusses causing bowing of vertical columns lead to buckling and initiated collapse.

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

www.metabunk.org...

It’s right there in the video evidence.

I don't think anyone here knows what really happened or why, but the visual facts exist that three buildings collapsed completely, after two planes struck two buildings. And it all looked a bit hinkey. Perhaps it was just a once in a lifetime odd occurrence X 5, or perhaps it was something else.

I think there might be some cover up concerning the design, some of the codes the building did not have to conform to.