Trying to resolve 9/11

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” - Frank A. Demartini, WTC Construction Manager 01/25/01



Frank Demartini died on 9/11 while trying to rescue others - firm in his belief the building could not collapse.

It has been estimated that at least 50 people survived the attack due to the rescue efforts of De Martini and his colleagues.[1] When they arrived on the 89th floor De Martini directed Mak Hanna to carry an elderly man, who could not descend 89 floors, down to safety.[5] Hanna was the only one of their crew to survive.[6]

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: MoonMine

Huh....

They did survive the jet impacts. They didn’t survive their documented crappy and deficient fire insulation that was knocked off during the jet impacts. And the following expanding, contacting, and resulting thermal stresses.

Factors exhibited in WTC 5









So. Please explain how WTC floor connection failures and buckling was impossible when it was exhibited in WTC 5.

a reply to: MoonMine

By the way. What does this have to do with..

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MoonMine
a reply to: neutronflux

Should we believe people who were actually in the buildings before they collapsed?

Of course we should. Everything else is just distraction.

Remember that.

What does that even mean?

Again...

Nobody disagrees there was explosions from closed pressurized systems like refrigeration units and air conditioning units cutting loose in the fires. And nobody disagrees there wasn’t a pop when floor connections failed as in WTC 5 being an example.

Your cited “evidence“ produced no frequencies/amplitudes in the seismic data for detentions with the force to cut steel columns. By sound, how can you tell if a fire cracker sets off vs a pressurized air conditioning unit exploding in a fire. Other then the ac unit exploding would be more forceful. Again, nobody is saying there were no explosions. But, keep on making your own reality.

There were no detonations with the force to cut steel columns. There was no evidence of transient pressure waves from explosions in the atmosphere where the pressure waves had the force to cut steel columns.

Again. CD systems would not have survived the jet impacts and fires to initiate collapse of the twin towers as attested to by video evidence.

You are falsely confusing expect sounds of “explosions” from a building fire, and expected from a building failing from being overloaded.

You have produced no evidence of explosions with the force to cut steel columns. Explosions that would be obvious, awe inspiring, and echoed about manhattan. Detonations that should have the sound energy of at least 130 Db, and should be distinctly heard above the sound of helicopters with the max sound energy of 120dB. Audio of explosions with the force to cut steel columns would be clearly heard on the audio with no need for manipulating the sound. Explosions with the force to cut steel columns would be evident in the seismic evidence.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You

But the only issue to clarify, first of all, is to prove that such a collapse, from only random fire/damage, is impossible. It cannot happen, in any way.

Really. So. There has never been a high rise fire related collapse since the WTC?

I think you just posted a blatant falsehood. Shame on you.

Shame on you for claiming such blatant falsehoods in the first place!

Your claim is so ridiculous, on any level, to keep spewing it, is truly shameful, and repugnant.

Look at how buildings collapse in a controlled demolition, where the entire structural support is removed, in precise sequence. THAT is the only way such a collapse is possible, which is why they have to plant explosives in buildings at the supports, and set them off in a precise, exact sequence.

These buildings do not actually collapse at all, they are demolished, in precise sequence. No building collapses through intact support structures, which are holding the building up, in the first place.

You'll never prove your claim, by real physical demonstration of it, because cartoon physics doesn't work in the real world.


When actual failures occur, from fire/structural damage, they can all be demonstrated, WITHOUT the actual structures involved, or required, because everything works, or does not work, the very same way.

Why don't you try to build a model, to demonstrate the physics involved in it, and see what happens? Make a structure of any type, of any materials, of any size, that supports itself, and then, remove parts of the structure, at any points you choose....see if it collapses down, directly through its remaining intact structural supports.

You won't, all you have is worthless babble, and cartoon physics.

a reply to: turbonium1

You are F’n wrong

But the only issue to clarify, first of all, is to prove that such a collapse, from only random fire/damage, is impossible. It cannot happen, in any way

The Plasco Building (Persian: ساختمان پلاسکو‎, romanized: Sâxtmâň-e Plaskô) was a 17-story high-rise landmark building in Tehran, the capital city of Iran. At the time of its construction in the 1960s it was the tallest building in Iran[1] and was considered an iconic part of the Tehran skyline.[2] The building collapsed on 19 January 2017 during a high-rise fire.[3]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Massive high-rise fire causes building to collapse in Brazil, at least 1 dead
By Karma Allen,Aicha El Hammar Castano
May 1, 2018, 5:26 PM ET

abcnews.go.com...

A massive fire engulfed two high-rise structures in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on Tuesday, causing one of the buildings to collapse.

Video posted on social media early Tuesday showed a 24-story building crumbling to the ground as flames raced toward the top floor, killing at least one person.

THE FIRE AT THE TORRE WINDSOR OFFICE BUILDING, MADRID 2005

www.structural-safety.org...

Consequential damage
In the absence of any protection the mullions weakened in the heat. A sufficient number lost their required load capacity causing sections of the building above the upper strong floor at level 17 to collapse. It is likely that only the presence of this floor prevented total progressive collapse. At lower levels none of the fire protected mullions failed. The mullions distorted at the 9th level (yet to receive their protection), but there was sufficient load sharing amongst the remainder-above and below this level- to prevent collapse of the floors. Notwithstanding the failure of the mullions, the reinforced concrete structure also suffered serious damage as a consequence of the temperature attained.

The above making your words below totally empty and baseless.

Shame on you for claiming such blatant falsehoods in the first place!

Your claim is so ridiculous, on any level, to keep spewing it, is truly shameful, and repugnant.

So. How is “ that such a collapse, from only random fire/damage, is impossible. It cannot happen, in any way” actually a true statement in any way?

Sept 11 2023.

originally posted by: RamsesOzymandias
Sept 11 2023.

Are you planning something?

a reply to: neutronflux

C4 does not set off in normal office fires. It takes blasting caps.

No C4 yes

Regular thermite and thermate need something that burns at 3000 degrees Fahrenheit like a burning magnesium strip to set off.

Which answers my question previously, only partially however ATS

Can you post how nano thermite is set off.

We best ask the gentlemen who discovered this material in the dust. Or you can just google the ignition temp? (it's suprisingly low and in metabunk btw )

How do you think an overly complicated mechanism is going to carry out its job after being hit by debris and exposed to fires and sooting.

Backyard experiment, you're the one applying this apparatus fixation to a real target.

It only removed about 15 percent of the material needed to sever the column 100 percent.

I see three-quarters cut through, you see 15 percent.

How many “simple” questions have I asked that your dumb and mute on? You can start with these unanswered questions/points. Moot point because there is zero evidence of detonations or thermite to prompt an investigation. Unless....

The cut core below was pulling those perimeter walls inward, floor trusses sagging will not newton that force. So NIST created more to match the force.

The falling mass broke floor connections.

This is where NIST investigation stops and claims "collapse inevitable".
Nothing after this point has ever been investigated, only what was witnessed.

However comma. You do understand thermite cuts relativity slowly. And is used to weld metals too. If you do a vertical cut under load with no kicker charge to misaligned the vertical columns.

Thermite, thermate and nano-thermite. Don't mix em.

I'd love to see the nano-version in action, what can this material can do? We have the forensics.

a reply to: democracydemo

Good Gosh.


You

Backyard experiment, you're the one applying this apparatus fixation to a real target.

Why in the heck would an individual post a video thermate can vertically completely sever a column when it couldn’t under ideal conditions. No office fires. Not being hit by falling debris. Not compromised by bending / expanding under heat/cooling, nor being sootted up. Or have heat/smoke damage?

Again. The apparatus failed under ideal conditions with no load on the column.

You

I see three-quarters cut through, you see 15 percent.

Well. You are wrong. That cut was only on the face of one side of the I-Beam. It don’t even completely sever the face of the I-Beam. And It did not cut through the perpendicular span that makes up the middle of the I-Beam. nor the opposite face of the I-Beam.


You

The cut core below was pulling those perimeter walls inward, floor trusses sagging will not newton that force. So NIST created more to match the force.


This is where NIST investigation stops and claims "collapse inevitable".
Nothing after this point has ever been investigated, only what was witnessed.

What you are ignoring is the contraction of the floor tresses after being misshapen while under load and exposed to heat and thermal stress. Building elements with documented deficient fire insulation. With fire insulation knocked of by the jet impacts for the twin towers.

Remember this post?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Interestingly, you agree that the core downward movement would seem to be the likely culprit for the observed inward bowing, by every truss attached to that core pulling downwards and inwards

What was cited for you?

Collapse initiation

After the planes struck the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel.

As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of floors above. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards. "The ensuing loss in vertical load-carrying capacity was confined to a few storeys but extended over the entire cross section of each tower."[23] In the case of 2 WTC, the eastern face finally buckled, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. Later, the south wall of 1 WTC buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.[24]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The inward pulling action was from floor tresses that expanded and deformed during the heat of the fires then contacted during cooling. There is no evidence of the core below the jet impacts dropping to cause the inward bowing.

The core columns stood in long lengths after the complete collapse of the floor systems.


So no. The core columns were not cut by pyrotechnics below the areas of jet impacts to drop the core. And definitely not cut floor by floor to achieve the witnessed collapse speed as claimed by the truth movement.

The sections above the jet impacts and inward buckling fell as a unit. The sections showed no sign the core dropped, then the outer walls dropped. This is evident in the way the sections of above the jet impacts tilted as whole units.


There is no evidence or witnessed movement the core dropped to cause the inward bowing that initiated buckling leading to collapse.

a reply to: neutronflux

There is no evidence or witnessed movement the core dropped to cause the inward bowing that initiated buckling leading to collapse.

Antenna movement downwards (WTC 1) prior to collapse, directly coupled to the core via hat truss connection contradicts. The entire core dropped before.

a reply to: democracydemo

There is no indication the care dropped in the twin towers to initiate the inward bowing. Especially in the inward bowing was perpendicular to the core. The inward bowing was not down and in to a place the core was cut and dropped.

If you want to keep posting about dropped cores, we can discuss:
A: how many core columns would have to be cut. It’s estimated the jet impact may have removed up to 12 core columns. The core didn’t drop.

B: single cuts on the columns would not drop the core. The core columns would have to be at least cut in two places on each column. Then a kicker charges used to misalign the cut columns before the molten edges would cool under load and weld together.

C: If the core were cut, the buildings would have not tilted out as a unit above the inward buckling. The cores above the cut would have had a failure ripple upward where it would look like the spine of the building was pulled down and out for a lack of a better term. With noticeable drop in the builds roofs.

D: so how many charges are we talking to drop the core, and what type to get the core to misalign and drop? And how is that supported in the video, photographic, audio, seismic and physical evidence before collapse initiation? Before downward motion of the building above the buckling.

a reply to: democracydemo

You

Antenna movement downwards (WTC 1) prior to collapse, directly coupled to the core via hat truss connection contradicts. The entire core dropped before.

Awesome you went with that old falsehood.


The WTC 1 antenna tilted out with the upper section of the building. The antenna did not drop into the core of WTC 1. Different camera angles shows the antenna tilting.

9/11: WTC-1 antenna tilting

m.youtube.com...

The truth movement falsely uses a specific camera angle that is head on to make the false claim the antenna sunk into the building’s core.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You

But the only issue to clarify, first of all, is to prove that such a collapse, from only random fire/damage, is impossible. It cannot happen, in any way.

Really. So. There has never been a high rise fire related collapse since the WTC?

I think you just posted a blatant falsehood. Shame on you.

Shame on you for claiming such blatant falsehoods in the first place!

Your claim is so ridiculous, on any level, to keep spewing it, is truly shameful, and repugnant.

Look at how buildings collapse in a controlled demolition, where the entire structural support is removed, in precise sequence. THAT is the only way such a collapse is possible, which is why they have to plant explosives in buildings at the supports, and set them off in a precise, exact sequence.

These buildings do not actually collapse at all, they are demolished, in precise sequence. No building collapses through intact support structures, which are holding the building up, in the first place.

You'll never prove your claim, by real physical demonstration of it, because cartoon physics doesn't work in the real world.


When actual failures occur, from fire/structural damage, they can all be demonstrated, WITHOUT the actual structures involved, or required, because everything works, or does not work, the very same way.

Why don't you try to build a model, to demonstrate the physics involved in it, and see what happens? Make a structure of any type, of any materials, of any size, that supports itself, and then, remove parts of the structure, at any points you choose....see if it collapses down, directly through its remaining intact structural supports.

You won't, all you have is worthless babble, and cartoon physics.

Are you able to see this paper by downloading it? I showed Mick West this other day and now not opening for me?

www.nist.gov...

a reply to: Hulseyreport

What does that have to do with TurboLag’s blatantly false claim no high-rise building collapsed as a result of a fire? What was the individual’s own words, “ that such a collapse, from only random fire/damage, is impossible. It cannot happen, in any way “

I know. Ignore the blatant falsehood and those of questionable character to push the false truth movement innuendo. The truth movement will never have credibility until it can police and purge itself of charlatans. And you provided a great example by pandering to an individual where their disbelief of gravity is well documented.

I’d just asking him can he download the paper and read it. Paper will not open for me. I want to screenshot some information. 
I showed Mick the paper two days to prove to him that NIST ruled out free fall before the revised paper change.

Mick was convinced before this, that the two papers had identical conclusions about the collapse of seventeen stories.
He's not responded since as now got the evidence his wrong. Mick runs off when confronted with the read truth, and now the paper will not load on NIST site. I not sure whats the case if its problem on my end or NIST removed the paper.

I got this when i am trying to load it.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

What does that have to do with no evidence of hundreds of cutting charges and kicker charges?



Hundreds of detonations that should like the above multiplied hundreds of times?

The exterior columns in question where right at the windows. Is that false. With no evidence hundreds of charges were installed on columns where rental space was a premium? As in an intrusion into the rented spaces taking up real estate would be noticed.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

What does that have to do with no evidence of hundreds of cutting charges and kicker charges?

Hundreds of detonations that should like the above multiplied hundreds of times?

The exterior columns in question where right at the windows. Is that false. With no evidence hundreds of charges were installed on columns where rental space was a premium? As in an intrusion into the rented spaces taking up real estate would be noticed.

Everything counts.
NIST fire model of gradual/progressive collapse couldn’t come up with a scenario for freefall that involved buckling, crushing or crumpling of columns inside the building

It is  proof the freefall was provoked by controlled demolition not buckling. The freefall time was much faster then their model could predict. 

NIST recognized the physical limitations and realities in Aug 2008, but the concealed it up when another lie and walked away. 

Regards the towers.
NIST has accepted the towers went down at almost freefall speeds.

If you send a ball of the roof it would arrive at the ground in about 9+ seconds.

NIST estimate for first tower was 11 seconds, and second tower 9 seconds. 

You within the margin of error the buildings both buildings fell at freefall time. 

Newton third law, it not a theory, it not changeable or can be terminated. 

When object hits an object of equal mass there be reaction/ opposite force back. This is called resistance. 

A smaller mass of 10 floors (damaged) overwhelming 90+ floors untouched by fire) would not happen at a freefall time naturally. 

a reply to: Hulseyreport

It is proof the freefall was provoked by controlled demolition not buckling

Sigh.. again


What free fall. From the first sign of collapse initiation, WTC 1, WTC 2, WTC 7 all collapsed slower and in a longer time period than if the buildings actually collapsed at the rate of acceleration by gravity through the whole collapse.

Only WTC 7 experienced a very short period of free fall acceleration on the second phase of the faced collapse after the internal East to West progressive collapse of the core. With strong evidence the facade for a short time accelerated faster than the rate of gravity, showing the internal collapse was placing the facade under tension.

You literally only have you don’t understand the facade of WTC 7 was under tension and / or the facade columns once buckled from overloading only offered negligible resistance during the second phase of the facade collapse.

Now....

a reply to: Hulseyreport

What does a report not many people like have to do with there being zero evidence of columns being cut at the WTC?

The only thing you have is the misrepresentation of report that admits to being a best guess.


Now. Can you address there is no video, audio, seismic, physical evidence that columns were cut by explosives/pyrotechnics at the WTC. None.


Evidence of cut columns would be the actual cut columns. Or video, photographic, audio, seismic evidence of columns being actively cut.

Mischaracterizing witnessed collapse speed from overloaded columns buckling is not proof of columns being actively cut, or evidence of actual cut columns.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Which tower fell in 9 seconds or less.