Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Not this tower


Notice the debris in free fall falling ahead of the building collapse.

WTC7 experienced free fall in about 3.9 seconds or less down 17 to 18 stories. To enable free fall the underneath construction was also in free fall all the way to the bottom then collided with underneath rubble pile. 
3.9 seconds is an estimate but maybe was faster?

This is the issue.
NIST 5.4 time in their draft is based on buckling of columns time, not free fall time. Debunkers have not read the draft paper and their conclusions.  

The slower time was based on what had happened beneath to the exterior columns during the full collapse (5.4 seconds)

NIST did not correct that mistake. What they did is pretend the freefall occurred in the middle between the 5.4 seconds and walked away.

NIST however confirmed the reality in Aug 2008, if the seventeen stories collapsed at freefall the time would be 3.9 seconds or less not 5.4 seconds.

Thats why they said at their conference, the underneath structure had resistance to slow the fall!!!!!!!! The slower time is the buckling scenario!

When you understand this, you realize there was a cover up, by NIST.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

And...

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.

neutronflux It just too complex for you to understand. But all in their draft paper NIST ruling out freefall.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

This was the other post I was looking for...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

I claim this.

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 claimed the speed at which the WTC 7 facade achieved during its collapse, after the collapse of the WTC 7 core, was from columns being actively cut. Is that false.

This is where you state how many of the facade columns had how many charges placed on them. Then you post evidence of that number of stated charges actuating from the video, seismic, audio, photographic evidence.

NIST most likely don't like what I have found, since the paper offline now. They'd must watch conversations somehow and not like people noticing the flaws in their work.

This latest I got now. Hopefully, it just a temporary error?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Hello. We get that you don’t believe the witnessed collapse speed was not from overloading and buckling.

Hello. We get you believe in the truth movement fantasy of controlled demolition.

Again
This is where you state how many of the facade columns had how many charges placed on them. Then you post evidence of a controlled demolition event showing that number of stated charges actuating is supported by the video, seismic, audio, photographic evidence.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

In other words. Put up or shut up. Move your criticism of NIST to an actual stated argument how your demolition fantasy was carried out, on how many columns, with how many charges, on how many floors, with what type of charges. Then state how the actual witnessed event supports said charges actually actuated to actively cut columns.

You don’t agree to what caused the witnesses collapse speed. We all get that. Now move the football to where you show cutting charges actuated to actively cut columns. The event is right there in the photographic, video, audio, seismic record.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Is there evidence that hundred of charges was doing the below in hundreds of locations with the assistance of kicker charges to misalign columns?



Hell no.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
NIST most likely don't like what I have found, since the paper offline now. They'd must watch conversations somehow and not like people noticing the flaws in their work.

This latest I got now. Hopefully, it just a temporary error?

Self important much? Architects and Engineers and all their clubs operate with free rein, bit NIST is intimidated by you? Concerning events captured on multiple videos and camera angles.

a reply to: neutronflux

Seconds too late and far a view to judge from your video, but still you found it proof positive to match the presumption. Neglecting what was said.

You state:

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.

Let us look at the antenna movement from a different angle and closer, before "collapse inevitable" just seconds prior.





False? Should i get a better angle, less upward angle perhaps?

a reply to: democracydemo

Sigh
Can you prove it has nothing To do with the fact it moved because the building section above the buckling / areas of jet impacts moved down.

Again

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."[24] 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.[25]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Vs? You saying only the core dropped independent of the otter vertical columns to cause the antenna to sink down through the roof? With only inward bowing at the areas of jet impacts.

One. If the core dropped independently of the outer vertical columns, there would not have been localized bowing. The bowing would be a wave up to the top floor, then the antenna would sink.

The scenario of the the core at the areas of jet impacts buckling by being overloaded and pushed down fits the video evidence. The video evidence does not support a large section of core was cut then kicked aside to initiate collapse.

Two. This is where you state how many of the columns had how many charges placed on them. Then you post evidence of a controlled demolition event showing that number of stated charges actuating is supported by the video, seismic, audio, photographic evidence.

Is there evidence that hundred of charges was doing the below in hundreds of locations with the assistance of kicker charges to misalign columns?



Hell no

a reply to: democracydemo

And your using the head on camera view I posted about. Is it really dropping down, or is it really moving / tilting away from the camera. That is why the other camera angle only showing the antenna titling is more important.

But nice try on pushing that false narrative.

a reply to: neutronflux

Lets just make this clear and brake the narrative of confusion served between WTC1 and WTC2.

This is inward bowing prior to collapse, WTC2 (the building without antenna):

Metabunk

The one with the antenna is WTC1, no inward bowing:



With antenna downward movement.


As for your Wikipedia link, who wrote it?

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."[24] 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.[25]

Some dude with a keyboard?

a reply to: democracydemo

Does the camera angle that shows the actual tilting of the antenna support the antenna moved before the building above the buckling / area of the jet impacts moved. Or does it support the building above the buckling/the area of jet impacts tilted and moved down as a whole unit with no indication the antenna sank into the roof.

a reply to: democracydemo

Again...

originally posted by: neutronflux
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: Hulseyreport
neutronflux It just too complex for you to understand. But all in their draft paper NIST ruling out freefall.

You got that right.

Fact is these buildings were destroyed. And it is not by office fires weakening a few columns.

An orange is an orange no matter what anyone in here tries to sell.

Nuke-tron-flux do not even try and copy and paste your crap because I will simply ignore it.

originally posted by: MoonMine

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
neutronflux It just too complex for you to understand. But all in their draft paper NIST ruling out freefall.

You got that right.

Fact is these buildings were destroyed. And it is not by office fires weakening a few columns.

An orange is an orange no matter what anyone in here tries to sell.

Nuke-tron-flux do not even try and copy and paste your crap because I will simply ignore it.

I know I am no fun when I don’t let conspiracists move goal posts and don’t let them change subjects.

And this is where you provide evidence of charges actuating and columns being actively cut to initiated collapse. Even before building movement, What’s wrong? All three of the building collapses are right there in the photographic, audio, video, seismic evidence?

Is there evidence that hundred of charges was doing the below in hundreds of locations with the assistance of kicker charges to misalign columns?



Hell no

I'd rather listen to someone who has proven credentials.



And he knows what he is talking about.