Trying to resolve 9/11

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux
No straight answer to questions asked, just diversion.

What you want me to say?

The E-team photo, would you like to give actual context and the truth behind it?

a reply to: democracydemo

Funny you don’t want to talk about twin tower core columns anymore.

Again..

In your fantasy of CD for the twin towers. If the core fell last. The floor connections were bent downward, or sheared down by a downward force.

Exactly how in you CD fantasy did the supposed charges interact with the twin towers. How many charges, doing what, and where.

a reply to: democracydemo

More context

September 11th:
ART LOSS, DAMAGE, AND REPERCUSSIONS
Proceedings of an IFAR Symposium on February 28, 2002



The Artist Residency Program in the Twin Towers

by Moukhtar Kocache

www.ifar.org...

The program was initiated four years ago and provided emerging artists with studio space on the 91st and 92nd floors of the North Tower. Artists worked in painting, sculpture, new media, photography, and art installation and were selected by a jury for residencies that lasted six months. At the end of each six-month period, the studios were opened to the public. Thousands of people came to the Open Studios each year. The LMCC also organized public performances in the large plaza of the Trade Center for thousands of audience members. . . a venue often noted as one of the city's most democratic public spaces.

So? Where does structural steel cut by fantasy explosives come into play?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You

If we simply demanded that they replicate it, with real models, and if they refuse, or cannot replicate it, e

Well, good thing there are multiple photos, video of the collapsing building from different angles, audio, seismic evidence, documentation of the debris, and structural steel of the towers in memorials around the world.

And the reports and accounts that WTC 7 was failing and predicted to collapse.

Again

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes indeed and we witnessed this:
www.metabunk.org...

See you cannot articulate a proper response.

Why would i? You gone and done this already:

the the core columns would have simultaneous pulled down the outer vertical columns (the vertical columns holding up the floor opposite of the core columns, and were part of the towers cores) via the floor trusses.

www.metabunk.org...

Except when the upper potion of the building above the Jet impact fell into the building below it broke floor connections. The core failing fist does not explain proven floor connections failures.

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

app.aws.org...

Analysis of the connections supporting the composite floor system of the WTC towers showed that at and below the im- pact floors, the greater majority (above 90%) of the floor truss connections were either bent downward or completely re- moved from the exterior column. This was probably related to the overloading of the floors below the impact region after col- lapse initiation. Depending upon weld joint geometry, detachment of the main load-bearing seats was a result of either fracture in the heat affected zone of the base material (standoff plate detached from spandrel) or through the weld metal (seat angle detached from standoff plate). Failure in both cases was assumed to be a result of a shear mechanism as a result of overloading from floors above impacting those below. There did not appear to be a significant change in distribution of failure modes of the floor truss connections when comparing those connections inside vs. outside of the impact region or those ex- posed to pre-collapse fires and those that were not.

The below is supported by the video, audio, seismic evidence.

The destruction of the Twin Towers has been called "the most infamous paradigm" of progressive collapse.[6] They began with the local failure of a few structural components and progressed to encompass the whole of the structure.[22] Such collapses are characterized by "the separation of structural components (including non-load bearing elements), the release of gravitational energy, and the occurrence of impact forces." The vertical impact force supplies the propagating action, the principal forces are parallel, and the primary load transfer is serial.[23] The key element in the structure that failed was constituted by the combined "vertical load-bearing members of one entire storey." Excepting the top floors of the building, which would not have released sufficient gravitational energy to bring about a total collapse, the collapses could have begun with the failure of any story.[24]

Under these conditions, the towers collapsed symmetrically and more or less straight down, though there was some tilting of the tops of the towers and a significant amount of fallout to the sides. In both cases, the section of the building that had been damaged by the airplanes failed, which allowed the floors above the impact zone to fall onto the undamaged structure below. As the collapse progressed, dust and debris could be seen shooting out of the windows several floors below the advancing destruction, caused by the sudden rush of air from the upper levels.

During each collapse, large portions of the perimeter columns and possibly the cores were left without any lateral support, causing them to fall laterally towards the outside, pushed by the increasing pile of rubble. The result was that the walls peeled off and separated away from the buildings by a large distance (about 500 feet in some cases), hitting other neighboring buildings, and starting fires that would later lead to the collapse of Building 7. Some connections broke as the bolts snapped, leaving many panels randomly scattered.[25] The first fragments of the outer walls of the collapsed North Tower struck the ground 11 seconds after the collapse started, and parts of the South Tower after 9 seconds. The lower portions of both buildings' cores (60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) remained standing for up to 25 seconds after the start of the initial collapse before they too collapsed.[13]

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."[26] 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.[27]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

You have an explanation for the type of floor connection failures?

I know there's only one way to replicate these collapses, and that it's a waste time to debate your cartoon physics.

The 'explanation' that you posted above, is a perfect example of why real world demonstrations are required, to prove or disprove absurd claims, such as this one.

This report doesn't refer to any past examples, prior cases, because none exist. That alone makes it garbage, but much more beyond that, too.


If anyone here believes that such a collapse ever happened from fire/structural damage, please try to find any citations, and/or case examples, and/or prior referrals, within those reports.

Why? Because valid reports cite past examples. It's worthless, otherwise.

These collapses have been hijacked from day one, and still are.

After the collapses, opposition talked about how fast it came down, what methods were used, or likely used, who was involved, and so on.

But nobody ever mentioned the one fact, the one issue, that mattered here. That they must REPLICATE it, with real models, and if they cannot, it was NOT caused by fire/damage, as claimed.

That is the ONLY issue here. If it can be replicated, with real models, with real physics. Period.

They are fully aware that this is what matters here. That's why they avoid it at all costs. It sinks their story, instantly.


All of this comes down to physics, replication with real models, because that's what would prove, beyond any doubt, that it was NEVER caused by fire/damage. If it was, or even COULD have been, it would have been replicated with real models. It's that simple.

a reply to: turbonium1

No need to replicate the collapse, it’s on video in multiple angles.

This more or less applies to you

You need to come to terms there was no controlled demolition of the WTC.

You need to come to terms your credibility was trashed by you.

Just like the talking heads of the truth movement. Get caught in a lie, and somehow changing the subjects makes it all good. Idiots.

Again..

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

Oh. By the way. It’s says it right there in the title of the F’N video



WTC core collapsing.

It is F’n literally spelled out for you.


originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Here is more evidence that your claims of the core columns remained standing is false. This photo clearly shows there are two holes where the core columns where. There is still a littleof the outer walls still standing once all the dust settled.

The photos you use as evidence of the core columns standing is of the outer walls.

Nice try at a blatant falsehood.

How does a picture after the collapse show I am wrong? In that the core of the tube in tube design fell after the collapse of the floor system? And the core failure from loss of lateral support?

One...

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.

www.skeptic.com...

Two....

At about the 10 minute mark, it is explained the collapse of the twin towers was not through the cores with video evidence. The floors were torn from around the tube in tube design.

The Dumbing Down of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Three

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

www.nist.gov...

Three different sources that agree by looking at the video evidence, the core fell after being stripped of the floor system. The core columns tumbled outward after loss of the lateral support of the floor system?


Now. This American welding report

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

The Americans Welding Report clearly states...

“ the greater majority (above 90%) of the floor truss connections were either bent downward or completely re- moved from the exterior column.”

That means a falling load bent or removed the floor connections. That means the core columns and the exterior columns were still supporting the floors when the upper portion of the building above the jet impacts fell into the building below smashing floors.

That also means no planted pyrotechnics initiated the collapse because no controlled demolition system would have survived the jet impacts and fires to initiate.

Now, this screenshot of core columns tumbling after the loss of the floor system.



How do we know the long single columns falling over one by one were not exterior panels as you claim. Because the columns falling over in the screenshot look like core columns, and noting like the exterior panels of the twin towers’ outer wall.

The exterior panels where sections with three vertical columns.


www.fema.gov...


www.fema.gov...

When the exterior panels collapse, they fractured into their original prefabricated state as shown in the photos of the collapse pile. Panels with three vertical columns two to three stories tall.



www.flickr.com...

Again...




The long single vertical columns falling over after the complete collapse of the floor system that do not show indication of being a prefabricate panel only about two to three stories tall with three vertical columns are the vertical columns.

The panels breaking into sections with three vertical columns are the exterior panels, or exterior walls that held up the floors opposite the core columns.

The long single vertical columns that look like they housed elevator shafts falling over one after another are the core columns failing after being stripped of the floor system.

posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

In short.

The prefabricate exterior panels failing and falling:





Look like nothing when the core columns tumbled from loss of lateral support after stripped of the floor system







And yes. Your full of crap.

a reply to: turbonium1

In your fantasy of CD for the twin towers. If the core fell last. The floor connections were bent downward, or sheared down by a downward force.

Exactly how in you CD fantasy did the supposed charges interact with the twin towers. How many charges, doing what, and where.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux
No straight answer to questions asked, just diversion.

So asking businesses to open and shut window blinds is evidence of controlled demolition?

127 Illuminated Windows
E-Team (Franziska Lamprecht, Hajoe Moderegger, Daniel Seiple)
Light sculpture
LMCC World Views Short Term Project, North Face of 1 World Trade (Floors 89-95)
March 29, 2001

www.travelhome.org...

The name of our collaboration, E-TEAM, is generic. To illuminate it on the North face of Tower 1, World Trade Center, we would use the windows between the 89th and 95th floors like elements in an LCD. It would require 279 darkened and 127 lit windows, and the help of those respective offices. We contacted 14 businesses and provided them with floor plans detailing which blinds to open and close. The support we received from the offices and their employees was integral to illuminating our name.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

In your fantasy of CD for the twin towers. If the core fell last. The floor connections were bent downward, or sheared down by a downward force.

Exactly how in you CD fantasy did the supposed charges interact with the twin towers. How many charges, doing what, and where.

The only fantasy is believing their ridiculous, absurd claims, which are impossible to replicate in the real world.

My claim of CD's can be replicated with real models, it is not a fantasy claim in any way.

But your claim of it being from fire and damage CANNOT be replicated with real models, and THAT is the fantasy claim here.


What is so amusing about this, is when you ask me about charges - how many, where they were, what they did, etc.

You can't even REPLICATE anything like this, in the real world, there are NO previous cases of it, in history, and you actually think I can't prove my claim?

Who can cite previous cases here? Not you, because none exist. I can cite many previous cases of CD collapses, of course.

Who can replicate their claim here? Not you, because it's impossible to replicate a fairy tale event in the real world. I can certainly replicate such a collapse, in the real world.


Everyone knows what the fantasy is, or something's wrong with their brains, when it's impossible to replicate their claim in real world demonstrations, when it has never happened, once, in all human history, but somehow, believing it's true, anyway!


The only issue here, is that NOBODY can ever replicate what you claim, with real physics, using real models.


All you have are pathetic excuses for NOT replicating it with real models, a 'unique' first, where nobody can POSSIBLY manage to replicate, with real models!

The impossible story of 3 buildings all completely collapsing the same day, when never happening to ONE building in all human history, then is supported by never being able to replicate it, with real models, and forced into using garbage computer simulations, which make any fantasy seem real, by ignoring the data plopped into it was total crap, of course!


And it's obviously a cartoon, because even simulations didn't work, after many attempts, so they had to really hack up numbers to claim their fantasy was 'proven'! Proven to be a total farce, without a doubt.


A completely unprecedented event, of 3 buildings totally collapsing the same day, from only local fire and damage, would be subject to thorough, detailed investigation, replicated over and over again, with real models, to understand how such collapses happened for the very first time in history, based on the actual physics involved...


The most important thing, an absolute requirement, is to see if it can be replicated, with real models. All structural failures can be replicated with real models, because it has NOTHING to do with the building itself, it is about the actual physics involved.

The physics involved in a structural failure can always be replicated, with real models, to prove what caused it, or may have caused it, at least.

If it cannot be replicated, the claim is proven false. If nobody even TRIES to replicate it, they KNOW it's a false claim, already.


Your claim is so absurd, nobody even ATTEMPTS to prove it, because they'd look like complete fools, and idiots, in fact.

a reply to: turbonium1

In your fantasy of CD for the twin towers. If the core fell last. The floor connections were bent downward, or sheared down by a downward force.

Exactly how in you CD fantasy did the supposed charges interact with the twin towers. How many charges, doing what, and where.







The core was laid bare. No evidence of pyrotechnics cutting columns.

9/11 Whistleblowers (2019)

This links to a 2 hour video on Brighteon by the Cobett Report. It has interviews with people tied up in the bureaucracy and on the scene that day.

a reply to: kwakakev

Your posting after falsely claiming people were confusing outer columns vs core columns.

After you ignore the twin towers did not fall through the path of greatest resistance.

Will not answer:
In your fantasy of CD for the twin towers. If the core fell last. The floor connections were bent downward, or sheared down by a downward force.

Exactly how in you CD fantasy did the supposed charges interact with the twin towers. How many charges, doing what, and where.

And after posting the truth movement lie pictures of boxes of explosives at the twin towers.


Hahahahahahahaha

a reply to: neutronflux

After you ignore the twin towers did not fall through the path of greatest resistance.

So is this is how you resolve 9/11? Projecting your perversion of physics just so you can feel comfortable in the official story?

You can ignore the source of the iron micro spheres and all the other facts that challenge the official story. You can lie and twist words all you want, just don't expect me to take you seriously.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

After you ignore the twin towers did not fall through the path of greatest resistance.

So is this is how you resolve 9/11? Projecting your perversion of physics just so you can feel comfortable in the official story?

You can ignore the source of the iron micro spheres and all the other facts that challenge the official story. You can lie and twist words all you want, just don't expect me to take you seriously.

9/11 is not going to be resolved by your falsehoods and truth movement lies.

Is it false iron micro spheres can be made by other sources other than thermite?

Again...

In your fantasy of CD for the twin towers. If the core fell last. The floor connections were bent downward, or sheared down by a downward force.

Exactly how in you CD fantasy did the supposed charges interact with the twin towers. How many charges, doing what, and where.

911 was fairly well resolved when the Commission noted 60+ times that they found no evidence to support that many elements of the official story.

I never thought I would see the day, but the Covid Hoax is a bigger hoax than 911

originally posted by: Salander
911 was fairly well resolved when the Commission noted 60+ times that they found no evidence to support that many elements of the official story.

I never thought I would see the day, but the Covid Hoax is a bigger hoax than 911

No one is talking about the 9/11 commission. Good thing I reference the twin tower video, audio, seismic evidence.

a reply to: neutronflux

I'm totally surprised you didn't show hundreds of old worn out pictures in response.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

I'm totally surprised you didn't show hundreds of old worn out pictures in response.

Your still using the same BS arguments

Answer the question

Who’s talking about the commission?

a reply to: neutronflux

9/11 is not going to be resolved by your falsehoods and truth movement lies.

I know, the way things are looking the whole topic is just going to get shelved and left in the too hard basket like the assassination of JFK. Over the generations more will gradually leak out. The state secrets acts can easily seal information for +75 years. I expect somewhere buried in all this bureaucracy are the answers you seek with how many charges, what type, where they where placed and who done it.

This thread is about how I as an individual personally resolve it. There is still lots I don't know about it, what I do know puts the inside job theory that was intentionally done beyond any reasonable doubt. I don't like to consider that the population is expendable for a government agenda, but it is what it is. The military do play by a different set of rules where winning is more important than integrity.

Is it false iron micro spheres can be made by other sources other than thermite?

No. What is required to make the iron micro spheres is iron in its liquid state. More conventional explosives like C4 will rip, distort and bend steel with its pressure wave, but it does not reach the temperatures required to melt the steel. Office and plane fires do not reach the temperatures required to melt steel.

The theory that some extreme high temperature reaction was set off in the basement to weaken the core columns prior to the detonations is another possible source of these iron micro spheres.

originally posted by: neutronflux
In your fantasy of CD for the twin towers. If the core fell last. The floor connections were bent downward, or sheared down by a downward force.

Exactly how in you CD fantasy did the supposed charges interact with the twin towers. How many charges, doing what, and where.

The core was laid bare. No evidence of pyrotechnics cutting columns.

We already know they are CD's, and if you claim otherwise, you must replicate it with real models, because that's the ONLY way to prove your claim is even possible.

After tons of evidence was illegally removed from the crime scene, and sold for scrap, the remaining evidence was NEVER examined for possible explosives. No, because it was only examined for fire/impact damage. Nothing else was ever even CONSIDERED, but fire/impact damage, from start to finish.

How would this POSSIBLY be a problem for a valid, thorough investigation?!?

How would it NOT be a problem, is the question!

If an investigation assumed a murder was done by strangulation, and nothing else was possible, what do they look for is evidence of rope burns, the rope itself, fibers of a rope, and so forth. They will only examine the victim's neck, and nothing else. After finding the neck didn't show valid evidence of rope burns, to prove strangulation, they make simulations of it, to show it's possible anyway, without any valid evidence.

There may be a cause, or causes, BEYOND strangulation, which has no proof at all, to begin with. But they assume only one cause of murder, and nothing else. Besides, the rest of the victim's body, except the neck, and head, had been separated from the body before they started the investigation, but they have 'enough' evidence with his neck and head, to study it, and to 'know' that the cause of murder was strangulation, and nothing else!

But what's most relevant, is not that evidence was removed, at the crime scene, which wipes out the validity of ANY investigation, no matter what they claim, right or wrong, true or false, because evidence was removed, deliberately, from the crime scene, which - something that you seem incapable of understanding - undermines the REMAINING evidence, no matter what it shows, or does not show, or indicate..

Nobody NEEDS to show the evidence of explosives in controlled demolitions of buildings, which they sold as scrap, and nobody knows how much, or would prove how much, and it is NOT relevant, anyway.

It's obvious you cannot debate the only issue that matters here, which destroys your argument, entirely.

So you ignore it, to debate any other issue, or at least, you try to, anyway.


You're still trying to change the subject, which proves what caused these collapses, is based on actual replication, actual demonstration, and if it cannot be replicated, demonstrated, then it's simply nonsense.

You cannot replicate, or demonstrate this event. It's impossible to replicate a fairy tale collapse.