Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: turbonium1

What evidence was destroyed regarding the structural steel and floor connections,

Back to blatant falsehoods...

originally posted by: neutronflux
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

Now that I posted screenshots of the collapse. Shown there is pictures of the collapse. There are pictures of the structural steel. I have posted video that the structural steel was taken to Fresh Kills for examination. The structural steel was examined and sampled. Then reports like this created off the examination of the structural steel:

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
Failure of connections, as a result of overloading, occur

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 wer

Then there is the Audio of the collapse. Then there is the seismic evidence.

Then you have the structural steel around the nation in 9/11 memorials you can see for yourself.

Now...
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.

a reply to: neutronflux



You are mistaken thinking this photo is of the core columns. The person that posted the video got the title wrong as well. This is from one of the corners of the building from the direction the wind was blowing.

There was just a thick smoke in the centre of the building, check out some more video shots and take into context the greater area of where this part of the building did stand for a few more seconds than the rest. The part of the building in question is to the right side of the main central dust cloud in the following sequence.



What really matters more to you, knowing what happened or feeling comfortable with the official story?

a reply to: kwakakev

You

You are mistaken thinking this photo is of the core columns.

More falsehoods by you. It’s been throughly explained why you are full of BS.

Again...

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: kwakakev

Now... Answer the F’n questions.


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.


————-
You cannot answer because there is ZERO evidence the structural steel was cut by pyrotechnics.


Sorry. Controlled demolition is based on falsehoods, lies, pseudoscience.

a reply to: neutronflux

Now... Answer the F’n questions. In your fantasy of CD for the twin towers. If the core fell last.

So you need to use anger to try and persuade me while ignoring much of what I have said? I have never said the cores fell last, you do as you have misinterpreted and taken out of context one of the images from some video of the event.

The core got blown up with the rest of the floor. Thermite to cut up some of the main support beams, other demolition explosives to turn the concrete to dust. Maybe even some high tech reaction in the basement to help weaken the building because it was so massive and strong. All that steel in the building does make for a massive heat sink taking heaps of energy to compromise it. More than what happens in an office and plane fire.

Why are you so angry and frustrated about this? It is bad manners to be rude.

a reply to: kwakakev

So you need to use anger to try and persuade me while ignoring much of what I have said?

That you parrot the lies used by the truth movement to exploit 9/11 for attention. Yes. It makes me angry and sad at the same time. And I am not trying to persuade any. Your too far down the biased rabbit hole. They only thing that can be done is point out the blatant lies of the truth movement.

Ignoring what you said? Ha. How many times have people gone through point by point, debunking truth movement lies used by you.

You

The core got blown up with the rest of the floor.

Blatant lie by you. That is not supported by the video, audio, seismic, physical evidence, and not supported by the failure modes of the structural steel /floor connections.


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."[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

Thermite to cut up some of the main support beams,

The question was

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.
———-
Again. The collapse initiation for each twin tower was at the area of jet impacts. Is that false. With no way a controlled demolition system of wires, receivers, detonators would survive the jet impacts and fires to initiate the collapse. That alone kills the control demolition fantasy. Your too buried in pseudoscience to understand.

There is zero evidence of thermite cutting columns.

Thermite burns slow. The load of the columns would have pushed molten cuts back together and created cold welds. Cutting columns does not create a collapse unless kicker charges are used to misalign the cut columns.

other demolition explosives to turn the concrete to dust.

Why plant the charges at all. Makes no sense.

False argument. The dust is a product of gravity driven collapse. It was not unusual at all.

Again. Collapse of building using no explosives





You

Maybe even some high tech reaction in the basement to help weaken the building because it was so massive and strong.

Statement of ignorance. There is no evidence the collapse started other than the areas of the jet impacts.

The core column bases were cut from their foundations.


You

All that steel in the building does make for a massive heat sink taking heaps of energy to compromise it

Except there is no evidence the steel was subjected to heat other than that of normal office fires

a reply to: neutronflux

Except there is no evidence the steel was subjected to heat other than that of normal office fires

So how did the iron micro spheres found in the dust form?

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Except there is no evidence the steel was subjected to heat other than that of normal office fires

So how did the iron micro spheres found in the dust form?

You mean something not exclusive to thermite?

You first...

Start with..

The collapse initiation for each twin tower was at the area of jet impacts. Is that false. With no way a controlled demolition system of wires, receivers, detonators would survive the jet impacts and fires to initiate the collapse. That alone kills the control demolition fantasy. Your too buried in pseudoscience to understand.

There is zero evidence of thermite cutting columns.

a reply to: kwakakev
If a picture tells a thousand words.....then our eyes can see a thousand lies.

a reply to: neutronflux

You mean something not exclusive to thermite?

i mean what the facts are. Something melted the steel to make the iron micro spheres. So far two theories that fit the evidence thermite cutter charges on the main support beams and / or some kind of extreme temperature reaction in the basement to weaken the internal cores of the buildings.

I am open to other possibilities, but yet to see anything else that matches the evidence.

The collapse initiation for each twin tower was at the area of jet impacts. Is that false.

No.

Only the detonators and explosives in the direct area of the impact and fires would be taken out. The untouched floors above and below will still function fine. It is a valid point you make in how did the collapse start if the explosives where taken out on the floor the collapse started.

With some kind of extreme high temperature reaction taking place in the basement in the moments before collapse, it sends an extreme temperature wave up through the centre of the building as heat naturally rises. This compromises the core of the building as it rises up. The outside of the building still looks fine and holds up well as the inner core becomes a hot molten mess. The heat wave moves up through the building until it reaches the area of the plane strike.

With the plane already causing a lot of damage to the floor, now the core columns melt away and enough structural damage is done, it initiates collapse. The heat wave continues up and causes the spire to evaporate.

With phase one of the demolition done and the strongest part of the building weakened, the second phase is started with move conventional explosives to smash up everything else, starting at the top and working its way down.

a reply to: kwakakev

Your the one that cannot come to terms with the reality of the video evidence.

Again...

Micro iron spheres are not exclusive to thermite. Is that false.

Is this false concerning collapse initiation?

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...

Is this false.

The collapse initiation for each twin tower was the areas of jet impacts, and where the fires were most concentrated. Is that false.

Now...

Start with..

The collapse initiation for each twin tower was at the area of jet impacts. Is that false. With no way a controlled demolition system of wires, receivers, detonators would survive the jet impacts and fires to initiate the collapse. That alone kills the control demolition fantasy. Your too buried in pseudoscience to understand.

There is zero evidence of thermite cutting columns.
——————-

Know how a conspiracists is lying to you. They will not, cannot answer simple true false questions.

a reply to: kwakakev

You

With some kind of extreme high temperature reaction taking place in the basement in the moments before collapse

What do you get there is zero support that such a F’n thing took place. The core column basses had no evidence of being exposed to heat. They had to be cut to be removed from their foundations.




The video evidence clearly shows collapse started in this manner.

“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... “

Is that false.

twitter.com...

interesting old video

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

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

No need to replicate a removal of all structural supports within a structure, by precise order and sequence, and no need to study the videos of it, over and over again, from every angle. Why not?

Because videos are subjective, about what they show, what they don't show, and all of it is completely irrelevant to the issue.

It doesn't matter if you show a part of the building 'bowing' before collapse, for example. If there actually WAS 'bowing', it didn't cause this collapse, or initiate this collapse, or whatever else..

You keep pointing to videos, saying what they show, what they don't show, and somehow, you conclude that the buildings collapsed by fire/damage alone!

There's no point in showing this or that in videos, these collapses weren't caused by anything you point out in videos, interpreted by you, or others, as proving your claim is true, proving that a CD did not occur, etc.

It's all nonsense. You cannot replicate this collapse happened, because it CANNOT happen, it DID NOT happen, and will NEVER happen.

That's why NOBODY has ever replicated it - because nobody CAN ever replicate it. Claiming the buildings collapsed like this, from local fire and damage, cannot be proven by videos, and/or seismic data, etc. You believe they support your argument, prove your claim, while others say it all supports it being a CD.

It doesn't matter what side it supports, or doesn't support, or which side it supports more than the other side, because it's not relevant to the issue. It may seem to be, but it's not.


The only thing that is relevant is being unable to replicate your collapse theory, and PROVES it is FALSE. If anyone claims something happened, such as what you have claimed, it is entirely based on physics, alone. What you claim is no different than any other claim, which is based on physics. If someone claimed a structure collapsed partially, from a small bomb going off on a floor, how do we prove if it's true, or is not true? It's not proven, either way, unless it can be replicated, first of all. If it can, that still doesn't prove it's true, because it may have other causes, or may not, so other causes are considered as well. Nobody knows it, until nothing else is possible, or very unlikely, at least.


You're always trying to avoid the one issue proving you wrong - that you cannot replicate your claim is true, or is even possible, in any way.

It's based entirely on physics, and replication, which you ignore completely, avoiding it with videos, etc. The fact that you cannot replicate it is the only issue here, proving your claim is false. Period. End of discussion.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

Because videos are subjective, about what they show, what they don't show, and all of it is completely irrelevant to the issue.

Is the below false.

The video evidence clearly shows collapse started in this manner.

“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... “

Is that false.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You

Because videos are subjective, about what they show, what they don't show, and all of it is completely irrelevant to the issue.

Is the below false.

The video evidence clearly shows collapse started in this manner.

“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... “

Is that false.

A CD can initiate anywhere in a building, same as it did in each tower. You seem to believe a CD has to initiate from the base, every time, or it cannot be a CD!

But of course, you believe it can collapse within seconds from local fire and damage, which defies all physical laws, which is why it's never happened, and never WILL happen, and why it cannot ever be replicated, obviously!


Obviously the collapses initiated at their so-called 'impact zones', that's the point of initiating it there. If they initiated it from the base, it wouldn't fool anyone, even you!

Anyway, the point is that you cannot replicate such a collapse, with actual models, and proves your claim is complete nonsense.


It's not matter where a CD initiates, as a CD can initiate anywhere in the building. Known CD's will usually initiate at the base, but can initiate almost anywhere, in fact.


The bizarre part is claiming a building, WITHOUT removing any of the intact supports, could possibly collapse within seconds! Not only ONCE, but TWICE, on the same day, to boot! With a THIRD building also collapsing that same day, too!


One building collapsed from the base, just like other CD's are. It didn't need to start from any 'impact zones', like the other two had to look.


Anyway, you cannot replicate this, and never will, because it is absolutely impossible.

Claiming the roadrunner ran through a solid rock mountain, because a hole was painted on it, can ALSO be 'simulated' with computer models, just like YOUR claim was.

But neither claim can ever be REPLICATED, with REAL models, because those claims are equally foolish, equally absurd, and equally nonsense.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

A CD can initiate anywhere in a building

Not if the area of collapse initiation was decimated by jet impacts and fire that would have obliterated any wiring and detonators.

You

But of course, you believe it can collapse within seconds from local fire and damage, which defies all physical laws,

False.

One. There is a reason fIre code requires steel to be insulated against fire

As shown by the The Windsor Tower Fire, Madrid

The Windsor Tower Fire, Madrid

materialsforinteriorsind54862016.files.wordpress.com...

The Damage
The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.
The whole building was beyond repair and had to be demolished. The estimated property loss was �72m before the renovation.

The jet impacts would have removed insulation.

It was known the WTC had deficient fire insulation

“FIREPROOFING” AT THE WTC TOWERS

www.fireengineering.com...

Then there are other high rise buildings collapses with fires as the root cause.

Language
Watch
Edit
The Plasco Building (Persian: ساختمان پلاسکو‎, romanized: Sâxtmâne Plâskô) 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...

Brazil fire: São Paulo building collapses in huge blaze

www.bbc.com...

Then in a building at the WTC that did not totally collapse, there was fire related failures of the structure that lead to floor systems collapse.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

But of course, you believe it can collapse within seconds from local fire and damage, which defies all physical law

It’s right there in video.


Now answer the question:

Is the below false.

The video evidence clearly shows collapse started in this manner.

“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... “

Is that false.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You

But of course, you believe it can collapse within seconds from local fire and damage, which defies all physical law

It’s right there in video.


Now answer the question:

Is the below false.

The video evidence clearly shows collapse started in this manner.

“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... “

Is that false.

Yes, it IS false. Nobody, including you, can possibly replicate such a collapse with real models. Because it's absolute nonsense. ANY actual collapse can be replicated with real models. Because, as I've told you many times before, these events come down to the specific details, not the materials of the building, where it started, and so on.

What I'm trying to get you to understand is - replicate the structure, around the impact zones, and the same number of floors above it, as the towers had, and a few floors below it. Use actual scale models, of any size, of any materials. The only requirement is that this structure must be able to support itself, easily, at first - just like the towers did.

Don't try telling me it cannot be replicated, because it certainly CAN be replicated. Are you even aware that they actually HAD real scale models of the towers, before they were built? They did. They used them to test for the very same type of events, too, where floors were damaged by planes, among other things.

It doesn't matter if their tests were different, the point is that they HAD ACTUAL SCALE MODELS, and TESTED FOR STRUCTURAL DAMAGE WITH THEM!

So that proves it CAN be tested with real models, because they ALREADY DID SO!


You have no excuse for them NEVER replicating this with actual models, and everyone here knows it, even you!