Trying to resolve 9/11

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: neutronflux

actual physical evidence of WTC CD.

The thing is, one doesn't need evidence for every single aspect to resolve 9/11 as a conspiracy with the goal to take our rights and start wars on the basis of lies and deception. That's pretty much what happened, right?

Anyhow. The missing "actual physical evidence" in form of a hardness evaluation for the "fire weakened steel" in the NIST report was none of your concern, either. Or was it? Why bother this time?

That's double-standards, not debunking. Keep bumping those threats, yo! Baked and wasted, eh? Good for you!

So. You have no actual proof of columns actively being cut from the video, audio, or seismic evidence. Detonations that would not be subtle in anyway, obvious beyond a doubt. For explosives cutting the columns, the audio of detonations would be the loudest captured event. For explosives, there would be obvious demolitions shrapnel. Thermite would be obvious with its burning floor to floor at 3000 degrees Fahrenheit, and it’s flashing for several minutes.

The CD fantasy cannot even get past how a CD system survive jet impacts, damage by debris, and wide spread fires.

The CD fantasy is no go from the get go. With zero proof the WTC was brought down by planted pyrotechnics.

a reply to: neutronflux

Again with the cutting. Do you have some evidence of cutting or are you just making assumptions? So the steel just came apart by itself? Help me out here? That demolition would mean CUTTING I mean? You lump the two together as if no cutting means no CD etc.

No 'wasted away'? You got to explain this better. Are you saying you weighed the rubble pile and it equaled the weight of the freestanding towers? I don't understand what you mean.

So you're saying it wasn't preplanted explosives or thermite that brought the towers down?

Ok.

But it could have been aliens with invisible lasers or unicorn farts right?

By that I mean, just because it wasn't preplanted explosives or thermite don't mean those buildings weren't purposely destroyed right?

You will concede that point right?

See how I read it is you think if not explosives or thermite then we must revert back to gravity collapse? Is that your position?

I'd sooner go with unicorn farts.

*Something* destroyed those towers. If you say not preplanted explosives or thermite, I can live with that. I think that's too simple and obvious anyway. I think the answer is more than that.

Maybe some kind of VOLCANO!

a reply to: NWOwned

Again with the cutting. Do you have some evidence of cutting or are you just making assumptions?

Then what controlled demolitions method would cause the columns to fail to initiate the collapse?


Then have the falling mass strip floor connections from the vertical columns? Leaving a majority of the vertical columns standing a few seconds in the wake of the floor system failures?



The methods are somewhat limited. Severe the columns by brute force such as a pressure wave, or hydraulic cutters. Cut the columns like with a blowtorch or band saw. Or heat the columns to the point they cannot carry load. Or loaded the columns beyond their ability to with stand a certain amount of mass or dynamic loading. Or side load the columns until they bow and buckle?

What mechanism are you saying initiated collapse?

No 'wasted away'? You got to explain this better. Are you saying you weighed the rubble pile and it equaled the weight of the freestanding towers? I don't understand what you mean.

Dr Wood’s theory of Dustification.

So you're saying it wasn't preplanted explosives or thermite that brought the towers down?

Do you have credible proof that it was?

But it could have been aliens with invisible lasers or unicorn farts right?

Is that the most credible cause with the most evidence?

By that I mean, just because it wasn't preplanted explosives or thermite don't mean those buildings weren't purposely destroyed right?

I don’t think the hijackers wanted to use the jets as constructive remodeling as a desired outcome.

See how I read it is you think if not explosives or thermite then we must revert back to gravity collapse? Is that your position?

Where else did the potential energy come from to drive the collapse once the the columns buckled, and the static loads became dynamic.

I'd sooner go with unicorn farts.

How would they lead to columns failing? Back to:
Then what controlled demolitions method would cause the columns to fail to initiate the collapse?

The methods are somewhat limited. Severe the columns by brute force such as a pressure wave, or hydraulic cutters. Cut the columns like with a blowtorch or band saw. Or heat the columns to the point they cannot carry load. Or loaded the columns beyond their ability to with stand a certain amount of mass or dynamic loading. Or side load the columns until they bow and buckle?

What mechanism are you saying initiated collapse?

Something* destroyed those towers. If you say not preplanted explosives or thermite, I can live with that. I think that's too simple and obvious anyway. I think the answer is more than that.

It’s bases is:
The WTC was found to have deficient fire insulation before 9/11.

The twin towers had fire insulation knocked off by the jet impacts.

WTC 1, 2, 7 were built as cheap as possible by minimizing concrete usage beyond common practice. They lacked concrete columns along their abnormal long floor spans that saved building built differently than WTC towers.

The WTC buildings did not have additional support in the middle of their long floor runs that made them more susceptible to drooping and thermal stresses.

WTC 7 had floor contention that were at odd angles not commonly used in high rise construction.

a reply to: NWOwned

I think the NIST report glossed over many things. Like construction practices and material supply quality control to prevent contractors and construction firms being dragged into the fray.

Also. The twin towers were designed when the fire code was being updated from the 1930’s to a draft version in the late 60’s. The port authority got to pick what parts of the draft codes they would adopt.

For the 1960’s revision, how many years of mostly all steel high rise building performance studies could the code revision draw from to support the code revision concerning the twin towers? How much practical knowledge was there at the time to draw on for updating the fire code for something like the twin towers?

a reply to: neutronflux

Wow you're all over the place.

I can tell you're reaching though.

First with the cutting, is it this corner you show you claim cutting? Based on what again? That corner shown seems to me oddly energized with what appears to be massive cutting torch action. Just an observation. Objectively, do you think the corner should be blowtorching like that? I'm asking, don't that seem out of place for a steel frame building corner? What do you think is causing that fierce torchlike action? I find it bizarre.

One of the questions I have is why is the exterior corner so damaged on its exterior? I presume this is the South Tower? On the side of the outward explosion? So why didn't the interior of the corner protect the exterior cladding by blocking and diverting the force of the explosion? You think jet fuel and carpet is warping and weakening steel here?

Let me just say you don't know exactly what's going on at that corner only that it does all appear to have a weakening effect on the corner correct?

1. You don't really know what's up with it.
2. It appears to be weakening the area.

See you use too many question marks explaining all this corner action. It's like you're unsure and you want me to be sympathetic or something. You don't know why the building weakened the way it did where it did admit it.

Sure you'll say it was the terrorists intentions, the airplane crash, the force of that big explosion, the jet fuel and the burning office furniture, the cheap construction materials and the bad architectural design but you don't know that for certain do you?

Right?

So did you or did you not weigh the rubble pile and compare it to the weight of the pristine towers?

I'm going to presume no. So what exactly is your evidence that there's really no building missing?

Again, admit it. You don't really know for certain.

Right?

If you been following along previously I agreed with you about explosives and thermite. I didn't ask about proof just whether you believed it wasn't explosives or thermite. Again it's like you're not sure.

You seem to offer only possibilities and questioning conjecture over and over.

Again I ask you do you think the only explanation for there not being intact buildings on 9/11, after you discount preplanted explosives and thermite, is just accepting a gravity collapse? Yes or no?

You're sure columns failed? And that initiated collapse? How do you know? No really, I'm asking. Can you admit you're dealing in uncertainties and conjecture primarily? You seem to talk about collapse as if that's what happened.

As if this was an ordinary building on an ordinary day and because some video shows some indent where a plane crashed and there's fire a normal building's loads would do x y and z. You don't for a second consider it's all an intricate smokescreen do you?

Oh the columns do this after this and this... you are not certain of any of it.

Admit it.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NWOwned

I think the NIST report glossed over many things. Like construction practices and material supply quality control to prevent contractors and construction firms being dragged into the fray.

Also. The twin towers were designed when the fire code was being updated from the 1930’s to a draft version in the late 60’s. The port authority got to pick what parts of the draft codes they would adopt.

For the 1960’s revision, how many years of mostly all steel high rise building performance studies could the code revision draw from to support the code revision concerning the twin towers? How much practical knowledge was there at the time to draw on for updating the fire code for something like the twin towers?

Now you're reaching into history.

And if I hear one more time the airplanes knocked off the fire insulation!

You know this how? You know no such thing for certain, admit it.

Do tell us more about the fate of the fire insulation, about the columns and weak trusses, about jet fuel and bad planning, about cheap concrete and Nist dropping the ball, about terrorists and Donald Rumsfeld, go on.

I think you could write for Netflix you spin some good yarn.

a reply to: NWOwned


Let’s make it simple then.

If the potential energy that drove the collapse was not from gravity, where did the potential energy come from?

Specifically state what mechanism initiated collapse and what busted floor connections.

I’ll give you a little help.

a reply to: neutronflux

I get it you're a Gravity guy.

I've interacted with gravity myself over the years and have formed a basic personal understanding of it.

As I previously posted, I think They destroyed those towers that day. It's just I don't know who They are or how They actually did it. Yet. (And by 'They' of course I do not mean the purported 19 supposed hijacker terrorists.)

But let's talk some more about GRAVITY Ok?

You give me an idea even, one you may scoff at, but I'm going to entertain it nonetheless, why? Because I don't know how They actually did it etc.

9/11 was unprecedented. People were perplexed. Some were saying things like "Never before in the history of construction has a steel frame building collapsed due to fire."

Now that's not a direct quote more of a prevailing sentiment among some, some people like you maybe. Like how you're keen on gravity and static and dynamic loads, there's probably construction types who were puzzled about the fire in the steel building leading to a collapse based on their experience and what they could research on youtube and the internet.

Then there's the oft stated quip about "The Laws of Physics being Suspended on 9/11." I'm sure you heard that one.

These things I mention aren't evidence per se, but they illustrate that more than a few people had questions about 9/11.

On 9/11 I can go with there being Gravity. *Maybe* Ha! I'm even provisional on Gravity, can you believe it?

But what is gravity? What makes it tick? Can you tell me? You say gravity did this gravity did that, yeah? What is this gravity thing you speak of? How does it work exactly?

I want you to tell me.

You're using it as the main element of tower destruction and you don't even know what it is; how it works? Right?

You don't know what gravity really is, you know how I know that? Because NOBODY DOES.

Nobody does.

You, you're just assuming gravity was the mechanism! You don't know for sure. Admit it.

ADMIT IT.

Now that sounds ridiculous right? 'OMG he's denying Gravity on 9/11!'

Yeah, you think the Laws of Physics were set aside... that's nothing, what about the Law of Gravity?! Lol

The point is those buildings were unique as you seem to indicate maybe like when it came to being designed for like plane impacts it was also able to handle a floor buckling or a side/corner bowing in or out etc. Only the buildings get DESTROYED immediately following the singular bowing.

So, you ASSUME it's Gravity! That's what you're doing. Admit it.

That building, due to a little bowing; a single load shift of indeterminate magnitude, succumbed to gravity (according to you), even though it was just a SINGULAR instance and yet the towers were designed to take MULTIPLE plane hits.

You follow?

You're just assuming gravity after the bowing/load shift. Admit it.

You don't know anything for certain.

Maybe those towers could take 6 airplane hits and 14 bowing corner load shifts and still be standing there smoking. But we don't see that because after only like ONE bowing load shift, and only ONE plane crash, the towers go BYE BYE.

You are making a leap. Admit it. You are laying it all on gravity after the televised deformations in the corner. But it's not conclusive. It's not concrete.

They could've taken out the corner/sides with something that looked ominous and gravity inducing inevitable and at that exact point, the point where you come in with standard gravity, They still could've 'destroyed' the buildings in a way still largely undetermined. Right? It's possible. Admit it.

Admit it.

Your 'GRAVITY COLLAPSE' is an unproven leap on your part.

a reply to: NWOwned

Two simple questions do not require 28 paragraphs of BS.

If you cannot answer the questions below, does that mean you don’t have a more credible explanation,

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NWOwned


Let’s make it simple then.

If the potential energy that drove the collapse was not from gravity, where did the potential energy come from?

Specifically state what mechanism initiated collapse and what busted floor connections.

I’ll give you a little help.

a reply to: NWOwned

Implosion is used to weaken the structure to the point gravity pulls it down. Is that false.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NWOwned

Implosion is used to weaken the structure to the point gravity pulls it down. Is that false.

Is that a question?

Are you asking questions now without using question marks?

You still sound 'Not Sure'.

You're the guy who came in here and said there's no evidence for preplanted pyrotechnic explosives and thermite remember?

Well now the shoe is on the other foot.

I'm coming in here and saying this idea that it was gravity that really destroyed the towers is UNPROVEN.

Really, it's just an assumption. Right?

You're the Gravity guy, you sure gravity destroyed those towers? What evidence do you have?

"What else could it be?" you ask.

Well it could be any number of other things actually right? Things we don't even know about or have heard of or even contemplated.

But even if it's only one other thing there's still that possibility.

Just because something seems reasonable, is historically based, is informed by your own personal experience with gravity and is apparently captured on film doesn't mean that's what did it.

That's what I'm saying.

Even that, all that, isn't PROOF.

a reply to: NWOwned

So. Now your up to three questions you will not answer.

Why would I find you credible.

Again...
Implosion is used to weaken the structure to the point gravity pulls it down. Is that false.

If the potential energy for the collapse did not come from gravity, where did it come from.

What mechanism initiated the collapse.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NWOwned

Again with the cutting. Do you have some evidence of cutting or are you just making assumptions?

Then what controlled demolitions method would cause the columns to fail to initiate the collapse?

Then have the falling mass strip floor connections from the vertical columns? Leaving a majority of the vertical columns standing a few seconds in the wake of the floor system failures?

The methods are somewhat limited. Severe the columns by brute force such as a pressure wave, or hydraulic cutters. Cut the columns like with a blowtorch or band saw. Or heat the columns to the point they cannot carry load. Or loaded the columns beyond their ability to with stand a certain amount of mass or dynamic loading. Or side load the columns until they bow and buckle?

What mechanism are you saying initiated collapse?

No 'wasted away'? You got to explain this better. Are you saying you weighed the rubble pile and it equaled the weight of the freestanding towers? I don't understand what you mean.

Dr Wood’s theory of Dustification.

So you're saying it wasn't preplanted explosives or thermite that brought the towers down?

Do you have credible proof that it was?

But it could have been aliens with invisible lasers or unicorn farts right?

Is that the most credible cause with the most evidence?

By that I mean, just because it wasn't preplanted explosives or thermite don't mean those buildings weren't purposely destroyed right?

I don’t think the hijackers wanted to use the jets as constructive remodeling as a desired outcome.

See how I read it is you think if not explosives or thermite then we must revert back to gravity collapse? Is that your position?

Where else did the potential energy come from to drive the collapse once the the columns buckled, and the static loads became dynamic.

I'd sooner go with unicorn farts.

How would they lead to columns failing? Back to:
Then what controlled demolitions method would cause the columns to fail to initiate the collapse?

The methods are somewhat limited. Severe the columns by brute force such as a pressure wave, or hydraulic cutters. Cut the columns like with a blowtorch or band saw. Or heat the columns to the point they cannot carry load. Or loaded the columns beyond their ability to with stand a certain amount of mass or dynamic loading. Or side load the columns until they bow and buckle?

What mechanism are you saying initiated collapse?

Something* destroyed those towers. If you say not preplanted explosives or thermite, I can live with that. I think that's too simple and obvious anyway. I think the answer is more than that.

It’s bases is:
The WTC was found to have deficient fire insulation before 9/11.

The twin towers had fire insulation knocked off by the jet impacts.

WTC 1, 2, 7 were built as cheap as possible by minimizing concrete usage beyond common practice. They lacked concrete columns along their abnormal long floor spans that saved building built differently than WTC towers.

The WTC buildings did not have additional support in the middle of their long floor runs that made them more susceptible to drooping and thermal stresses.

WTC 7 had floor contention that were at odd angles not commonly used in high rise construction.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NWOwned

So. Now your up to three questions you will not answer.

Why would I find you credible.

Again...

Implosion is used to weaken the structure to the point gravity pulls it down. Is that false.

If the potential energy for the collapse did not come from gravity, where did it come from.

What mechanism initiated the collapse.

Ok so you see my point about gravity?

What evidence is there that it was gravity that destroyed the towers?

It's just an assumption. It's merely conjecture.

Now the next thing we have to address is Collapse.

And your thinking, and use of the word.

Sure the buildings were pretty high up and stuff 'fell down' from great height due to gravity, but the gravity only covers the falling down part and not the destruction. Naturally if you destroy something 2000 feet in the air pieces are going to fall down due to gravity etc.

You can call that 'collapse' but it isn't really. Collapse implies weakening against gravity and not complete destruction.

The towers looked like a gravity collapse because they were progressively destroyed and consequently fell to the ground.

Now on to your concerns.

1. I don't care if you find me credible or not. Anyone can read this stuff I type largely off the top of my head and they, or you, can take it or leave it. I encourage people to think for themselves and to freely make up their own minds. I just post what I think. You still haven't answered many of my questions, especially the one where I ask you to provide your evidence that there's no building missing.

2. On Implosion, Weakening and then Gravity. That's classic regular known stuff. It's the commonplace knowledge the perps of 9/11 rely on you knowing so as to fool you easier. 9/11 was unprecedented it wasn't like textbook. There was no implosion, no weakening, no induced collapse against gravity. Instead those towers were DESTROYED.

3. On Potential Energy. The Potential Energy comes from what they used to destroy the towers with not from gravity. It wasn't gravity or a 'collapse' it was destruction and then stuff naturally fell down.

4. On Mechanism. The mechanism wasn't preplanted explosives, thermite or gravity. The mechanism is UCD. Unconventional Controlled Demolition, the exact method and nature of which having yet to be determined.

a reply to: NWOwned

Why can’t you answer three questions out of intellectual honesty

So. Now your up to three questions you will not answer.

Why would I find you credible.

Again...
Implosion is used to weaken the structure to the point gravity pulls it down. Is that false.

If the potential energy for the collapse did not come from gravity, where did it come from.

What mechanism initiated the collapse.

a reply to: NWOwned

On Mechanism. The mechanism wasn't preplanted explosives, thermite or gravity. The mechanism is UCD. Unconventional Controlled Demolition, the exact method and nature of which having yet to be determined.

So you are claiming it was MAGIC that destroyed the WTC towers ?

You wont answer questions - at least in a coherent logical manner

Instead you claim some bizarre mysterious force was responsible

Sorry us in the real world depend on evidence and logic to reach our conclusions, not some half baked conspiracy fantasy

a reply to: firerescue

So you are claiming it was MAGIC that destroyed the WTC towers ?

Yes/No. How do you define Magic? I would not be surprised to find those involved performing some rituals. For some people a piece of high technology is considered magic. Without understanding all the technical properties it makes it hard to correctly understand. Things start to get clouded and we just have to trust what we are told. Illusionist use this trick quite well.

I like the case NWOwned presents. The full technicalities of just how the buildings fell is unknown. I think we can all agree on that. Why is that 18 years after the event and we still don't know?

a reply to: kwakakev

Things start to get clouded and we just have to trust what we are told.

The collapse of WTC 1, 2, 7 are right on video with audio.

For WTC 1 and 2. There are multiple videos of the twin tower collapse. There are videos of the jet impacts.

About any WTC mythology you care to fabricate is posted somewhere online with supporting “evidence”.

I didn’t trust anyone.

I watched the videos of the events. Watched debates. I looked at the evidence. There are theories way more credible than others.

There is no evidence of pyrotechnics bringing down the WTC. No evidence of nukes. No evidence of dustification.

The truth movement leadership totally lied when they used pictures of columns cut during cleanup as “proof” as thermite. Their cult following was more than willing to be complacent in that lie, and perpetuate that lie.

The truth movement totally lies by omission in ignoring the efforts of the NYPD made to recover human remains, personal effects, and evidence at Fresh Kills.

The “truth movement” doesn’t exist because there is another side to the physical evidence, video, audio, and seismology.

The truth movement exists because it’s leadership fabricates mythology and blatantly ignores fact for a target audience.

People don’t trust the truth movement because they don’t believe the “official story.” People don’t believe the truth movement because it’s talking heads lie.

a reply to: kwakakev

I like the case NWOwned presents. The full technicalities of just how the buildings fell is unknown. I think we can all agree on that. Why is that 18 years after the event and we still don't know?

Really?

For the twin towers. It is know where the collapse was initiated.


Start here

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

www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: neutronflux



For where the collapse started you are on the right spot. The problem is in what happened next. If some movement of the building did take place with the damage and fires why did it not stop?

I have posted this image previously in this thread. This time I added 3 lines where you can see the individual clouds of matter form. The individual clouds from each explosion do blend together very quickly making it hard to see inside. When viewing this shock wave of the building turning to clouds it looks very much like the timed charges used in mining.



I do consider it possible that thermite was used to cut the larger support beams on the inside while some type of explosives where used else where to bring down the rest of the building. When you can see the individual clouds start to push out in a concentrated areas, demolition fits.

a reply to: firerescue

Magic? No.

But it might have something to do with this:




Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke’s 3rd Law

Clarke here isn't saying it is Magic, he's saying it's so Sufficiently Advanced that it's 'Indistinguishable' from Magic.

As I noted, regular preplanted explosives are not Sufficiently Advanced enough, actually that's like 100 year old technology. Indeed older etc.

Also they're not 'magical' enough. No one in this day and age thinks so.


How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
Sherlock Holmes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

All I'm doing is the Vedic 'Neti Neti' ("Not this", "Not this") method to find the True Nature of 9/11.