It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trying to resolve 9/11

page: 73
17
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You


The facade will begin to crack open and pieces will break away and windows will break.
Progressive collapse is a slow buckling of structural support.


You mean like parts of WTC 7 that hit other buildings?





posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Sorry this isn’t replying to where you stated something like, “no one here knows what effects of a nuclear reaction would be?”

It’s easy to look up what the fission products of a thermal nuclear detonation would be. And those products are different than radioactive decay of an element.




en.m.wikipedia.org...

Nuclear weapons Edit
Nuclear weapons use fission as either the partial or the main energy source. Depending on the weapon design and where it is exploded, the relative importance of the fission product radioactivity will vary compared to the activation product radioactivity in the total fallout radioactivity.

The immediate fission products from nuclear weapon fission are essentially the same as those from any other fission source, depending slightly on the particular nuclide that is fissioning. However, the very short time scale for the reaction makes a difference in the particular mix of isotopes produced from an atomic bomb.

For example, the 134Cs/137Cs ratio provides an easy method of distinguishing between fallout from a bomb and the fission products from a power reactor. Almost no Cs-134 is formed by nuclear fission (because xenon-134 is stable). The 134Cs is formed by the neutron activation of the stable 133Cs which is formed by the decay of isotopes in the isobar (A = 133). So in a momentary criticality by the time that the neutron flux becomes zero too little time will have passed for any 133Cs to be present. While in a power reactor plenty of time exists for the decay of the isotopes in the isobar to form 133Cs, the 133Cs thus formed can then be activated to form 134Cs only if the time between the start and the end of the criticality is long.

According to Jiri Hala's textbook,[13] the radioactivity in the fission product mixture in an atom bomb is mostly caused by short-lived isotopes such as I-131 and Ba-140. After about four months Ce-141, Zr-95/Nb-95, and Sr-89 represent the largest share of radioactive material. After two to three years, Ce-144/Pr-144, Ru-106/Rh-106, and Promethium-147 are the bulk of the radioactivity. After a few years, the radiation is dominated by strontium-90 and caesium-137, whereas in the period between 10,000 and a million years it is technetium-99 that dominates.


Since the bases of the core columns had to be cut from their foundations, the slurry wall was not breached, and new skyscrapers were built on the bedrock, there is no evidence of underground nukes. There is no radiological evidence of a nuke detonating in the structures. There is no radiological evidence the columns were wrapped in uranium to make them collapse.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You


Progressive collapse is a slow buckling of structural support.


Please quote that scientific law?

Might checkout this collapse initiated by hydraulic jacks on a single floor?




Demolition by hydraulic jacks

m.youtube.com...



m.youtube.com...

DEMOLITION PAR VERINAGE A VITRY SUR SEINE




Didn’t seem slow. And the concrete pulverized to dust with no explosives? Call Architects and Engineers to investigate......

edit on 18-11-2019 by neutronflux because: Added another link to video



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:16 AM
link   
You repeat the same debunked info and repeating the same lines I already dealt with.
I don't pay attention to what a bunch of posters thinks on Metabunk. They are mistaken. You need to slow down and avoid copying and pasting links. Add your own thoughts to this argument. 

Anyway, this Metabunk site appears not to highlight NIST ruled out free fall in Aug 2008. They also then finished their models of the collapse.
It just stupid to claim NIST understand "free fall" when they opposed- even denied it happened. 
Since the building sped up at free-fall speed- that rules out buckling.  
Freefall there zero resistance. They're no structural components at all.
Negligible resistance is worthless to individuals if they don't show what they mean by that? 
NIST exterior buckling of columns? Exterior columns are gone- it only way free fall can exist.
NIST doesn't even acknowledge the central core- which needs to be gone for free fall to occur.
For free-fall to take place every column across the span of the building has to be taken out- it can't work any other way. 
Until you learn these basic facts, there is no point continui9ng the argument.

NIST models appear not to present 8 floors of interior and perimeter columns buckling during stage 1 or 2. Their models show something very different from what they declare in their revised report.  For the acceleration to occur 58 perimeter columns are gone- they're no simple way of removing 58 perimeter columns by buckling. To claim 58 columns buckled by shear failure is nonsense, and even then they're not fully gone by shear failure.
What's funny also Debunker ignores that NIST models show a clear and severe crush of the building facade that was never observed on the actual video. This just more proof the NIST simulation is not honest. There timing is very high for all to occur. Their failures just on the eastside are taking over 20 seconds. When on video the Penthouse went and crashed and building started collapsing six seconds later! Even the observable data outside the building doesn't match the progressive collapse they asserted was taking place. 
edit on 18-11-2019 by Hulseyreport because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-11-2019 by Hulseyreport because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Ok? So you cannot create a credible counter argument to what I posted.

There is no evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns to initiate collapse.

You said WTC 7 had 84 columns? There is no evidence of thermite burning on 84 columns on 47 floors to initiate collapse.


You claimed cut columns made the facade fall at the rate of free fall? Please explain, or quote Hulsey / Architects and Engineers, what charges were used. The number of charges used. Where the charges were placed. And why there is no evidence of columns being cut in the video, audio, seismic evidence. Especially when the exterior columns were right at the windows. When there was no windows blown out from a pressure wave indicative of a force strong enough to cut steel columns. No shrapnel indicative of columns being cut. No visible burning, flashing, splattering of thermite burning that should have cut into the facade.
edit on 18-11-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Ok? So you cannot create a credible counter argument to what I posted.

There is no evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns to initiate collapse.

You said WTC 7 had 84 columns? There is no evidence of thermite burning on 84 columns on 47 floors to initiate collapse.


You claimed cut columns made the facade fall at the rate of free fall? Please explain, or quote Hulsey / Architects and Engineers, what charges were used. The number of charges used. Where the charges were placed. And why there is no evidence of columns being cut in the video, audio, seismic evidence. Especially when the exterior columns were right at the windows. When there was no windows blown out from a pressure wave indicative of a force strong enough to cut steel columns. No shrapnel indicative of columns being cut. No visible burning, flashing, splattering of thermite burning that should have cut into the facade.


Why is this so hard for you?
We already recognize building seven experienced free fall. There really no disagreement about that.
The area of controversy is what provoked that freefall!
Demolitions don't work that way. You don't demolition 47 floors you just demolition sufficient structural supports to produce a compression-like effect. In this process based on analyses of 18 floors that both NIST and truthers set on 8 floors experienced freefall acceleration. That means the 84 columns perimeter and interior core columns on 8 floors across the span of the building corner to corner were gone!
NIST declared later in the new revised paper after saying it was impossible said this freefall was induced by buckling of exterior columns without actually going to any great detail how the complete 80 plus columns buckled. Negligible support was just added in with no explanation and what this would involve. 
edit on 18-11-2019 by Hulseyreport because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-11-2019 by Hulseyreport because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You


Why is this so hard for you?


One, NIST never said they were absolutely right. The NIST model is a best guess.

Two. The Hulsey’s report made an absolute claim that is impossible to prove. And it was predetermined. Fire could not cause collapse. It ignores the WTC 5 failures. The Hulsey model was limited to modeling very specific areas in WTC 7. And did not include a global WTC 7 model of the fire. The Hulsey model doesn’t contain key features of the WTC 7 collapse. The Hulsey model was forced, with no explanation what would make columns disappear in real life like what Hulsey modeled.

Three. The most important item. Hulsey/ you cannot provide any proof detonations cut columns. Especially for the exterior columns right at the windows of the facade.

No proof of detonations provided. No explanation what explosives were used. No explanation where they were place. No evidence of columns cut to initiate the collapse of WTC 7.

Hulsey/Architects and Engineers have nothing to convey? They provide no actual explanation for collapse initiation. Can you quote something I missed. So, how can I find a collapse initiation that is not stated by Hulsey, with no evidence of detonations initiating collapse from the video, audio evidence more credible than NIST model that shows thermal stress on the global scale of WTC 7 could initiate a collapse.
edit on 18-11-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Can you cite actual evidence detonations initiated the WTC 7 collapse?



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You


Why is this so hard for you?


One, NIST never said they were absolutely right. The NIST model is a best guess.

Two. The Hulsey’s report made an absolute claim that is impossible to prove. And it was predetermined. Fire could not cause collapse. It ignores the WTC 5 failures. The Hulsey model was limited to modeling very specific areas in WTC 7. And did not include a global WTC 7 model of the fire. The Hulsey model doesn’t contain key features of the WTC 7 collapse. The Hulsey model was forced, with no explanation what would make columns disappear in real life like what Hulsey modeled.

Three. The most important item. Hulsey/ you cannot provide any proof detonations cut columns. Especially for the exterior columns right at the windows of the facade.

No proof of detonations provided. No explanation what explosives were used. No explanation where they were place. No evidence of columns cut to initiate the collapse of WTC 7.

Hulsey/Architects and Engineers have nothing to convey? They provide no actual explanation for collapse initiation. Can you quote something I missed. So, how can I find a collapse initiation that is not stated by Hulsey, with no evidence of detonations initiating collapse from the video, audio evidence more credible than NIST model that shows thermal stress on the global scale of WTC 7 could initiate a collapse.


Hulsey can because it is 100 percent fact the interior core columns and perimeter columns were altogether gone! 
Hulsey says what took place- the core columns foundation got taken out and one to two seconds later perimeter columns are taken out.
 He modeled scenarios and matched them to NIST, and alone when he pulled out the 84 columns did his model fall like the physical building collapse on 9/11. 

Hulsey modelled the columns failures NIST said occurred during their progression collapse- a significant of failures from east to west. What Hulsey found when he commenced removing columns by buckling on the eastside corner, the building appears to shift sideways to the east ( like a tilt over effect)
It was a very different finding to what NIST showed in their model. NIST model the building does not move in this direction.  
Since we have not received the NIST data, we can't investigate if their model was manipulated or more specific or accurate compared to Hulsey modeling!
We will discover out reasonably quickly whos correct if NIST released their data.

It was not a predetermined analysis.  Hulsey refuting their findings by delivering his data that can be checked for certainty. Nobody has come forward yet asserting the building would not tilt southeast if columns got taken out on the eastside. It something new that can be applied to substantiate progressive collapse would have happened the way NIST claimed! 

There were no free fall occurring if there was structural support still there- Newton motion law plainly states objects slow down when they hit with separate objects. 
NIST best theory is based on lies. They have shown even their collapse at column 79 to be impossible. They started off leaving a girder unsupported to lead to a collapse. They left off the shear stud fittings, the side plate for the web, the stiffeners are missing.  How you can acknowledge their analysis when they removing elements that were there during the construction of the building?

Scandalous the WTC7 steel just disappeared. NIST could not even analysis the failure mechanisms correctly.  All we have is anyaSIS that displayed some of the steel from WTC7 melted- but it a particularly small piece to actually understand what happened inside the building. 
edit on 18-11-2019 by Hulseyreport because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

What real life event would make columns instantaneously disappear like the Hulsey model?

Can you cite actual evidence detonations initiated the WTC 7 collapse?
edit on 18-11-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You


It was not a predetermined analysis.


Whole thread proves you wrong



h
www.metabunk.org/debunked-uaf-study-shows-wtc7-could-not-have-collapsed-from-fire.t9056/

www.metabunk.org...

The study is unfinished. Nothing has been published other than Dr. Hulsey giving a presentation on YouTube, and a pdf file of the slides for that presentation.

Date of post
SEP 2917

www.metabunk.org...



I didn’t know the Hulsey report is completed and published. It’s still open for public comment.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You


It was not a predetermined analysis.


Whole thread proves you wrong



h
www.metabunk.org/debunked-uaf-study-shows-wtc7-could-not-have-collapsed-from-fire.t9056/

www.metabunk.org...

The study is unfinished. Nothing has been published other than Dr. Hulsey giving a presentation on YouTube, and a pdf file of the slides for that presentation.

Date of post
SEP 2917

www.metabunk.org...



I didn’t know the Hulsey report is completed and published. It’s still open for public comment.


False.
600 gigs of data came out weeks ago.
It open for community comments to question their conclusions. Hulsey distributed the data so individuals can go through the work and comment. 
NIST released 20 percent of their data and kept 80 percent secret. 80 percent was the most important parts.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

What real life event would make columns instantaneously disappear like the Hulsey model?

Can you cite actual evidence detonations initiated the WTC 7 collapse?


Only way, in my opinion, is controlled demolition.
I don't see how fire caused a free-fall collapse.
Fact NIST did even know it happened for six years and denied it- in my opinion strengths the Ae911 position.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Then where’s the evidence and of columns being actively from the video, audio, seismic evidence.


edit on 18-11-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You


It was not a predetermined analysis.


Whole thread proves you wrong



h
www.metabunk.org/debunked-uaf-study-shows-wtc7-could-not-have-collapsed-from-fire.t9056/

www.metabunk.org...

The study is unfinished. Nothing has been published other than Dr. Hulsey giving a presentation on YouTube, and a pdf file of the slides for that presentation.

Date of post
SEP 2917

www.metabunk.org...



I didn’t know the Hulsey report is completed and published. It’s still open for public comment.


False.
600 gigs of data came out weeks ago.
It open for community comments to question their conclusions. Hulsey distributed the data so individuals can go through the work and comment. 
NIST released 20 percent of their data and kept 80 percent secret. 80 percent was the most important parts.


Is the study complete? Has it completed the comment period and been published? Like to state the date the study was published, completing the discovery process?

That statement of “fires could not cause cause a collapse” is impossible to prove. In the face that WTC 5 had documented steel failures.

I would say that Hulsey only limiting his modeling to two specific areas on two floors is ridiculous compared to the global fire modeling of NIST that shows fire related collapse is very possible.


edit on 18-11-2019 by neutronflux because: Moved and fixed



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I assume it is. Since the delivered the 600 gigs of data.
I think most the mainstream enignerring groups wil not touch it because they signed onto and accepted the official account fire brought down the building. It take plenty of courage for them to go back and side with a truther group today. They can just discount it like most of the characters in media channels have. If a whistleblower came forward with incriminating evidence of a conspiracy then that somthing they can't avoid. It 18 years now and looks like nobody will come forward and blow the whistle. The truther groups recognize this but doesn't diminish the fact building seven was controlled demolition. 

Debunkers never demand NIST release its data so we can change subject and learn more about what happened. If NIST stands by its effort and conclusions why don't they drop their work. Like Building seven is gone it colllapsed on 9/11 there no reason to maintain the data secret if they believe fire forced it down. Based on all decisions they should be delivering their work to shut everyone up on conspiracy side. But they will not because they know they responded in bad faith and covered up the reason the building fell on 9/11. They probably got well reimbursed for this deception with future contracts of work. 

Can't ignore freefall- its smoking gun that NIST overlooked and rebuffed . There six years of activity was based around fire buckling columns. I don't care what anyone says NIST got caught out by this query and never understand the full collapse as it was on 9/11.  Some revised bull# excuse later will never shift my judgment on that. Debunkers can believe fire brought the building down- but i am 100 per cent postive some people did it by controlled demolition. Why and how and when it happened unknown but it was completed i have zero doubts. 



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 10:04 AM
link   
I don't care what people think of David Chandler. He exposed this nonsense.

Brilliant video and you hear NIST in their own words deny free fall. If this was Hulsey saying this the debunkers would be going mad and claiming the study is rubbish.




posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again.

Then where’s the evidence and of columns being actively from the video, audio, seismic evidence.

There is a reason Why the WTC 7 CD fantasy is dead on arrival.

What real word events did Husley base his model on for removing columns?



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You


Can't ignore freefall- its smoking gun that NIST overlooked and rebuffed .


Why? Do you have proof of columns being cut? The exterior columns were right at the windows and facade?



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Hulseyreport

I am not sure if NIST “Denied” free fall?



11. In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can NIST ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at www.nist.gov...), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3.
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.


Do you agree with the

“ revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time


Remember. The 5.4 Sec is only for the facade. The penthouse had already completely fell below WTC 7’s roofline before the facade started to move downward. Is that false.

And I think different parts of the Façade started to move at different times.

And you do understand when something buckles, its not offering resistance to load. Hence buckling and why the load drops.

So. In the second stage of the facade, the structure is offering negligible resistance as the load is dropping because the buckled structure is not resisting load.

Now. What is interesting. You claim the resistance of the facade was instantaneously removed like Hulsey making the columns disappear by magic? If that is the case, why didn’t the onset of the collapse of the facade move at free fall acceleration? You claimed all the resistance was instantaneous removed? Yet. For 1.75 seconds the structure you claim had to have all resistance removed like Hulsey making columns disappear fell slower than free fall? The structure was offering resistance when you claim all the resistance had to be removed to start the collapse?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join