You Can’t Handle the 9/11 Truth

reply to post by exponent




The 9/11 Truth that can not be handled.

MOD NOTE

Please review the following link:

One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.

reply to post by exponent

The initial failure in WTC7 was not symmetrical, the only symmetrical aspect was the final global collapse, which occurs many seconds after initial failures.

Many seconds.... hahaha

How many exactly?

The collapse was not at 'free fall speed'. It fell at free fall acceleration over only 8 storeys

What can make it possible for 8 stories of free fall acceleration ?

Originally posted by maxella1
Many seconds.... hahaha

How many exactly?

Approximately 8 seconds.

What can make it possible for 8 stories of free fall acceleration ?

Simultaneous failure of the majority of structural support over a large enough area to reduce the resistive force. It'd have to be a pretty significant quantity of the height too but it obviously depends on the physical geometry.

reply to post by exponent


That's why it wasn't a "symmetrical" collapse right? (that's a joke btw).

What other stories do you have about WTC 7?

How did this universal instantaeous "intitial collapse" happen? Column 79?

Feel free to quote from that NIST report you love to refer to without citing. Let me help you out:

Roll the cartoon!!



Wow that looks exactly like the collapse of WTC 7

(sane people will not my sarcasm).

Those living in a fantasy world will watch the above video with glazed eyes like the dude in Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket -- eyes turned up and inwards, drooling.

I find it fascinating how some people rationalise events in their minds, and then somehow convince themselves it's true against all apposing common sense.

'The 'initiation' wasn't symmetrical but the 'global collapse' was.'

That statement is correct. What baffles me is how anyone can think that somehow proves the collapse was caused by fire alone.

The 'initiation', the collapse of the penthouse, or in other words the buildings central columns.

What do they do in an 'implosion' demolition to make the outer walls fall inwards?

Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

How Building Implosions Work

Why do they make the sides fall inwards? So the majority of the building falls into it's own footprint minimizing damage to surrounding structures. As I said before, the outer walls being on top of the rest of the collapsed building is the definition of 'in it's own footprint'.

Did that happen to WTC 7? Yes it did...









If what happened to WTC 7 was normal for a natural building collapse, then why did the idea of 'implosion' demolition ever even have been thought of? Why go to all that trouble?

reply to post by maxella1


So here's the pdf NIST slide show with the hypothesis of over 6 seconds of unobservable "initial collapse" before the Penthouse collapses

The only thing missing from the slide show is the actual reality of the collapse shown in video -- but there is a slide of the video that remains unshown!

Oh -- computer animation versus video of actual collapse?

I'd go for computer animation any time! (For those living in a fantasy world please note my sarcasm).

Right and it wasn't a "blast" because according to NIST it would have to be a "blast" of column 79 and that would have been a very loud "blast" that witnesses would have heard -- which they didn't therefore it wasn't a "blast."

Notice the lovely circular reasoning. It was "column 79" from fire. Therefore a "blast" had to also take out column 79. Since that did not happen it was then fire.

haha.

reply to post by exponent

Simultaneous failure of the majority of structural support over a large enough area to reduce the resistive force. It'd have to be a pretty significant quantity of the height too but it obviously depends on the physical geometry.

Asymmetrical interior collapse managed to simultaneously take out the majority of structural support and reduce the resistive force symmetrically...

Wow that's deep....

reply to post by AfterInfinity

the truth could be anything, be ABOUT anything, depending on how you look at it.

yep it can be about anything but it doesn't have to be about what you want it to be about..

I'm not here to share what I know, I want to learn what the "informed" members have to say on the subject.

That's a brilliant plan-- I won't share what I know but will get pissed if others don't tell me what I want to know...

Revelation 9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Anyone think the infinity pools are symbolic of the bottomless pit? Not to mention the symbolism of destroying the two towers, and replacing them with the One World Trade Center (NWO). The justification for entering the M.E. and insane funding of the MIC, the erosion of freedoms, WTC7, the announcement of trillions $ missing the day before etc. It's just really hard to accept the OS and all the coincidences that come with it.

reply to post by OMsk3ptic




Yeah this book is a must-read. No interviews yet with the author?

No Amazon reviews yet!

Amazon will have this item on September 24 for about $16.00-17.00. My copy is scheduled for delivery September 27.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


You have selected the wrong video. This is a no damage candidate.

You claim to have done your research and know what you're talking about, but you don't even know which video is the video of actual conditions, and which is experimental.

Why should anyone take your claims seriously?

Originally posted by maxella1
Asymmetrical interior collapse managed to simultaneously take out the majority of structural support and reduce the resistive force symmetrically...

Wow that's deep....

Indeed, it's almost like there was a central braced frame that provided the main axial and moment resistance for WTC7. Almost like there was a very clear sequence of failures (local bay -> column 79 -> penthouse to ground level -> braced frame -> global collapse) and good evidence through careful analysis of the videos (window break sequence timed extremely well, slow acceleration to freefall) etc.

If you want to read more details of the actual physical motions of the building then femr2 and others do some very interesting work. Unfortunately it really doesn't support controlled demolition theories to any significant degree as they detect building movement earlier than anyone else has. Way before the global collapse initiates and with no evidence of controlled explosions.

reply to post by exponent


What ever you do -- please don't post any links to any evidence. (for those living in a fantasy world please note my sarcasm here).

Oh but if you do want to show the "real" video animation then by all means. Please show the evidence that you claim exists! You say there's a video that is the "real" -- oxymoronic "animation"? haha.

Go ahead -- bring it on! We're all waiting!! There were also flaws in NIST’s computer simulations, including its impact simulation, its fire loading simulation, its temperature mapping simulation, its thermal/structural component simulations, and its global simulation. pdf By Eric Douglas, R.A.

Oh I get it - you've asked me a question -- to read the NIST report -- and whenever I provide NIST information you say -- nope that's not right!

So you've asked me a question - but you secretly already know the answer! And if I don't give you the right answer then you get to say --

nope that's not right!!

Wow how fun for you!! But don't tell us the answer because then we might know it's like the man behind the curtain in the wizard of OZ. haha.

I'm sure people love when you ask questions but secretly know the answer but won't give the answer. That's just so much fun.

That's a great strategy for providing information on a forum for information exchange. You sure can keep a secret about the evidence from NIST.

Ah but then as you demonstrated -- a negative can't be disproven.

So we have a negative - a secret "initial collapse" -- and it's great story -- this "negative imaginary realm."

Just hold by that negative reality and cling to it -- and guess what -- it can't be disproven because it's entirely fabricated. Well not entirely -- I mean you are describing the actual building structure -- and that indeed is very impressive.



So there you go -- AlienScientist proves that the NIST fire animation is wrong for floors 11 to 13. NIST didn't consider nano-thermite even though the corrosion of the columns before the collapse was recommended to be investigated by FEMA and it's against fire investigation protocal to not consider this. NFPA 921, Section 1832 and Section 1924. NIST has dismissed the pools of molten iron reported by several sources.

Why the NIST report on WTC7 is Unscientific

So NIST says they've discovered a new type of progressive collapse -- by fire! WTC 7 was the first known example in the world! Now consider the other two new types of collapse - WTC 1 and 2. What a coincidence!

NIST left us with only some vague statements about a few sagging floors suddenly destroying two hundred super-strong perimeter columns and forty core columns. But since sagging floors do not weigh more than non-sagging floors, it is difficult to see how this might occur, especially so uniformly. NIST claimed the perimeter columns saw increased loads of between 0 and 25% due to the damage, but it never reconciled this with the original claim that these columns could resist 2000% increases in live load. And the outward-buckling theory, suggested by Thornton, was changed again to inward buckling---apparently the forces involved were never well defined. Additionally, NIST suggested that the documents that would support testing of the steel components, along with documents containing Skilling's jet-fuel-fire analysis, could not be found.26 Ultimately, NIST failed to give any explanation for the dynamics of the towers as they fell, about how and why they dropped like rocks in free-fall. For both buildings, NIST simply stated that "once the upper building section began to move downwards . . ., global collapse ensued," as if just saying so was enough.27 As for WTC7, NIST as of yet has not elaborated on its "working collapse hypothesis," which was vaguely presented in June 2004.28 The bottom line is that, after more than four years, it is still impossible for the government even to begin to explain the primary events that drive this War on Terrorism.

Propping Up the War on Terror Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories KEVIN RYAN March 28, 2006

reply to post by exponent

Based on very favorable assumptions for achieving a fast fall, including ignoring resistance due to intact steel columns, I could only get the building to fall in about 8.3 seconds, whereas the observed roof-fall time is approximately 6.5 seconds. The problem is the large number of floors and conservation of momentum in a collision. Some of the “official” explanations about progressive collapse are evocative but they do not explain the difficulty in the rapid fall of the building along with what is evidently taking place when the video of the falling building is observed.

A short computation Building 7 was 576 feet (176 m) tall. The speed of a ball bearing falling from the top of this building to the ground is therefore the solution to the equation which yields v = 192. Thus the time to fall to the ground would be It was observed that the building collapsed in just 6.5 seconds.1 Could this possibly happen as a result of pancaking floors collapsing from the top down? We show here that if the collisions are inelastic, such a scenario is impossible. Assume there is not support for any floor when it is hit by the collapsing floors from above. Thus it is like the floor is just floating in the air when it is hit but it is stationary. To make things general, let h denote the spacing between floors and let there be n > 2 of these floors. Let vk be the velocity of the conglomeration of k of the floors just before it hits the (k+1)st floor and let denote the velocity of the larger conglomeration of floors immediately after the
k 1 v + collision. Then by conservation of momentum so 2 1 32 576 2 v = gh = × ( 192 ) 2 576 = 6 seconds. ( )
1 1

WTC 7: A short computation Kenneth L. Kuttler Professor of Mathematics

So anyway let's roll some more computer animation shall we? -- Got any good ones from NIST? Anyone?

This FEMA report, in fact, increased the mystery, thanks to an appendix written by three professors at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. This appendix reported that a piece of steel from WTC 7 had melted so severely that it had gaping holes in it, making it look like a piece of Swiss cheese.6 James Glanz, pointing out that the fires in the building could not have been hot enough to melt steel, referred to this discovery as “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”7

Sorry that's real world - not NIST animation.

Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,” with the result that scientists working for NIST “lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.’”11 Referring in particular to NIST’s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget—“an arm of the Executive Office of the President,” which “had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST’s] work.”12

See it's not that it's animated - it's that you gotta show the correct animation!

reply to post by exponent

Indeed, it's almost like there was a central braced frame that provided the main axial and moment resistance for WTC7. Almost like there was a very clear sequence of failures (local bay -> column 79 -> penthouse to ground level -> braced frame -> global collapse) and good evidence through careful analysis of the videos (window break sequence timed extremely well, slow acceleration to freefall) etc.

Was there a central braces frame or was it almost like there was one?

Unfortunately it really doesn't support controlled demolition theories to any significant degree as they detect building movement earlier than anyone else has. Way before the global collapse initiates and with no evidence of controlled explosions.

How would that prove that there were no bombs in the building?

Originally posted by exponent

Molten steel was not created, it exists only as speculation. The most likely candidates for glowing flowing liquid in the towers are aluminium, lead and glass. No test was ever done to indicate molten steel was present in any significant quantity, no evidence exists of pools of solidified steel, and no temperature measurement indicates in excess of 1250°C.

Finally, the fact that “molten steel was also found at WTC 7” was added by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., which was involved in the clean-up.37

The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False1 By David Ray Griffin

Another study was carried out by the US Geological Survey, the purpose of which was to aid the “identification of WTC dust components.” Besides also finding iron particles, the scientists involved in this study found that molybdenum had been melted. This finding was especially significant, because this metal does not melt until it reaches 2,623°C (4,753°F).25

No Girder Shear Studs:

A steel beam on the 13th floor, NIST claims, caused a steel girder attached to Column 79 to break loose. Having lost its support, Column 79 failed, and this failure started a chain reaction, in which all 82 of the building’s steel columns failed.51 Without getting into the question of whether this is even remotely plausible, let us just focus on the question: Why did that girder fail? It failed, NIST said, because it was not connected to the floor slab with sheer studs. NIST wrote: In WTC 7, no studs were installed on the girders. Floor beams . . . had shear studs, but the girders that supported the floor beams did not have shear studs. This point was crucial to NIST’s answer to a commonly asked question: Why did fire cause WTC 7 to collapse, when fire had never before brought down steel-framed high-rise buildings, some of which had had much bigger and longer-lasting fires? NIST’s answer was: differences in design. One of those crucial differences, NIST stated repeatedly, was “the absence of [girder] shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint.” But this was a fabrication on NIST’s part. How can we know this? All we need to do is to look at NIST’s Interim Report on WTC 7, which it had published back in 2004, before it had developed its theory of girder failure. This report stated that girders as well as the beams had been attached to the floor by means of shear studs.52 We have here as clear a case of fabrication as one will see, with NIST simply making up a fact in order to meet the needs of its new theory.

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
What ever you do -- please don't post any links to any evidence. (for those living in a fantasy world please note my sarcasm here).

Heaven forfend that you are forced to do your own research instead of copying and pasting anything you find that you think supports your case.

Oh but if you do want to show the "real" video animation then by all means. Please show the evidence that you claim exists! You say there's a video that is the "real" -- oxymoronic "animation"? haha.

You admit exactly what I am accusing you of right here. You don't know which videos are which, you are just pasting things from websites that appear to agree with you. It is not my responsibility to educate you as to the events of that day, especially as you are so arrogantly proclaiming your knowledge at the same time as ignorance.

I have no interest in discussing with someone capable of such acts. If you have any actual questions then I'll answer them, but you must source your own arguments rather than just copying pdfs and paragraphs from whatever site appears to support you.

Originally posted by maxella1
Was there a central braces frame or was it almost like there was one?

There was.

How would that prove that there were no bombs in the building?

You can't prove a negative, but you can show that the initial movements of the building occurred before the penthouse collapse and slowly gathered steam. This is the opposite of the mechanism claimed before now for controlled demolition.

When the theories were young and people were trying to tie controlled demolition to the towers, they came up with the 'sudden onset' argument. It essentially states that WTC7 must be a controlled demolition, because its collapse occurred suddenly. More detailed video analysis has shown that physical movements are detectable some time before, and slowly build. Logically they contradict, but in reality of course you can't prove a negative.

You can't prove a negative, so I wonder what was the deal with this guy:

"It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building," said Mr. Hamburger, chief structural engineer for ABS Consulting in Oakland, Calif. Upon learning that no bombs had been detonated, "I was very surprised," said Mr. Hamburger. The buildings "certainly did not do as well as I would have hoped."

911research.wtc7.net...


That was printed on September 19th, just 8 days after the event. So what evidence was gathered in 8 days that proved "no bombs had been detonated". All those paint cans, fire extinguishers, transformers and cars exploding and yet they could determine all of it was incidental and that "no bombs had been detonated" within 8 days. Rescue efforts hadn't even been completed, yet they still found that "no bombs had been detonated." Amazing.

Who is this Mr. Hamburger?

He is "one of the four top forensic engineers commissioned to perform a postmortem on the World Trade Center's collapse."

These engineers must have been really good because, according to the Wall Street Journal article, they all ready knew how the buildings collapsed EVEN BEFORE THEY INVESTIGATED.

"By now it is accepted wisdom that the Twin Towers collapse was inevitable -- the result of extraordinary trauma followed by extraordinary fire."

So a negative was proven just 8 days after the event, and all the rest was clearly written. Talk about stacking the deck in favor of one conclusion.