The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

a reply to: Jesushere

You

This is false a good number of scientists with impeccable credentials have studied the red/grey chips.

Streamlined argument.....
The paper was inappropriately peer reviewed. Is that false?

Harrit never completed the discovery process for the paper by having independent confirmation of thermite in his dust. Is that false?

The paper contains no results of tests that would confirm the chips in Harrit’s samples supported a thermite reaction. Is that false?

The paper never gives the formula believed to be the thermite in the dust. Is that false?

So how can it conclude thermite or super thermite without defining what was found. You cannot have a low ignition temperature, then create some undefined mythical chemical term to create the outcome you wanted. The paper is junk science. Get over it.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Jesushere

Carrington fire test proved this can't happen in a steel framed building. The heated a steel beam attached to a girder with shears studs and stiffeners and did not collapse.

Can you point me to the steel beam girder test. I've only seen the truss test.

Type this in google and you find it. Direct link to it is returning an error.
Structural integrity fire test by F Wald- Authors: Wald, F.a, Simões da Silva, L.b*, Moore, D.B.c, Lennon T.c, ...

The first reported test to assess structural behaviour under fire ...

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Jesushere

They could be items dropped by people running from the scene.

People carrying life vest and seat cushions ?


You'r not very good at this.

One of your images has bank and credit cards? Are you claiming people could have not dropped them while running away from the scene?

Two towers fell in New York. WTC2 is closer to Banker Trust building..

The hijacker who passport was found was on flight 11 that hit WTC1

a reply to: Jesushere

And they didn’t go back to pick them up in the calm between the jet impacts and building collapse. There is no photos of people standing on the street corners observing the building fires before the first collapse?

a reply to: Jesushere

There are no photos of people stopping to examine the jet wreckage? There are no videos of people walking among the jet wreckage?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

Carrington fire test proved this can't happen in a steel framed building.

Then why does code require steel frame building to be insulated?

You just need steel girders and steel shear bolts? You really don’t see the fallacy of your thoughts.

And when is a beam a girder, and a girder a beam?

And there is actually real debate what the drawings really show. What was typical, what columns got what, and which columns are atypical. You do realize lots of the drawings were destroyed in the buildings. And the acquired drawings used were hand me downs left overs. They would not denote any changes from years of remodeling.

How does any of those items stop steel from expanding at different rates, prevent strain from uneven heating, prevent steel from expanding when heated, prevent steel from misshaping and prevent strain when the steel has no room to expand, prevent the steel from weakening as it increases in temperature, and cannot prevent additional stain and contraction as the steel cools. And long columns will buckle as they lose lateral support?

Thread crapping by you. I think you have a medical disorder because you keep saying I said this and have not.

What does this even mean

These are your thoughts please reply to my posts correctly?

"Do you just need steel girders and steel shear bolts? You really don’t see the fallacy of your thoughts"

"And when is a beam a girder, and a girder a beam? What does that even mean did it make more sense in your head?

There is no debate about the drawings. There also photographic evidence showing column 79, it's steel beam and girder during construction. Shear studs, stiffeners and plate are present and accounted for.



Their also documentation to confirm this.
Frankel Steel Limited (1985). Erection Drawings, 7 World Trade Center
Frankel Steel Limited (1985a). Fabrication Shop Drawings, 7 World Trade Center

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You keep spouting 4000f and 5000f when Harrit ignited in the DSC at 430c.

If it ignited at 430c, it’s probably not thermite. Please do tell what temperature iron oxide and aluminum burn at, and what temperature it maintains when it burns?

And I guess if it burns at 430C, it didn’t melt steel. So it wasn’t whatever Harrit found that caused the WTC to collapse.

And the paper is junk because they never gave a formula for “super thermite” they claimed they found that supposedly has a lower ignition temperature. So how can you verify what super thermite is?

And you cannot name one test they conducted that proves the paint chips could sustain a thermite reaction?

This is false a good number of scientists with impeccable credentials have studied the red/grey chips.

That is why they had to use a hack pay to play journal. Couldn’t get published elsewhere. Had to use people that helped put together the paper as peer reviewers.
And bypassed the paper’s referee? And they never did complete the process with independent verification by independent labs.


And you cannot name any people independent of Harrit’s paper that found thermite.

And forensic testing proved their was no free aluminum for a thermite reaction in the WTC dust.

Again please stop with your lies? Professor Harrit never said it was thermite his stated position was its a substance called nano-thermite.

That it ignited at 430c is proof was nano-thermite. It reacted just like thermite but at a lower temp. The particle was also sized in the same range 100nm ( 100 nanometers) that means the thermite could only have been produced in a lab.

A calorimeter cannot lie. This test proved the explosive nature of the red/grey chips. Dr Milette never did this test so his work is unfinished or was trying to sell a lie to people on the JREF forum.

Calorimeter (DSC test) You see the red/chips comparison to conventional explosives and energy released.


This also false Chemist Mark Basile was an independent who came onboard and requested a sample of the red/grey chips to test. He confirmed what Harrit found.

neutronflux This image highlights the issues with freefall for WTC7.

Between 1.75 second and 4 seconds, NIST claims there was no resistance across the width of the building there as it came down.


When you look at their model you clearly see this never happened. Right wall deformation is a giveaway they are lying.

a reply to: Jesushere

One, your photo is not labeled column 79.

Two, you did nothing to address the confusion of which columns where labeled as typical in the drawing. And which columns where drawn as atypical.

Three. If you could prevent fires related collapse with hardware, why bother with insulation.

Four. Stiffing structures with more steel, or placing items that prevent thermal expansion often causes more harm and strain than good.

Five. The items you mentioned do not prevent steel from expanding when heated, often will result in more stress on the members boxed in while expanding, do not prevent misshaping of steel under strain, do not prevent steel from weakening when heated, and do not prevent strain and contraction when the steel cools.

Six, you cannot produce any physical evidence of cut steel columns.

a reply to: Jesushere

Only for WTC 7’s exterior columns, correct.

NIST also claims all the inter columns where buckled before the facade began to collapse. Is that false.

Now you need to produce cut columns to show the resistance of WTC 7’s exterior columns where cut floor by floor. Or do you have some other mythical collapse mechanism?

a reply to: Jesushere

And please quote NIST there was no resistance. NIST states the resistance was negligible.

Anymore false arguments by you?

a reply to: Jesushere

Funny you claim NIST is unreliable, and did not do a proper study? Yet you use and cite there material without questioning? As their facts are gospel in documents they say is there best theories? But don’t like they determined fire related collapse? When there are at least two other studies that determined fire related collapse?

neutronflux I cropped the picture to upload it. You find this NIST official image more here.
www.slideshare.net...

NIST claims this about the shear studs.

Quote "The source documents used for developing the structural analysis models of WTC 7 were the structural drawings prepared by the structural engineer of record (Irwin G. Cantor, Structural Engineers) and the erection drawings prepared by the steel fabricator and erector (Frankel Steel Limited). Neither the structural drawing for typical floors 8 through 20 (Structural Drawing S-8) nor the erection drawings for floors 10 through 13 (Erection Drawings E10/11 and E12/13) show any studs on the girders. A structural drawing showing modifications to Floor 10 (Structural Drawing S-8-10) to accommodate increased floor loads in certain areas did indicate shear studs for the girders in the affected areas, though the additional load was not identified on the drawing"

This is not true the truth movement received the Frankel construction drawings by FOIA request in 2012-13. The drawings clearly show there were 30 shear studs along on this girder at column 79.. It truly unbelievable Skeptics believe NIST claim at column 79 there were no shear studs connections. Exactly how would the concrete floor and the steel beam and girder maintain integrity and strength if there were no shear studs? Why would a Carpenter bother using nails to secure a roof if these connections are of no importance?



Steel framed building doesn't collapse. Never had till 9/11. Sceptics falsely claim some buildings are steel framed they are not they are composites buildings.

Point 4 Jesus you really don't know anything, do you. I wonder does

waypastvne agree with this position?

Point 5. Sagging and some deformation is natural in a high temp fire. But the Carrington Fire test showed a steel rise building does not collapse from fire. They got the fire up to 1200c using a gas burner and did not collapse. Even at that temp, the steel beam was not melting through.

WTC7 steel has a hole cut out sections. What temp would you need to cause that? FEMA claims 1000c heat+ sulphur.

NIST no fire exceeded 600 c in WTC7

a reply to: Jesushere

neutronflux I cropped the picture to upload it. You find this NIST official image more here.

You added the text stiffener to a grainy picture that is hard to see what is really there. Mr. “I don’t see the 55” inward bowing ” of the tower.

The picture you added is a marked up in process layout drawing. Can you post the actual set of finalized drawings that depict the actual column connections details?

There is still honest debate on what hardware was included on column 79.

Finally.

One, the WTC from damage from an earlier fire had to replace buckled columns.

Two. The Madrid Windsor tower had its steel frame collapse above the 17th floor from fire.

Three. The Plasco building collapse in Tehran was a complete collapse of a steel frame high rise due to fire.

Four. The São Paulo building collapse of 26 floors was another fire induced collapse.

Five. There is a history of bridge and steel framed warehouses collapsing relating to fire.

So

But the Carrington Fire test showed a steel rise building does not collapse from fire.

Is a right out falsehood.

Why do you think fire insulation is required by code.

And WTC 1, 2 and 7 had significant building damage. With WTC 1 and 2 having significant portions of their load barring columns removed. What do you not understand the structures where compromised even before floor to floor fires.

a reply to: Jesushere

WTC7 steel has a hole cut out sections. What temp would you need to cause that? FEMA claims 1000c heat+ sulphur.

No. You posted a picture of corrosion from sitting in the smoldering rubble pile with no proof the metal was heated to the temperatures thermite burns at. With no proof of cutting. With no proof it is an exterior column. Or any proof it was a load bearing column.

a reply to: Jesushere

So, you have no actual photos or video of WTC 7 columns being cut during collapse. Or any physical evidence of WTC 7 columns cut floor by floor to remove resistance. With no proof such a CD system would survive fires and the damage sustained from WTC 1 and 2 collapsing.

Dr Hulsey has updated people on his research. He revealed that a number of papers will be released in one to two months. They will be sent to peer review by respected journals in Europe. His unsure he can do in America due to the politics of the event.

He also said he has computer modelled the actual collapse and will show it to the public. NIST must be in fear now that Hulsey can replicate the conditions of the actual collapse. Everything has been tested and verified.

soundcloud.com...

originally posted by: Jesushere

One of your images has bank and credit cards? Are you claiming people could have not dropped them while running away from the scene?

The cards belong to Judith Larocque she was a passenger on AA11 the same Flt Satam was on.

It was found on top of the Bankers Trust building along with seat cushions and life vest from AA11.



So, no she didn't drop it running away.



This photo shows a seat cushion from AA11 on Albany street. The street south of the Bankers Trust building. Thats the street the passport was found on.




Photo showing life vest and seat cushions from AA11 found on top of the Bankers Trust building.






All of these items did exactly what you describe here.

So are you claiming the passport went from one end of the building to the other exited out took a flight in the air for god knows how many feet and landed on a street near the Banker Trust building?

waypastvne Smithsonian said this stuff was found in the debris. Nothing about finding it near banker trusts building. You trying to convince yourself items got all the way over to banker trust building when flight 11 hit. What's more likely items were found in the dust after the buildings fell down.

originally posted by: Jesushere
Dr Hulsey has updated people on his research. He revealed that a number of papers will be released in one to two months. They will be sent to peer review by respected journals in Europe. His unsure he can do in America due to the politics of the event.

He also said he has computer modelled the actual collapse and will show it to the public. NIST must be in fear now that Hulsey can replicate the conditions of the actual collapse. Everything has been tested and verified.

soundcloud.com...

Below is what is posted on the actual WTC 7 Evaluation Site as of 9-7-2018 12:05

Dr. Leroy Hulsey gave the following update on March 27, 2018:

To all who have been following the University of Alaska Fairbanks study on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7:

First, I would like to thank you for your interest in and support of the study.

We had planned to release our findings for public review early this year. However, research often takes unexpected turns, and the more complicated the problem, the more difficult it is to predict the completion date. We are still in the process of studying hypothetical collapse mechanisms and attempting to simulate the building’s failure. Our goal is to determine, with a high degree of confidence, the sequence of failures that may have caused the observed collapse and to rule out those mechanisms that could not have caused the observed collapse.

We will release our findings for public review when we are sure we fully understand the mechanisms that are likely to have caused the observed collapse and those that clearly did not occur and could not have caused the observed collapse. We expect to publish our findings later this year, but we will refrain from naming a completion date, given the unpredictability of the research process.

Again, we thank you for your interest in our study and we appreciate your patience as we strive to bring a truly scientific answer to the important question of how WTC 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001.

Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey

Chair, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

University of Alaska Fairbanks