The last WTC column, Column No. 1,001 B of 2 World Trade Center

I found it odd that supposedly nukes or thermite destroyed all the structural steel that was allegedly whisked away to China?

But yet I learned something new today. Another fact I never see mentioned by conspiracists. Column No. 1,001 B. The last standing WTC column removed.

Some how with all the underground nukes, under ground detonations, China Syndromes, thermite, rivers of molten steel, there was a last standing vertical column removed from the remains of the WTC foundation with an intact slurry wall as its backdrop? And intact foundation where the column to to be cut away?

And somehow this large 58 ton piece of steel was not too radioactive to handle despite supposed China syndrome, remained unmelted despite the supposed thermite, remained unmelted despite the rivers of supposed molten metal, remained standing despite the supposed underground nuke that fractured the WTC foundation , and was not shipped off to China?

And was cool enough to spray paint on, and tape pictures to.

And this was the last remaining piece of foundation column standing? So there was more than one not vaporized by supposed nukes or supposed thermite that had to be cut off from the supposed fractured WTC foundation?

Last Steel Column From the Ground Zero Rubble Is Cut Down

www.nytimes.com...

Column No. 1,001 B of 2 World Trade Center, the last symbolic piece of the unfathomable recovery effort, was cut down at 8:17 p.m. yesterday by operating engineers, ironworkers, teamsters, laborers and dock builders.
The 58-ton piece of steel from the south tower was laid on a flatbed truck, wrapped in black muslin and an American flag, and tucked in a corner of the pit. It will be taken out tomorrow morning as part of the ceremony marking the end of the recovery effort at ground zero. The world will participate by television

The Last Column is Removed from the WTC
m.youtube.com...

The Last Column: A Symbol of Resilience
m.youtube.com...

Final steel beam removed from Ground Zero
m.youtube.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

No reasonable person has ever claimed the WTC was brought down by nukes.
That you feel compelled to try to refute something that's nonsensical and believe that because something that clearly didn't happen, didn't happen somehow validates the OS or negates reasonable questions about the OS just shows that you shouldn't be taken seriously.

Your thread is bad and you should feel bad.

originally posted by: neutronflux
And this was the last remaining piece of foundation column standing? So there was more than one not vaporized by supposed nukes or supposed thermite that had to be cut off from the supposed fractured WTC foundation?

If demolition was the cause of how the towers collapsed then how the demolition was done is a secondary consideration. Just stop for moment and consider this! The video evidence on 9/11 we ALL saw implies demolition. By the laws of physics there had to be resistance as the building fell. But the buildings fell and the speed of acceleration. How it was done is irrelevant if people are completely unwilling to accept the possibility.



The official story is the real conspiracy theory. There is absolutely NO credible scientific accepted evidence on how jets flying into the tower can cause the buildings to collapse at near the acceleration of gravity speed. IT'S PURE GOVERNMENT MANUFACTURED PROPAGANDA WITH NO BASIS IN SCIENCE.

NIST never published their computer models for verification, discussion, and eventual updates to our building codes. That is just a big a crime as what the terrorist did because without good science there's no way to prevent jets from taking down other buildings in the future.

Science is science. You can't lie about nature's behavior for political benefit.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: neutronflux

No reasonable person has ever claimed the WTC was brought down by nukes.
That you feel compelled to try to refute something that's nonsensical and believe that because something that clearly didn't happen, didn't happen somehow validates the OS or negates reasonable questions about the OS just shows that you shouldn't be taken seriously.

Actually, if you are willing to endure the effort, this 5 hour video makes a pretty good case for nukes:



Nobody makes money from making a 5 hour video. So what is motivating this effort?

But it makes no difference how it was done. Since the laws of physics were suspended in 9/11, superstitious beliefs rule the day.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: neutronflux

No reasonable person has ever claimed the WTC was brought down by nukes.
That you feel compelled to try to refute something that's nonsensical and believe that because something that clearly didn't happen, didn't happen somehow validates the OS or negates reasonable questions about the OS just shows that you shouldn't be taken seriously.

Your thread is bad and you should feel bad.

You might want to start with this thread here at ATS

This will answer 99% of your questions about 9/11.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

On people that still push nukes used at the WTC.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Other than there were columns still standing, and not vaporized. No radiation above background. No contamination. The slurry wall still intact. No seismic evidence. The bedrock foundation was still intact, and standing columns had to be cut away. No indication of a shockwave and over pressure event from a nuclear blast.

a reply to: neutronflux

It's the same endless discussions. People ignore the evidence. Or say the evidence is not valid.

Regardless, if you are going to claim jets are capable of bringing down steel cement buildings at near the acceleration of gravity speeds, then such extraordinary claims will require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on the people making the extraordinary claims!!

If you can't provide such evidence, then don't question someone else's theories based on real evidence. Put up or shut up!

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: dfnj2015

Other than there were columns still standing, and not vaporized. No radiation above background. No contamination. The slurry wall still intact. No seismic evidence. The bedrock foundation was still intact, and standing columns had to be cut away. No indication of a shockwave and over pressure event from a nuclear blast.

That's all good logic. But I can't consider it until I get an explanation on how the buildings fell so fast. Sorry, I'm not interesting in your denial beliefs.

yeah it is very unusual that a beam didn’t fall down if it was nukes or thermite.
You know what else I think is also unusual, a whole building that wasn’t hit by a plane, built next to the two buildings that were, just falling down out of sympathy


That third building, nothing, no fire, no plane, no Nike’s or thermite, it just collapsed in on itself
You ask why a beam didn’t fall and I am asking why a whole building did

a reply to: dfnj2015

You just show you don’t understand the actual facts of the WTC.

Start with this.

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...

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.

The floor trusses tried to expand while being heated by fires in areas of the jet impacts. The floor tresses boxed in by stable outer and core columns could not expand in length. The floor trusses were forced to bow downward. Metal will expand in length when heated, even if it has to change shape.

Upon cooling, the bowed columns contacted. The pulling action pulled in on the outer columns. The pulling bowed in the outer columns. There are reports of the towers starting to structurally fail and they starting to lean minutes before collapse. This is also on video. Especially made evident for WTC 1 by it’s antenna.

Below in the link is a video of WTC 2’s inward bowing that initiated collapse.

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

The bowing became great enough, the strain of holding up the 29 upper stories was no longer transferred to the foundation. The stain of the load caught up in the bowing lead to buckling and collapse.

The buckling was in or near the same floors hit by the jets.

For WTC 2, the buckling caused the up 29 floors to fall into the building below.

Before and during the buckling, there is no audio evidence of a blast with the energy to cut steel. There is no ejection of shredded steel. No indication of a shockwave from a detonation with the force to cut steel columns.

The falling mass stripped or sheared floor connections from the vertical columns. The vertical columns were left standing in the wake of the collapse floor system. The vertical/core fell after the collapse of floor system from toppling from loss of lateral support.

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers

app.aws.org...

There is a reasonable real world explanation based on actual video evidence, science, and study of failured structural components that does not involve planted pyrotechnics.

While you have an explanation that ignores video evidence, uses myths, ignoring facts right on video, and ignoring errors of scale.

There is video of columns buckling. Please post or link to video of columns being cut?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
yeah it is very unusual that a beam didn’t fall down if it was nukes or thermite.
You know what else I think is also unusual, a whole building that wasn’t hit by a plane, built next to the two buildings that were, just falling down out of sympathy


That third building, nothing, no fire, no plane, no Nike’s or thermite, it just collapsed in on itself
You ask why a beam didn’t fall and I am asking why a whole building did

You talking about buildings at the WTC with known deficient fire insulation. WTC 7 that had wide spread fires on at least eight floors, and damaged from the collapse of the towers. WTC 7 collapsed quiet enough there are people talking on video where other people had to point out the building was collapsing to them? WTC 7 whose collapse is contributed to thermal stress that caused floor connections to shear. The internal progressive east to west collapse that caused a whole penthouse to disappear below the roofline before the facade began to fall?

a reply to: watchitburn

Or just wait for people claiming there is a valid argument for nukes in this thread......

With 911 logic is the one thing best thrown away for starters.and the
All three buildings went down despite the, it never should have happened meme...NIST says there were no molten streams of metal, when there were, (remember molten metal did not fit their frame of reference as to why the Twin Towers collapsed)

WTC7 fell like a stone, something that dodgy NIST had to rewrite their glorious collapse scenario to accommodate for.

A witness now passed, who insisted that WTC7 damage was inflicted by explosions, and was villified by authorities and some low reporting by elements in the BBC at the time, who had to go back and rerun their villification on that person as if to validate what they had already said.

Now a Johnny-come-lately wants to do a ha,ha...not particularly on nukes I might say, but to enforce the idea that it was all done by those aircraft and nothing else.

So how did WTC 7 fall, serious question that I can never find a proper answer for?

something is off about 911
idk about nukes thermite or anything

the buildings where built to handle a 707 yet a slightaly larger plane took it down i think a plane even smaller than a 707 would of taken it down

why was it rated for a 707 when the fire from the fule of most planes would do the same thing

bet it would cost someone a whole lot of money if word got out its easy to take them down ... well easyer than others

a reply to: smurfy

molten streams of metal

Metal does not indicative iron. You mean like lead, copper, silver, aluminum, mixed with solder and molten plastics.

How was there pure molten anything?

Please cite where the pile was hot enough to support molten steel.

The pile was cooled with water which causes violent steam releases when mixed with molten steel.

There was no frozen pools of metal around the bases of the columns that were still standing in the bedrock at the last stages of cleanup. If there was rivers of molten metal, it had to pool and cool somewhere.

a reply to: smurfy

WTC7 fell like a stone, something that dodgy NIST had to rewrite their glorious collapse scenario to accommodate for.

False. Again...

WTC 7 underwent a progressive east to west internal collapse, the penthouse totally disappeared below the roofline, then the facade collapsed.

a reply to: smurfy

Please produce evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns from the video and audio evidence.

For supposed planted charges, there was no traps constructed to capture ejection steel. There should have been fragments of steel ejected at high speed.

15 years since hospital implosion tragety

www.canberratimes.com.au...

But instead, because of a series of systemic failures outlined in a 657-page report from the coroner, shrapnel was thrown more than 400m across the lake.

Katie, who had gone there with her family after church that Sunday morning, was struck in the head with a 1kg piece of steel, reportedly travelling at up to 150km a second, and died instantly.

What a real implosion looks like. Not properly contained.

Canberra Hospital Implosion 1997
m.youtube.com...

Couple Nearly Killed By A Flying Rock From Building Demolition

m.youtube.com...

a reply to: smurfy

Now a Johnny-come-lately wants to do a ha,ha...not particularly on nukes I might say, but to enforce the idea that it was all done by those aircraft and nothing else.

False argument based on false authority. What is the requirements to be able to start a tread in the 9/11 forum?

originally posted by: fusiondoe
So how did WTC 7 fall, serious question that I can never find a proper answer for?

There is only best guesses.

But there are three different studies that conclude fire related collapse.

One study is a signed deposition for a lawsuit if you want to read through it.

www.metabunk.org...

other-wtc7-investigations-aegis-insurance-v-7-world-trade-company-expert-reports.t7112/

Boils down to vertical columns of a certain width and length are only stable up to a certain height. Levels of flooring add lateral support. Thermal stress caused floor structures to shift resulting in floor connections to breaking. Parts of the floor structures separated from the vertical columns. The loss of lateral support caused the vertical columns to buckle. Once the columns buckled, they offered negligible resistance. The thermal stress may have been from damaged or deficient fire insulation. The odd angles of floor connections in WTC 7 my have added to the problems of stress.