Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

You express often gibberish. A controlled demolition/implosion sucks in the outside frame/ perimeter.

A structure can be rigged to drop in the middle to pull in a whole side.

The actual detonations/explosions don’t suck. They well explode in and outward expanding pressure wave.

The twin towers were not setup to capture or trap shrapnel. The windows were not removed other than what was damaged by the jet impacts.

Again

Katie Bender's family commemorate 20 years since Royal Canberra Hospital implosion

www.canberratimes.com.au...

Seconds after the explosion on that Sunday afternoon, Katie was was killed instantly by a steel fragment sent flying from 430 metres across the lake. It was thought to be travelling at 140km/h.

Canberra Hospital Implosion 1997

m.youtube.com...

There was no shrapnel ejected before building tilt or downward motion. No indication of a pressure transient with the force to cut steel columns.

The Bowing in is caused by a internal collapse developing inside the building.

How. The visible bowing is perpendicular to the core columns and isolated to only one or two stories. It’s quiet clear it’s from contracting floor tresses pulling. If it was from a dropped core, the shockwave of the bowing would work up the tower. Not isolated to one ore two floors.

There is no indication of charges cutting columns and kicker charges setting of to misalign columns to initiate a dropped core. There is no evidence in the video, seismic, audio evidence. No indication of shrapnel being ejected before inward movement begins.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Again...

The collapse of the Twin towers was very different than a CD. There was no evidence they were rigged for CD. The towers were not set up to capture shrapnel/splintered steel with traps and or water barrels. Windows are removed before a building is imploded.

There is no video, audio, photographic, seismic evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns. There were no obvious, awe inspiring explosions that clearly echoed about Manhattan. There is no indication of an over pressure event with a shockwave with the force to cut steel columns. There are no sounds of detonation indicative of detonations with a pressure wave with the force to cut steel columns. There was no observable ejection of shrapnel/ splintered steel before downward movement of the towers. There was no windows being blown out before downward movement of the towers. There was no shrapnel recovered from the injured. There was no shrapnel recovered from the dead / human remains. The towers started to lean before downward movement. There is no seismic evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns.

The collapse initiation was from vertical columns bowing inward. Or buckling on the side the towers leaned towards before collapse initiation.

The only similarity is fire / thermal stress caused enough failures that gravity pulled the rowers down.

You don’t consider this is an explosive event?

What's the energy level here to push steel outwards and break up concrete to dust? According to NIST the blast for controlled demolition is 130db and what happened here the energy levels are obviously lot higher.

Not if there is zero evidence of explosives setting off.

And you said “ A controlled demolition/implosion sucks in the outside frame/ perimeter.”

You need to make up your mind...

Again it’s either pressure of the collapsing floors pushing out dust. Or the outer vertical columns tumbling outward after the loss of lateral support from the floor system failures. And the building above the initial bowing and buckling falling into the building below and pushing out crap.






Again. There is zero evidence the core columns were cut. The floor system failures lead the vertical columns, and the vertical columns only tumbled after loss of later support. The twin towers did not collapse through the path of greatest resistance.

The collapse did release the potential energy of a 500,000 ton 110 story building. What was the TNT equivalent again?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Check out the top of the building. The core gone.

That’s not the actual video evidence

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Check out the top of the building. The core gone.

That’s not the actual video evidence

The steel hat truss is a pipeline tunnel. It like a crate of steel in the middle. Your grainy washed out Youtube screenshot displays only a tiny portion of it left behind. Do you not realise this hat truss was build from the ground all the way to the top.  You clear see  in your grainy photo most of its missing. 

You need lot of intensity and energy/force to break that steel hat truss apart at the top end. The evidence shows a building coming apart at the top and propelling everything inside outward at the start of the collapse. I don’t see how sagging floor trusses could pull that steel truss down and outwards?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

What are you babbling about?

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.

Now.

This is a false statement by you

Check out the top of the building. The core gone.

Did the towers do this?

A controlled demolition/implosion sucks in the outside frame/ perimeter.

(The actual detonations/explosions don’t suck. They well explode in and outward expanding pressure wave.

The twin towers were not setup to capture or trap shrapnel. The windows were not removed other than what was damaged by the jet impacts. )

Or did the towers do this?

You don’t consider this is an explosive event

You

You need lot of intensity and energy/force to break that steel hat truss apart at the top end.

Have any proof that occurred?

Collapse of the World Trade Center

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Collapse initiation


After the planes struck the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel.

As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of floors above. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards. "The ensuing loss in vertical load-carrying capacity was confined to a few storeys but extended over the entire cross section of each tower."[25] In the case of 2 WTC, the eastern face finally buckled, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. Later, the south wall of 1 WTC buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.[26]

Now back to collapse initiation

The collapse of the Twin towers was very different than a CD. There was no evidence they were rigged for CD. The towers were not set up to capture shrapnel/splintered steel with traps and or water barrels. Windows are removed before a building is imploded.

There is no video, audio, photographic, seismic evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns. There were no obvious, awe inspiring explosions that clearly echoed about Manhattan. There is no indication of an over pressure event with a shockwave with the force to cut steel columns. There are no sounds of detonation indicative of detonations with a pressure wave with the force to cut steel columns. There was no observable ejection of shrapnel/ splintered steel before downward movement of the towers. There was no windows being blown out before downward movement of the towers. There was no shrapnel recovered from the injured. There was no shrapnel recovered from the dead / human remains. The towers started to lean before downward movement. There is no seismic evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns.

The collapse initiation was from vertical columns bowing inward. Or buckling on the side the towers leaned towards before collapse initiation.

The only evidence that fits the video, seismic, physical data is fire / thermal stress caused enough failures that gravity pulled the rowers down.

neutronflux

What can you see in these pictures?

NIST explanation is the floors gaveway first (trusses supported the floors)
What i see is steel core going first (controlled demolition) and rest peeled open- taking the floors and trusses with it.





Sprandels and perimeter got removed you can see the core missing up top. An explosive event occurred in the middle.

NIST explantation doesn't make sense when you see how isolated the floor trusses are from the hat truss. Everything got pulled in with the explosions went off and everything inside got pushed out then in pieces.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You said this.

You need lot of intensity and energy/force to break that steel hat truss apart at the top end.

There is video of the portion of the tower above the inward bowing /buckling /collapse falling into the building below.

Do you have proof the “ steel hat truss apart at the top end“ broke to initiate collapse.

By your rambling. I’ll take that as a no.

I don’t care about NIST.

There is no proof “ You need lot of intensity and energy/force to break that steel hat truss apart at the top end“ caused collapse initiation.

And there is zero proof planted pyrotechnics brought down the towers.

Again..

The collapse of the Twin towers was very different than a CD. There was no evidence they were rigged for CD. The towers were not set up to capture shrapnel/splintered steel with traps and or water barrels. Windows are removed before a building is imploded.

There is no video, audio, photographic, seismic evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns. There were no obvious, awe inspiring explosions that clearly echoed about Manhattan. There is no indication of an over pressure event with a shockwave with the force to cut steel columns. There are no sounds of detonation indicative of detonations with a pressure wave with the force to cut steel columns. There was no observable ejection of shrapnel/ splintered steel before downward movement of the towers. There was no windows being blown out before downward movement of the towers. There was no shrapnel recovered from the injured. There was no shrapnel recovered from the dead / human remains. The towers started to lean before downward movement. There is no seismic evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns.

The collapse initiation was from vertical columns bowing inward. Or buckling on the side the towers leaned towards before collapse initiation.

The only evidence that fits the video, seismic, physical data is fire / thermal stress caused enough failures that gravity pulled the rowers down.

originally posted by: neutronflux


The collapse of the Twin towers was very different than a CD.

Intact structures that lose all support within seconds cannot happen unless by a CD.

It's simply impossible to make intact structures below any upper damage/fires, lose support within a millisecond sequence, and if you wish to believe in such magical, cartoon-like physics, it's your right, but to claim it's even possible, let alone actually true, for all three structures, on the same day, makes Roadrunner cartoons look realistic, by comparison!

But the difference is that nobody goes around claiming the Roadrunner actually COULD run through a solid rock mountain, if a hole is painted on their side!

And if someone ever DID try to claim it was possible, they'd have to PROVE it was possible, with actual demonstrations of it, and they could never, ever demonstrate it, because it's a fairy-tale claim.


YOUR claim is a fairy-tale, too.


You would simply claim that the Roadrunner actually DID run through that solid rock mountain, and he also ran through THREE different solid rock mountains, on that very same day! While it had never happened before, it somehow happened 3 times on the same day!

The fairy tale story of a roadrunner that goes through solid rock mountains is one step away from your fairy tale, because your fairy-tale is flouted by 'experts' who accept the fairy-tale as true, as real. They demand evidence from the rock mountain, to prove there wasn't really a 'hole' in it, which he ran through!

After they have destroyed all the evidence, they demand to see evidence that the roadrunner didn't run through a solid rock mountain, three times, which you believe were previously very solid, but after they were exposed to such 'unique' levels of paint, they created micro-sized holes within the porous rocks, and formed tunnels through the entire mountain of rock, which the roadrunner was able to run through.

You'd tell me it's true, of course. You'd simply demand to see evidence against it being true, as if it was even possible, in the first place!

If we all assume paint created some real tunnels in rock mountains, or we all assume intact structures lose all support within seconds, this assumes these are legitimate claims, to begin with, and then, we shall debate it further, and this is your tactic, and it's a very clever tactic, indeed, but it's not going to wash.

Without removal of each and every main support of these buildings, it is absolutely impossible for such a collapse to occur, since all intact supports remain, in the lower section.

To have three intact structures, lose all their supports within seconds, on the same day, in the same place, is conclusive proof of three controlled demolitions, on that same day, at that same place.

You cannot demonstrate this. Nobody can. It's a ridiculous claim.


There have been thousands of buildings damaged far worse than these three buildings, being bombed over and over again, in wars, yet none collapsed within seconds, or even came close to it. They were partial, random structural failures.

When it is random damage, there is random failure of the structure, because when it is still intact, elsewhere, it doesn't magically lose all of it's support because of damage above it, or beside it, either. And we know what happens when random damage occurs in structures, very well.

a reply to: turbonium1

Do you have an actual intelligence argument....

To you then...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

I’m not certain you can read? For the most part, I answered your first question.
A controlled demolition is not a natural development. There’s no buckling, twisting, variation, or crushing of columns caused by fire!

Really. Why is fire insulation used to cover steel structures.

Its not fire alone. It’s fire weakening the steel under load so it becomes over loaded.

Or thermal stress. Expanding and contracting.

Then what cause this buckling in WTC 5


What caused the collapse of the steel structure above the 17 floor at the Madrid Windsor?





Your statement is a blatant lie.


originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

You

Why do even cite the Madrid Windsor? It didn't collapse with a hammer effect. It collapsed with no hammer effect (like a fire initiated collapse usually should do.)

Yeap. The WTC buildings didn’t have the concrete columns / structure that stopped the complete collapse of the Madrid Windsor.

If the towers were not built cheap and light as possible. Didn’t have unusually long floor spans with no mid length concrete support columns to maximize open rental space. And didn’t use less concrete than common practice, and if they incorporated concrete columns/structures like the Madrid Windsor, they would not have collapsed.

Than you for highlighting the dangers of a steel structures built cheap as possible, with concrete usage minimized beyond common practice, and didn’t have concrete load bearing columns outside the core. As in not along the length of the unusually long floor spans, and not at the other wall.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Gravelbone

When the port authority was able to choose what building codes they wanted to follow from a 1968 building code draft, and the last building code overhauled was 1938, over profit.

Build any structure, of any size, of any materials, of any design you choose. The only requirement is that the structure must support itself.

Then, detach the upper third section of the structure, from the lower 2/3 of it, which is intact, and supports itself as before.

Now, drop the upper third section onto the lower 2/3 section, from any height.

And you are claiming the entire structure would collapse straight down, within seconds, from this?

Your claim applies to ALL such events, it does not have excuses you make up, it applies to all physical events, it is not a 'unique' example, in any way.

A CD can be demonstrated in many ways, many forms, it applies to all the same physics.


Your claim is for three 'unique' buildings, which collapsed while intact supports remained, but being so 'unique', there is no other structure that can ever compare to them, and there is no other 'unique event' which compares to this event, and therefore, it makes them impossible to demonstrate in any way!!

This is complete bs. ANY physical action or process is the same in ALL cases, ALL models, ALL examples. There are NO 'special' cases that exist here.

Only the cases of BS claims cannot be demonstrated in the real world. That's what your claim is - BS, and nothing more.

Your claim is that the weight from above, in the upper section, hit the intact lower section, and caused loss of all support it had at the time, almost like it was REMOVED beforehand, but it wasn't removed at all, it just seemed like it was, and if you believe this is possible, which you obviously do, then you'd be able to prove it, demonstrate this is possible, and you certainly cannot demonstrate it, or prove it, so it's complete nonsense.

a reply to: turbonium1

No. My claim is there is zero evidence in the video, audio, physical, and seismic evidence of planted pyrotechnics being done the twin towers.


The truth movement fantasy they fell at free fall speed speed is a lie. The truth movement believe the twin tower fell through the path of greatest resistance is a lie

You try to say fire / thermal stress structural failures is impossible. Which is a lie








What caused the failures in WTC 5

Why is fire insulation used on structural steel? The WTC twin towers had deficient fire insulation that was knocked of during the jet impacts.

a reply to: turbonium1

This is my claim backed by video evidence.

The area of impacts were weakened by the jet impacts, fires thermal stress. Cooling and contraction caused outer vertical columns to bow in. The area at the jet impacts were being crushed. The bowing of columns became great enough they bowed. The core buckled.

The portion above the jet impacts and buckling fell into the building below stripping and shearing floor connections. Once the later support of the floor system was removed by the falling section building, the vertical columns toppled from loss of lateral support.

Video evidence shows the vertical columns still standing after the complete failure of the floor system.






No evidence the core was cut.


Physical evidence shows the floor connections were hit with a falling mass. Not cut.

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

app.aws.org...

Analysis of the connections supporting the composite floor system of the WTC towers showed that at and below the im- pact floors, the greater majority (above 90%) of the floor truss connections were either bent downward or completely re- moved from the exterior column. This was probably related to the overloading of the floors below the impact region after col- lapse initiation. Depending upon weld joint geometry, detachment of the main load-bearing seats was a result of either fracture in the heat affected zone of the base material (standoff plate detached from spandrel) or through the weld metal (seat angle detached from standoff plate). Failure in both cases was assumed to be a result of a shear mechanism as a result of overloading from floors above impacting those below. There did not appear to be a significant change in distribution of failure modes of the floor truss connections when comparing those connections inside vs. outside of the impact region or those ex- posed to pre-collapse fires and those that were not.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

No. My claim is there is zero evidence in the video, audio, physical, and seismic evidence of planted pyrotechnics being done the twin towers.


The truth movement fantasy they fell at free fall speed speed is a lie. The truth movement believe the twin tower fell through the path of greatest resistance is a lie

You try to say fire / thermal stress structural failures is impossible. Which is a lie

What caused the failures in WTC 5

Why is fire insulation used on structural steel? The WTC twin towers had deficient fire insulation that was knocked of during the jet impacts.

Show me any proof that fire insulation was "knocked off" by plane impacts, or we know you're just making false claims.

And it is YOU that has to demonstrate such a collapse is even POSSIBLE without removing the supports beforehand, which has never happened in all human history, for very good reason - it does NOT happen.

Simply build any structure, of any size, of any material, detach the upper third of it, and drop it on the intact lower structure below.

Would you like me to build a model, and show you the results? I can build countless models, of all sorts of materials, of any size, but they will NEVER collapse the lower intact structure in seconds, or at all.

If you actually CAN do that, THEN you can talk about whether or not the supports were removed beforehand, whether or not by planted explosives, or laser strikes, or anything else.

But, you cannot demand proof of explosives, when your murderers already REMOVED ALL THE EVIDENCE AT THE CRIME SCENE, which is a crime in itself, you ignore as if it never happened.

Are you aware they removed all the evidence and shipped most of it to China, and that this is a criminal act? Yes or no?

It is absolute fact. You cannot deny it. So when you keep on defending these criminals, by your silence, we know what your agenda is. And you'll be judged for your actions defending murderers, in the end. You're very foolish, and short-sighted. Do not plead for mercy from God, saying that nobody ever warned you there are serious consequences for your actions here on Earth, because I've already told you twice now. It is no game, this is serious, and not to be taken lightly, in any way.

So when you claim something like this, and cannot even demonstrate it, you should realize why you cannot demonstrate it, because it cannot occur in the real world. Do you choose a lie, and murder, over the truth, and the deserved punishment for the murderers? It's your choice, so make the right one, and you'll find out it was the wise choice, in the end. Or find out what happens making the wrong choice, as a blind, selfish fool would do.

a reply to: turbonium1

No.

You explain how your fantasy CD systems for the Twin Towers would survive jet impacts the cut trough the windows, outside cladding, the outer vertical columns, took out floor pans, took out floor panels, took out core columns, parts of the jet passed through the opposing outer wall, and the wide spread fires to initiate collapse on the floors with the greatest impact damage. As recorded on the video evidence.

Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center

m.youtube.com...

Why wouldn’t fire insulation be knocked off?

You show me proof of columns being actively cut to initiate collapse at the WTC.

9/11/01 FDNY Manhattan Dispatch Audio - FULL

Released audio recording from 9/11/01 of FDNY Manhattan borough fire dispatch mixer during the World Trade Center terrorist attack. I tried to normalize the audio since the dispatcher side of the mixer had very low volume. I was shocked that I couldn't find this file on YouTube. This is roughly 4 hours long. I removed the last 40 minutes of audio due to the volume being too low to hear anything, even with processing.

Remember to honor the 343 firefighters who gave their lives that day while saving others.

Just came across a copy of the Firefighters dispatch communications from that day. Most of it involves the movement of fire trucks. A couple of things that stood out up till the second tower collapse:

45:10 Someone from the Port authority informed one of the fire men not to use the elevators, they are about to come down. Both buildings.

1:13:30 Tower two has had a major explosion and what appears to be a complete collapse surrounding the area.

a reply to: kwakakev

For Tower Two, you mean like an AC unit letting loose in a fire and exploding? Or a transformer, or electrical switch gear arch flashing?

a reply to: kwakakev

Or just the collapsing floors pushing out air and the fire out with it?

a reply to: kwakakev

By the why. Important info you missed. The first report of a partial building collapse was about 1:12:40 with no reports of explosions. Is that false.