Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: neutronflux
Yawn.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I feel very sorry for all the people died on 9/11 and more for their families that survived.

But that is how the truth movement cons people. They change the subject from actual evidence.

By the way. People survived the fire ball explosion in the north tower.

Why would Bobby McIlvaine be the smoking gun when...

Inside the North Tower: Witness Accounts, Plaza Level & Concourse Lobbies, Basements

Home
9/11 Links
Plaza Level & Concourse Lobbies

sites.google.com...:witnessaccounts,lobb

Reeves suffered third-degree burns to 40 percent of his body before he was able to pat out the flames. He was one of 20 critically-injured patients rushed to New York Presbyterian’s burn unit that day. www.ny1.com...

Lauren Manning

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Surviving 9/11 attacks (2001) Edit
See also: Unmeasured Strength § Book overview
On September 11, 2001, Manning left her West Village home[10] and headed for the World Trade Center's North Tower, where she was a senior executive at Cantor Fitzgerald[12] with an office on the 105th floor.[4][13] As she entered through the glass doors of the North Tower's West Street entrance, the first jet was crashed into the 96th floor, cutting through elevator shafts that ran the full height of the building and giving the explosive fires a direct path to the first floor lobby. Moments later, as she turned towards the elevators that would take her up to her office, a wall of fire from the jet fuel explosion blasted from the elevator shafts, enveloping Manning and setting her aflame.[10][2] Manning fought the back draft and pushed out through the building doors and onto the sidewalk outside.[13] She ran across the six lanes of West Street before stopping to drop and roll on a strip of grass to extinguish the flames, where she was assisted by a good Samaritan.[14]

Why wouldn’t the truth movement rally behind Lauren Manning? Because she is alive and cannot be exploited like the dead?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

And yet, no demolition/metal shrapnel recovered from the injured to indicate any part of the structure was cut by pyrotechnics.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
Yawn.

That is the reply to address the actual collapse. I guess facts do not matter to you.

a reply to: neutronflux
Your posts tire me!!!

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
Your posts tire me!!!

So no actual rebuttal. Got it. So you care nothing about actual facts. Got it.

a reply to: neutronflux
It's an actual fact that your posts tire me.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
It's an actual fact that your posts tire me.

Evidently not making you too tired to keep posting.

Know how you keep a troll’s attention?


Now. Do you have anything actually on topic.

a reply to: neutronflux

So how did the explosives that started the collapse survive the plane crash? It is common for a lot of military explosives to have fire ratings, not good when they go off when not ready as things get hot.

If you really want to know just exactly what type and system was used then Larry Silverstein would be a good place to start, he owned the building. Trying to pull off such an operation with out his sign off would fail with all the security and scale of the preparations required.

Talking to those who worked in security could also help with a few leads. Some of the lower staff might not know much, but those further up the chain would have a clearer picture of events.

a reply to: kwakakev

You

It is common for a lot of military explosives to have fire ratings,

Quote where I ever said the explosives where destroyed by fire. And it’s sort of misleading by you. Fire doesn’t have enough/the right kind of energy to set of most explosives.

A distance example is tannerite. If shot by a 22 short round, there is not enough energy to set it off. You can have tannerite in the trunk of your car, and it will not set off if you are rear ended. Tannerite shot by a 308 round will explode.

You

not good when they go off when not ready as things get hot.

Quote where I ever posted fire set off explosives

The only argument you have is creating a false mythology about what I post. So sad.

The jets hit the towers, removed structural supports. Cut electric cables, pipes, dislodged insulation, breached elevator shafts, cut elevator cables, and disrupted building services.

The Twin Towers fell into the structure of WTC 7. Damaging WTC 7.

Each building had unchecked and wide spread fires.

The wiring, batteries, and electronics needed for your fantasy CD would not have serviced these fires.

The jet impacts would have dislodged charges in your fantasy, and could have busted open and spread the explosives.

The actual CD systems in your fantasy would not have maintained their integrity, notice I posted SYSTEMS, to actuate to initiate the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 as recorded on video multiple angles.

The CD narrative is dead on arrival.


You

If you really want to know just exactly what type and system was used then Larry Silverstein would be a good place to start,

One. Oh. The old truth movement take a term “pull it” that is not even a reference to setting off explosives for an implosion to create a false mythology.

Two. I have posted much on this in that the truth movement has taken Silverstein voicing pulling the firefight effort to save WTC 7 which the building was giving indication of it failing, and putting the surviving firefighters at risk.

Three. If Firefights were killed in your fantasy of the twin towers CD, why would they help Silverstein CD WTC 7.

So. You only have innuendo by taking something out of context in a scenario that has no evidence, and makes zero sense.

Now. Part two of my argument...

Again..

You

As for how the building started to collapse, something happened to compromise the core support structures of the building. The plane strike when it hit was not enough to do this. The subsequent office and fuel fire was not enough to do this either.

The basic rundown as been repeatedly cited for you. Conspiracists have the shortest memory.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

Skip to...

Again...

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."[26] 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.[27]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

——-

Now. Please cite and quote where you have made any attempt to prove the above is false.

So provide actual facts to counter the basic account of collapse initiation. Or stop with the blatant intellectually dishonest arguments in acting like something has not been repeatedly provided for you.

a reply to: neutronflux

Quote where I ever posted fire set off explosives

A system of pyrotechnic charges would not have survived the jet impact and fires to initiate the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 as clearly seen by the video, audio, seismic record.

Link

Your reasoning to discount explosives due to the plane crash can be countered with military technology. With the whole thing planned and staged, I expect a lot of work went into the preparations and specifications of just what it takes to bring it all down.

a reply to: kwakakev

This is what you linked too.

Let’s stay with this...

start with this..

A system of pyrotechnic charges would not have survived the jet impact and fires to initiate the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 as clearly seen by the video, audio, seismic record.

The truth movement fantasy of CD is dead on arrival. You get it.

—————

If kwakakev actually addressed the above. It should be easy for you to counter? Or quote and cite a response.

I am guessing you cannot.

Is that false.

Back to .....

a reply to: kwakakev

You

It is common for a lot of military explosives to have fire ratings,

Quote where I ever said the explosives where destroyed by fire. And it’s sort of misleading by you. Fire doesn’t have enough/the right kind of energy to set of most explosives.

A distance example is tannerite. If shot by a 22 short round, there is not enough energy to set it off. You can have tannerite in the trunk of your car, and it will not set off if you are rear ended. Tannerite shot by a 308 round will explode.

You

not good when they go off when not ready as things get hot.

Quote where I ever posted fire set off explosives

The only argument you have is creating a false mythology about what I post. So sad.

a reply to: kwakakev

That all you have. Intellectually dishonest tricks and innuendo.

While you support Richard Gage that creates false mythology concerning 9/11 to exploit its victims for his personal gain?

Seems there are other unanswered questions by you...

In trashing Richard it is trashing the the strong and open oeer review of the engineering community.

What peer review by people independent of Richard Gage’s group are you referring to.

I think I have posted this before. With people involved with the Hulsey report. And there ties to Architects and Engineers. Is that false?


——————-

Now. What published work by Richard Gage are you referring to, please cite and link to specific published papers and research that has gone through a third party independent peer reviewed.

a reply to: neutronflux

What peer review by people independent of Richard Gage’s group are you referring to.

The so far 3,352 Architects & Engineers that have signed up with www.ae911truth.org/. Peer review happens when one professional reviews the work of another professional in the same industry.

As for how many publications have published some of the work by AE for 9/11 truth over the years, I don't know.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

What peer review by people independent of Richard Gage’s group are you referring to.

The so far 3,352 Architects & Engineers that have signed up with www.ae911truth.org/. Peer review happens when one professional reviews the work of another professional in the same industry.

As for how many publications have published some of the work by AE for 9/11 truth over the years, I don't know.

Wtf?

Please list actual published work by Richard Gage that has undergone independent third party peer review concerning the works trade centure.

Joining a group is not peer review.

a reply to: kwakakev

You must have missed this the first time posted.

Now support for Richard Gage.

Who are these thousands of engineering specialists?

AIA Resolution 15-6 for WTC 7 in 2015 was voted down by 3892 AIA members voting no, and 160 voting yes.

Some interesting A&E facts

When will the AE911 petition finally reach juggernaut strength of 1%?


www.internationalskeptics.com...

Post 976
By Oystein

www.internationalskeptics.com...


On September 3, just before the release of the Hulsey report, the AE911Truth Petition had
3164 signatures from "Architects and Engineers"
22963 signatures from "Members of the Public"
The day after, they had lost 33 and 69 signatures, respectively.
And the day after that, lost another 57 / 108.
And today, another 9 / 16
That's a total loss so far of -99 and -176, respectively.

In just three days, they lost more than 3% of their A&E.

This has never happened before. Not nearly!
I don't know what's going on there.
Could be database housekeeping, and the lost signatures will be back and improved in a few days.
Could be they worked on a back-log of people who had asked to be dropped.
I don't know.

In case you're curious how many signatures they have collected since I last reported anything:

On 27th May 2018, I reported that they reached 3,000 A&E
By 3rd September 2019, 464 days later, they stood at 3164.

Until they reached 3000, it never took them more than 965 days to add another 500 signatures. After that, the pace was 1415 days/500 signatures. So they have never seen slower growth before. And of the 164 signatures, of course they just lost 99.

The "Public" signatures had reached 20K (actually 19987) on 1st December 2014. Until then, it never took them more than 300 days to add another 1000 signatures.
But it took them
507 days to reach 21K
582 days to reach 22K
And by 3rd September, when they had 22,963, the pace was
667 days to reach 23K (which they haven't reached yet)

So the petitions, both of them, are slower than ever.

The current membership of the American Institute of Architects is 95,000.

www.aia.org...


So no. There is no wide support for Richard Gage or his group.

a reply to: neutronflux

???

3,352 Architects & Engineers put their names and reputations on the line to support the work the work of AE 9/11 truth and that is not independent third party peer review?

I guess you are right, it is independent 3,352nd party peer review.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

???

3,352 Architects & Engineers put their names and reputations on the line to support the work the work of AE 9/11 truth and that is not independent third party peer review?

I guess you are right, it is independent 3,352nd party peer review.

Out of 90,000 architects in the USA and how many other professional scientists and construction related professionals.

I guess you missed this too...

AIA Resolution 15-6 for WTC 7 in 2015 was voted down by 3892 AIA members voting no, and 160 voting yes.


Now....

Please list actual published work by Richard Gage that has undergone independent third party peer review concerning the works trade centure.

Joining a group is not peer review.


And what does any of this have to do with this...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

Again..

You

As for how the building started to collapse, something happened to compromise the core support structures of the building. The plane strike when it hit was not enough to do this. The subsequent office and fuel fire was not enough to do this either.

The basic rundown as been repeatedly cited for you. Conspiracists have the shortest memory.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

Skip to...

Again...

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."[26] 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.[27]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

——-

Now. Please cite and quote where you have made any attempt to prove the above is false.

So provide actual facts to counter the basic account of collapse initiation. Or stop with the blatant intellectually dishonest arguments in acting like something has not been repeatedly provided for you.

a reply to: kwakakev

Funny I want to talk about the actual collapse initiation and you keep changing the subject....

a reply to: kwakakev

Is it false that there are architects with drug problems and alcohol problems? I guess by your logic architects back drug addiction.....

Now.

Please list actual published work by Richard Gage that has undergone independent third party peer review concerning the works trade centure.

Joining a group is not peer review.