Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: neutronflux

You don't even know which buildings you are talking about when presenting these pictures do you? Nor what they actually mean...no explanation.

Do you actually think those pictures are proof of WTC 1 and 2 core collapsing last as per Chris Mohr the "lifelong science hobbyist" from www.skeptic.com... ?

I have given audible evidence of columns being cut:


I have given you evidence of WTC 2 core columns collapsing before the perimeter columns:


None of this you collect as proof for controlled demolition or "PYROTECHNICS".

Objectivity in the realm of hardcore scepticism is non-existent - replaced by dogma.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: stonerwilliam

The Towers, were over 90% occupied. Seriously, do some real research.

That is why i come here , other people do it for me

now show me your research

a reply to: madenusa

Ever get the feeling you are watching a slagging match between two bots going at it

a reply to: democracydemo

Again. There is no audio of explosions with the force to cut steel columns. No evidence of a shockwave from an explosion with the force to cut steel columns. There is no seismic evidence of an explosion with the force to cut steel columns.

Explosions are expected from a building fire. Like exploding AC units.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

How many times must I repeat myself?

As many times as is required to find some common understanding in this. If something is not working, try something else.

What do you get there is no evidence the WTC was brought down by planted explosives!

Where is the evidence of cut columns?

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

How many times must I repeat myself?

As many times as is required to find some common understanding in this. If something is not working, try something else.

What do you get there is no evidence the WTC was brought down by planted explosives!

Where is the evidence of cut columns?

a reply to: democracydemo

Quote

Do you actually think those pictures are proof of WTC 1 and 2 core collapsing last as per Chris Mohr the "lifelong science hobbyist" from www.skeptic.com... ?

The truth movement and Richard Gages claim is the resistance of every floor had to be removed.

Does the pictures below look like the vertical columns where cut floor by floor.



As far as which building. The pictures where from links I posted from video on YouTube. Use the links, and you can answers your own questions.

As far as the “explosions”. A large building can use up to 150 charges for a proper implosion. The record for the largest high rise building implosion is 50 story building.

So you are try to imply 5 “explosions” with no visible shockwave, no visible ejection of demolitions shrapnel, and did not register on the seismic evidence as powerful enough to cut columns brought down a 110 story building? Don’t you think the loud bangs were probably from the structure failing as backed by the police chatter.

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
a reply to: madenusa

Ever get the feeling you are watching a slagging match between two bots going at it

no evidence
no evidence
no evidence

originally posted by: madenusa

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
a reply to: madenusa

Ever get the feeling you are watching a slagging match between two bots going at it

no evidence
no evidence
no evidence

O yes there is

Coming to a conspiracy site /3 letter agency hangout

And mocking is like shouting poof at a gay club

Operation Mockingbird
Operation Northwoods
Gulf of Tonkin
The Business Plot

The way metal melts.
How a plane looks flying into a building.
We’re not even scratching the surface here.

To all the ones that wasn't born yet [when looking down the rabbit hole]

your elders made the mistake of buying into propaganda.
No matter what part of the of the official story you look at there are glaring holes that require magical thinking.

we were lied to, pure and simple, and a lot of people were killed based on that lie.
I know that’s uncomfortable to look at, but it’s the truth.

The federal government is grabbing more and more dictatorial power to supposedly protect you.
Waking up isn’t a matter of personal preference, it’s a question of life and death.

Don't worry about how hot it has to get to melt metal, that's all we've covered for 19 years.
If the official story of 911 is wrong then this would mean that U.S. government killed all those civilians and shredded the constitution based on a lie, and some of us were cheering them on.

This is how manufactured consent is made reality
Oil
Fallow the money trail.
Afghanistan
Iraq
Yemen
Somali
Sudan
Serbia
Iran
Pakistan
Libya
etc,etc,etc....Oil

a reply to: democracydemo

It is hard to quantify sound and loudness.

Let’s take WTC 2 and place it in this context.

The jet hitting the tower was as subtle as an elephant in a china shop.

18 Views of "Plane Impact" in South Tower | 9/11 World Trade Center [HD DOWNLOAD]

m.youtube.com...

The jet hit with enough force to:
-Severed about 20 exterior columns
-Severed at best estimates at lest 7 of the 44 core columns.
-jet parts and debris ejected from the tower
-the impacted had a seismic magnitude of .7
-was noticeable in 18 different camera angles.

Aircraft Impact Damage
web.mit.edu...

A Morning That Shook the World: The Seismology of 9/11
blogs.ei.columbia.edu...

From #8 video, FDR Drive, the explosion of the jet is very noticeable. Sounds like a cannon going off. No doubt an explosion happened.

18 Views of "Plane Impact" in South Tower | 9/11 World Trade Center [HD DOWNLOAD]

m.youtube.com...

Just a reminder. There is no possible way controlled demolitions systems could have survived the jet impacts and fires to initiate the collapse as captured on video from the floors hit by the jets.

Another reminder. For implosions of smaller buildings. Scores and scores of charges are used in a building with the windows removed, and traps set up to capture demolitions shrapnel. The detonations are clearly distinguishable. For implosions in an area of high rise buildings, the echos carry on
And on.

Flight 175 flying at a relatively high speed, weighing over 200,000 lbs, loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel, took out about 20 exterior columns, took out about 7 core columns, sent pieces of jet and building flying out of multiple exit holes, who’s impacted registered .7 magnitude, was not subtle in anyway, and did not bring down the south tower. And that is ignoring the visibly hanging floor slabs.

What you are trying to say is less than 10 loud bangs that could be contributed to refrigeration units exploding brought down a 110 story building who’s professional implosion would have take hundreds of charges. Explosions so subtle that they created no seismic evidence, no visible shockwave, but somehow took out enough core columns to initiate a collapse where an explosion as spectacular and obvious as the flight 175 impact did not? When flight 175 may have taken out only 7 core columns.

But? Somehow your 10 or less bangs supposedly took out enough of the 44 core columns to initiate a collapse with no visible explosion before collapse initiation. Explosions that would have had to be powerful enough to over compensate for not using scores and scores of charges as a normal implosion would use. With no visible ejection of pieces of building before collapse initiation. With no evidence of shockwaves. With no indication of an explosion with the force to cut steel columns in the seismic data. With all the bangs you reference easily contributed to AC units, Water Heaters, or refrigeration units exploding from the fires. Or directly from floor slabs falling for example.

a reply to: democracydemo

This is more to the point. Something as powerful as the jet impact only took out about seven core columns, and the tower did not collapse.

Maybe you could set off 10 different charges to take out ten core columns with no seismic evidence? But cutting ten of the 44 core columns with no exterior column damage is probably not going to initiate a collapse. If you want to use 10 detonations to take out 44 core columns, then that means the charges will not be in contact with columns. Then that means a large scale explosion on the scale and as subtle as the flight 175 impact to take out just about seven core columns.

Now. State how many explosives and where they would need to be placed to bring down WTC 2 as seen on video. And cite the evidence that is what happened.

a reply to: neutronflux

At one stage you claim" If the failures where from explosives, the metal would look “washed / eroded” and have “knifed” edges."

I then present an image of a washed / eroded / knifed edge.

You then consider battery acid as an option

I ask again.

You reply 'I don’t need to justify crap to you.'

I present your argument to you

You reply 'Holly cow. What hogwash!, then you present corrosion as an option

I agree it is present but does not account for the washed out knife edge of a thick steel beam.

We both agree it is not nuclear weapons.

What happens in your mind to even consider the possibility that we do have evidence for thermite or explosives? It is like you have been hypnotized and cannot see it?

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

At one stage you claim" If the failures where from explosives, the metal would look “washed / eroded” and have “knifed” edges."

I then present an image of a washed / eroded / knifed edge.

You then consider battery acid as an option

I ask again.

You reply 'I don’t need to justify crap to you.'

I present your argument to you

You reply 'Holly cow. What hogwash!, then you present corrosion as an option

I agree it is present but does not account for the washed out knife edge of a thick steel beam.

We both agree it is not nuclear weapons.

What happens in your mind to even consider the possibility that we do have evidence for thermite or explosives? It is like you have been hypnotized and cannot see it?

Holly cow. Such a false argument. The picture you are referring to underwent a corrosive attack.


This is what metal worked on by explosives looks like.


You didn’t post the picture, I did.
The picture you were referring to was in an article that claimed the physical characteristics was not from explosives, but the steel being evaporated at 4000f. So the article you linked to doesn’t even agree with you.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I did find one photo but it is in a pdf file on page 7 link

With part of all these problems, you have established a strong connection between the evidence and ridiculous. It is why you feel stuck in the mud on this. Being aware of this connection will help you combat it. I know you have a very strong, analytical and logical mind in there.

This statement and picture?

www.ae911truth.org...

In February 2012 an FOIA request produced three photos, taken during October 2001, showing Dr. John Gross of NIST posing with a heavily eroded WTC 7 beam. These photos contradict Dr. Gross’ statements about not witnessing steel that had been subjected to high temperatures. In fact, Dr. Gross was on the team headed by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, who was responsible for discovering, during the FEMA investigation, the WTC 7 beam featured in the Appendix C forensic analysis, which was melted and sulfidated. This is one of the steel beams the ends of which Barnett had previously described as “partially evaporated.” Such evaporation required temperatures exceeding 4,000° F.

Do you agree the piece of metal in the photo is somewhat in its original shape with no melting?

The key statement, “Such evaporation required temperatures exceeding 4,000° F.”

If the metal was exposed to 4000 F, the darn thing would have been a melted ball of slag and metal. Not hold it’s shape in a thin sheet. You believe this the crap?

Again, How long did that piece of metal sit in a hot wet steaming toxic soup of melted and/or burnt pile of batteries, AC Units, PCV pipe, Vinyl Tile, ceilings tiles, office equipment, office furniture, carpet, wire insulation...

Toxicity of fire smoke.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Many contain nitrogen or halogens, resulting in the release of hydrogen cyanide and inorganic acids in fire smoke as additional toxic threats

Addressing Toxic Smoke Particulates
in Fire Restoration

www.uphelp.org...

The toxic mixture of chemicals and gasses contained in fire smoke is comprised primarily of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, acids, and oxides of
nitrogen. Other toxins may include acetylene, methyl mercaptan, ammonia, nitric oxide, carbon disulfide, creosote, nitrogen dioxide, dimethyl sulfide, phosphine, ethylene, benzene, methylene chloride, lead, chromium, and other metals, trichloroethylene, toluene, trichlorophenol, fluorine, acrolein, mercury, formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, benzaldehyde, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, arsenic, chromate, phenol, styrene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and the list goes on.
Chlorine gas was the first lethal chemical to be used in World War I, resulting in thousands of casualties. Then later phosgene and diphosgene were used. Hydrogen cyanide was also produced,
but its physical properties were found to be unsuitable for use as an effective chemical warfare agent. (Hydrogen cyanide and phosgene are both commonly found in structure fire smoke) Phosgene was first used as a Chemical Weapon by the Germans, but was later used by the French, Americans, and British. Initial deployment of the gas was by the Germans at Ypres Salient on December 19, 1915 when they released around 4000 cylinders of phosgene combined with Chlorine against the British. Phosgene was responsible for the majority of deaths that resulted from chemical warfare.(5)
To illustrate the types of chemicals found in structure fires, here is a list of some of the most common toxic chemicals and gases found after structure fires and their effect on human health:

a reply to: kwakakev

Would you care to quote the article where the photo you are referring to said it was worked on by an explosive charge. Or does the article claim the steel is evidence of evaporation at 4000F?

a reply to: neutronflux

I don't know the exact temperature that the metal was exposed to. I do have to draw the conclusion that it was exposed to a temperature at least or above its melting point. This kind of heat in not commonly generated in building and office fires. Where did the source of heat come from?

If the metal was exposed to 4000 F, the darn thing would have been a melted ball of slag and metal

Something like this maybe?

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I don't know the exact temperature that the metal was exposed to. I do have to draw the conclusion that it was exposed to a temperature at least or above its melting point. This kind of heat in not commonly generated in building and office fires. Where did the source of heat come from?

If the metal was exposed to 4000 F, the darn thing would have been a melted ball of slag and metal

Something like this maybe?

Not unless it was attacked by a chemical that produced a new compound with a lower melting point.

a reply to: kwakakev

Now.

Again.

Would you care to quote the article where the photo you are referring to said it was worked on by an explosive charge. Or does the article claim the steel is evidence of evaporation at 4000F?

a reply to: kwakakev

In fact. We know the big ball was never hot enough to melt steel. Look at the rebar sticking out.