Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: Jesushere

Your case is two soft light aluminium planes brought down a 110 story building two times and random fires in WTC7 also collapsed a steel beamed building.

Quote where I said such a thing.

WTC 1 and WTC 2.
The floor trusses heated up and could not expand in length being boxed in by vertical columns, so they bowed or drooped down. Upon cooling, they contracted. As they contracted, they caused the outer vertical columns to bow inward to the point the upper floor’s load was not transmitted to the foundation. The strain of the load was “caught” in the inward bowing of the vertical columns. The columns buckled.

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

The floors above the buckling fell into the building below breaking floor connections.

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

app.aws.org...

Summary
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.

The falling mass of the upper stories caused floor systems to totally fail.

The lengths of vertical columns toppled in the wake of the floor systems collapse after losing lateral support.

a reply to: Jesushere

NIST dismissed WTC7 freefall in 2008 at their own technical conference.

The facade fell in three stages. The 2nd stage of the facade fell at “free fall”. As a whole WCT 7 fell slower than free fall.

If the “resistance” of the facade was removed for it to “free fall” for 18 stories, then why is there no visible cutting of the exterior columns?

www.nist.gov...

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at wtc.nist.gov...).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

a reply to: neutronflux

the impacted had a seismic magnitude of .7

So let me get this horsiepoop straight; a plane,flight 175 impact with .7M seismic, is your comparison for audible evidence of explosives used? YES? Seriously?

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.

Pray tell at given distance(570m/1870ft) blown, give me proof of such objects create these booms as per you claimed.
youtu.be...
At least you've dumped that 107dB helicopter excuse and making progress towards another one. so..yea

a reply to: neutronflux

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

FFS thats it.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

FFS thats it.

Because for 18 stores of collapse there was negligible resistance.

For WTC 7, is it false the exterior columns were right at the facade wall and windows. But somehow there is no audio indicative of explosions with the force to cut steel columns? With no evidence of any pyrotechnics cutting the columns right at the facade wall? Or visible from the facade windows? With no ejection of shrapnel?

a reply to: democracydemo

So let me get this horsiepoop straight; a plane,flight 175 impact with .7M seismic, is your comparison for audible evidence of explosives used? YES? Seriously?

No. A “wide area explosion” caused by the jet impact registered .7 magnitude on the seismic data and only took out around 7 of the 44 core columns without causing the building to collapse.

For your referenced “explosions”, how many were there. How many core columns supposedly were taken out by each “explosion”. Why did those explosions not create any seismic evidence.

You

Pray tell at given distance(570m/1870ft) blown, give me proof of such objects create these booms as per you claimed.

It is well know items like large power back batteries, AC units, refrigeration units, compressed air tanks, and water heaters can and will example during fires. It’s expected. Anything pressurized has the potential to explode when heated uncontrollably. Is that false.

Now. Please provide evidence the bangs you are referring to are not from what is expected to “explode” during a fire, but planted explosives.

You

At least you've dumped that 107dB helicopter excuse and making progress towards another one. so..yea

What? You don’t get how much loader a 130 dB detonation that is indicative of a explosion with the force to cut steel columns is compared to 100 dB noise? Should be 8 times louder? Is that correct? And the 130 dB explosion should be 100 to 1000 times more powerful than the noise produced at 100 dB?

Loudness and Sound Intensity (Power)
The relative loudness that we perceive is a subjective psychological phenomenon, not something that can be objectively measured. Most of us perceive one sound to be twice as loud as another one when they are about 10 dB apart; for instance, a 60-dB air conditioner will sound twice as loud as a 50-dB refrigerator. Yet that 10-dB difference represents a tenfold increase in intensity. A 70-dB dishwasher will sound about four times as loud as the 50-dB refrigerator, but in terms of acoustic intensity, the sound it makes is 100 times as powerful.

www.noisehelp.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

Just my opinion on the 'explosion sounds' but massive welded joints under 10's of thousands tons of force are not going to fail quietly, those failures would likely be louder than any of the more mundane sources. It's unknown how many such core joints were cracked in the impact but due to the splinting via the floor trusses and outer walls, the joints were kept essentially together until uneven expansion (due to fire heating) 'walked' those joints apart increasing the forces on remaining intact welds to the point where they started failing in a 'domino' fashion about an hour after initial impact.

That would fit the NYFD reports of pop, pop, pop sounds in the building leading up to the collapses.

a reply to: democracydemo

Below is a link to a video of where a mechanical failure sounds like an “explosion” at the 1:59 mark.

Big Blue Crane Accident
m.youtube.com...

The incident is where the large crane commonly called big blue had a king Pin failure from the ground shifting, and lifting a large load in too high of wind speed.

The Miller Park Crane Collapse – Analysis of the King Pin Failure

simulia.com...

The failure investigation showed that loads at the time of the accident were enough to exceed the strength of the spacer in the lower king pin connection as predicted by the finite element analysis. The finite element analysis also provided insight into the subsequent failures of the lower king pin connection which eventually lead to the collapse of the heavy-lift crane.

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: neutronflux

Just my opinion on the 'explosion sounds' but massive welded joints under 10's of thousands tons of force are not going to fail quietly, those failures would likely be louder than any of the more mundane sources. It's unknown how many such core joints were cracked in the impact but due to the splinting via the floor trusses and outer walls, the joints were kept essentially together until uneven expansion (due to fire heating) 'walked' those joints apart increasing the forces on remaining intact welds to the point where they started failing in a 'domino' fashion about an hour after initial impact.

That would fit the NYFD reports of pop, pop, pop sounds in the building leading up to the collapses.

I definitely agree that is more likely. And definitely more in line with what was reported, and captured on the video record from multiple angles.

a reply to: neutronflux

For your referenced “explosions”, how many were there.

I counted them on the video did i not?

How many core columns supposedly were taken out by each “explosion”

As many as was needed to i. initiate collapse and ii. to maintain it to ground level.
So all core colums, at different intervals and horizontal planes to achieve a top --> down executed, controlled demolition.

Why did those explosions not create any seismic evidence.

Would, lets say, a normal shaped cutting charges even leave this evidence in the first place? Provide evidence for your claim!
Nature of material used to cut core colums (Nano-thermite anyone)?

It is well know items like large power back batteries, AC units, refrigeration units, compressed air tanks, and water heaters can and will example during fires. It’s expected. Anything pressurized has the potential to explode when heated uncontrollably. Is that false.

All that just started and continued exploding from collapse initiation to ground level. Seriously, this is what we are hearing?
youtu.be...

And the 130 dB explosion should be 100 to 1000 times more powerful than the noise produced at 100 dB?

Compute the Distance into that dead horse. From your own link:

Several factors affect the noise level reading:

-The distance between the meter and the source of the sound.

-The direction the noise source is facing, relative to the meter

-Whether the measurement is taken outdoors (where noise can dissipate) or indoors (where noise can reverberate)

For a reported sound level value to be most useful, it is necessary to specify the conditions under which the reading was taken, especially the distance from the source.

www.noisehelp.com...

a reply to: democracydemo

I counted them on the video did i not?

Is that after your claim you tweaked the audio? So you are manipulating the sound? Where, if the “explosions” actually had the force to cut steel columns, the detonations would be clear, obvious, and would have echoed about manhattan.

Let’s say you claim eight loud bangs that are expected from any large building fire, or from a structure failing by overloading.

Eight bangs who’s audio you manipulated, is that false?

Next, there is no way CD systems would survive the jet impacts and fires to initiate collapse on the floors impacted by the jets as attested to by the video evidence.

Next you claim:

Nature of material used to cut core colums (Nano-thermite anyone)?

If you are saying nano-thermite cut the columns by shockwave, it still would have to create a pressure wave to cut the columns. The energy created by that shockwave is still going to produce audible energy of at least 130 dB.

If you are saying thermite cut the core columns, then why is the no visible white hot sparking from the WTC video evidence. Why would there be “explosive” sounds. Thermite burns relatively slow. Why is there no glowing metal from the collapse video?



Next. You.

Would, lets say, a normal shaped cutting charges even leave this evidence in the first place? Provide evidence for your claim!

But you are not claiming shape cutting charges are you?

You claim eight explosions from the video you “tweaked”?

I did some tinkering with the original video/audio and ended up with this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh. Sorry. You tinkered. Nice that you “tinkered” to create your “evidence” that should be obvious.

Anyway.

You again.

Would, lets say, a normal shaped cutting charges even leave this evidence in the first place? Provide evidence for your claim!

Let’s say you claimed eight loud bands you
Tinkered into “evidence”.

You claim eight cutting charges? Well, flight 175 probably took out about 7 core columns, and the tower did not fall.

Some estimates are more than 7 core columns taken out by Flight 175, with no serious consideration the tower would have collapsed from the jet impact.

That indicates your eight supposed “explosions” could not be cutting charges on individual core columns to take out enough of the 44 core columns to initiate collapse. For you fantasy to work, the supposed explosives would had to be wide area in nature. Not eight shape charges only taking out eight columns. Explosions that would need to take out multiple core columns with each detonation. Explosions that would look like the one event that is known to have taken out 7 core columns, and produced a seismic event of .7 magnitude.




Again. CD systems would not have survived the jet impacts and fires to initiate collapse of the twin towers as attested to by video evidence.

You are falsely confusing expect sounds of “explosions” from a building fire, and expected from a building failing from being overloaded.

You have produced no evidence of explosions with the force to cut steel columns. Explosions that would be obvious, awe inspiring, and echoed about manhattan.
Very similar to the explosive sounds starting around 4:14 mark of the FDR drive video

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

How far is FDR drive fromWTC 2?

But you only have audio you “tinkered” with from expected normal building fires, or sounds from a building being overloaded.

You cannot produce physical evidence of columns cut by pyrotechnics. Especially when the truth movement claims the resistance of each floor had to be removed by removing the structural steel of each floor.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes the metal is corroded.

Can you explain how a thick steel beam becomes knifed edge?

Or, how do massive steel beams become twisted like pretzels? NIST did not touch that, and neither will Neutronflex.

Defenders of the official story will never give a straight and honest answer to such questions and observations.

Huge beams twisted like pretzels cannot result from office fires and gravity.

People forget though NIST in their own report stated steel from WTC7 was not found during their investigation.. The agency hired to investigate the collapse could not themselves retrieve steel from this collapse. My god, that crazy, and there clear evidence someone wanted to be rid of the steel quickly..

In short, it was an inside job all the way. In short, there was and still is a massive cover-up.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes the metal is corroded.

Can you explain how a thick steel beam becomes knifed edge?

Or, how do massive steel beams become twisted like pretzels? NIST did not touch that, and neither will Neutronflex.

Defenders of the official story will never give a straight and honest answer to such questions and observations.

Huge beams twisted like pretzels cannot result from office fires and gravity.

People forget though NIST in their own report stated steel from WTC7 was not found during their investigation.. The agency hired to investigate the collapse could not themselves retrieve steel from this collapse. My god, that crazy, and there clear evidence someone wanted to be rid of the steel quickly..

In short, it was an inside job all the way. In short, there was and still is a massive cover-up.

What? That you cover up all the evidence of nukes at the WTC is truth movement hogwash and blatantly false. And you fell for such blatant lies......

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

NIST dismissed WTC7 freefall in 2008 at their own technical conference.

The facade fell in three stages. The 2nd stage of the facade fell at “free fall”. As a whole WCT 7 fell slower than free fall.

If the “resistance” of the facade was removed for it to “free fall” for 18 stories, then why is there no visible cutting of the exterior columns?

www.nist.gov...

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at wtc.nist.gov...).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

You just posted the revised report, from Nov 2008. Like I said in August 2008 they held a conference and they denied Freefall happened.

Video here. www.youtube.com... While is a truther video, NIST explanation is unfiltered and real and nobody changed their words and views since Aug 2008.

Please explain how 24 exteriors and 58 perimeter columns just magically disappeared in a few seconds naturally? The building was not breaking apart before the onset of collapse?

If 82 columns were collapsing over a slow-fast period of time, there be a visual sign window breaking and floors collapsing, dust plumes visually seen before the building experienced an onset of full collapse,

The biggest clue NIST is lying is their global collapse models. Have you seen them? Their structure is crushing itself on the way to the ground, walls deformation and roofline deformation. On 9/11 WTC7 corner walls across the width of the building kept their integrity and did not push inwards like NIST trying to portray in their infinite model simulation.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

Your case is two soft light aluminium planes brought down a 110 story building two times and random fires in WTC7 also collapsed a steel beamed building.

Quote where I said such a thing.

WTC 1 and WTC 2.
The floor trusses heated up and could not expand in length being boxed in by vertical columns, so they bowed or drooped down. Upon cooling, they contracted. As they contracted, they caused the outer vertical columns to bow inward to the point the upper floor’s load was not transmitted to the foundation. The strain of the load was “caught” in the inward bowing of the vertical columns. The columns buckled.

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

The floors above the buckling fell into the building below breaking floor connections.

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

app.aws.org...

Summary
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.

The falling mass of the upper stories caused floor systems to totally fail.

The lengths of vertical columns toppled in the wake of the floor systems collapse after losing lateral support.

Pictures were taken out of context again. Have you seen the video. The reason this corner buckled is the entire structure a second or two before collapsed above. The force above was pushing down on this part and bowed in even the perimeter walls are bowing in from the collapse above.

a reply to: Jesushere

What does any of that have to do with there being zero evidence of planted pyrotechnics bringing down the WTC.

Hard to say NIST is lying when they right out state this is their most educated guess.

So, by all means. State what conspiracy fantasy you most favor over fire related collapse. Then cite actual supporting evidence.

The looks like a “classical” CD with Gage’s fizzle no flash bombs.
Thermite ceiling tiles and/or paint.
No jets, holograms with missiles and/or lasers.
WTC Nukes.
Dr Wood’s dustification.

a reply to: Jesushere

Funny when people want proof the twin towers were brought down by CD the conversation changes topic to WTC 7 who’s total collapse was also slower than free fall? With no evidence columns being visibly cut by explosives or relatively slow and bright flashing thermite. You know, the columns right at the exterior facade and windows.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes the metal is corroded.

Can you explain how a thick steel beam becomes knifed edge?

Or, how do massive steel beams become twisted like pretzels? NIST did not touch that, and neither will Neutronflex.

Defenders of the official story will never give a straight and honest answer to such questions and observations.

Huge beams twisted like pretzels cannot result from office fires and gravity.

People forget though NIST in their own report stated steel from WTC7 was not found during their investigation.. The agency hired to investigate the collapse could not themselves retrieve steel from this collapse. My god, that crazy, and there clear evidence someone wanted to be rid of the steel quickly..

In short, it was an inside job all the way. In short, there was and still is a massive cover-up.

And they're getting away with it because of all this silly talk about thermite. I'm surprised you're letting these posters off with their nonsense when you know that nukes are the only thing that makes sense

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

Absolutely no evidence huh? Not possible to model the physics of the jet impacts?

Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center

m.youtube.com...

All I see it aluminium parts breaking apart and causing momentum movement of items in the building. If you believe the entire plane severly damaged the steel hat truss provide evidence. I want to see evidence for it.

And you would be wrong. The impacts had the energy and MASS to cut core columns.

Truthers don't physics

a reply to: neutronflux

Is that after your claim you tweaked the audio? So you are manipulating the sound?

Eight bangs who’s audio you manipulated, is that false?

You claim eight explosions from the video you “tweaked”?

This is my favorite:

Oh. Sorry. You tinkered. Nice that you “tinkered” to create your “evidence” that should be obvious.

Anyway.

Let’s say you claimed eight loud bands you Tinkered into “evidence”.

You are falsely confusing expect sounds of “explosions” from a building fire, and expected from a building failing from being overloaded.

But you only have audio you “tinkered” with from expected normal building fires, or sounds from a building being overloaded.

My god did i hit a nerve with you!

Tell you what neutronflux, i'll Tinker, Tailor you the exact concoction so you can repeat the results if you so wish. (Teaser: Hz)
youtu.be...