Trying to resolve 9/11

originally posted by: RogueOperator
a reply to: neutronflux

Why did you add Mick West's picture to the other picture?

It is a screenshot of his comment. To give credit to the author of the comment and the authors work.

a reply to: RogueOperator

I know it’s confusing to see someone in a 9/11 forum actually cite and link to a source for validation and to provide a bases for further debate in support or, or to discredit.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

a reply to: neutronflux

It must be some hard to find some kind of propaganda to answer ALL the points I brought up that you can't answer.

a reply to: openedeyesandears

It is hard. I did not want to believe the official story was wrong when I first heard about. Just some crazy conspiracy theory, nutters. Then I came across a story by the widows of the 9/11 victims, what was going on here? why where they getting treated like this if everything was right? Then I found a video of WCT7 falling and knew.

The further I dug the more that did not add up. God help us all and the government bloody hell is not.

a reply to: kwakakev

Not just stories from widows but many others like firefighters, fully qualified pilots, witnesses, military (not matching the OS), government officials and even the 9/11 Commission Report that wouldn't convince a 10 year old.

False flags happen more often than people think and yet, life is great... F'''K
Pear Harbor, Oklahoma bombing, Las Vegas shooting, 9/11, on and on and on, only god knows how many.

People need to wake up soon or we're screwed.

For anyone interested in NIST 9/11 Report, here an interesting video to watch.

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: neutronflux

It must be some hard to find some kind of propaganda to answer ALL the points I brought up that you can't answer.

Why would I want to debate a person that degrades to personal attacks and posts blatant falsehoods?

Again.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: neutronflux

I was right, you only answered about WTC 7 falling and I still think you're wrong.
Next, what about ALL the other points I brought up? With blinds over your eyes, it's hard to see the truth.

Sigh

Conspiracists are sad one dimensional animals.

I think the cover up was basically the incompetence of the government, the “inside job” was the good old boy club used by people in the Saudi Arabia to get the terrorists in under false pretenses, and why the WTC building minimized cost by minimizing concrete usage.

As far as your comment...
Classic conspiracist stating something out of context.

Again....

And you dare call me blind when you blindly follow the proven con artists of the truth movement. You follow them without question?

Do I trust the government. No. Do I trust truth movement talking heads that evidence shows they are willing to give right out falsehoods to exploit 9/11 for personal gain. Hell no.

Since the WTC buildings really were hit by jets, the WTC buildings really were not brought down by planted pyrotechnics, flight 77 did hit the pentagon, and flight 93 really did crash, your whole 9/11 belief system is based on lies. Your the one that is blind and supporting con artists. And the rest of your argument becomes a moot point based on nothing but innuendo and lies for profit.


So. When you make blatantly false argument broadening on right out lying like:

....and still no evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon...

Why would I give a crap about your BS

And funny. You claimed I “you only answered about WTC 7 falling“, when I right in this thread was more than willing to debate the pentagon.

Oh no. Anther blatantly false and contradicting statement from a conspiracist.

And I think I mentioned something about Richard Gage and his false statement on Twin Tower columns.

Some posts in this thread about flight 93 by who?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

Might read this...

www.metabunk.org/ethiopian-airlines-flight-302-and-9-11s-united-flight-93.t10552/

www.metabunk.org...

It is sad that it took another tragedy to bring focus to the spaciousness of the 9/11 Truthers' arguments. And sadly another tragedy, the crash of Ethiopian Flight 302, may fill the same role this year in the arguments surrounding the fourth plane on 9/11: United Flight 93

Flight 93 crashed into a field on 9/11 after some of the passengers attempted to regain control. Inverted and at high speed, it buried itself in the dirt, leaving only a roughly plane-shaped crater and some scattered debris. The Truther refrain is "where's the plane", with the argument being that when planes crash you can see the plane.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

You do understand at the flight 93 crash site the recovery crews excavated an area 70 feet by 70 feet, and 40 feet down to recovery the bulk of the aircraft?

Comparing truth movement websites, vs “debunking” sites, vs the documented facts might be a good start. Knowing all sides of the argument would be a good start.

a reply to: kwakakev

You

It is hard. I did not want to believe the official story was wrong when I first heard about

Still wanting on you to produce evidence that has not been repeatedly debunked concerning proof the WTC buildings were brought down by planted pyrotechnics.

Just some crazy conspiracy theory, nutters

If you keep pushing fantasies like WTC CD and you keep throwing in with truth movement con artists, what are people supposed to think?

Then I came across a story by the widows of the 9/11 victims, what was going on here? why where they getting treated like this if everything was right?

A conspiracists innuendo backend by no actual quote or cited source. Say it’s not so?

Then I found a video of WCT7 falling and knew

Found what. There is absolutely zero evidence of columns being cut to initiate collapse. Especially for the exterior columns right at the windows and facade that AE truth claims had to be cut to achieve the witnesses rate of collapse.

;The further I dug the more that did not add up. God help us all and the government bloody hell is not.

The more you post with zero cited evidence, the more you seem like a windbag set on having the last word based on nothing but innuendo and your biased faith in truth movement con artists.

a reply to: neutronflux
Watch the last video posted by openedeyesandears..... it was already known that building 7 was coming down prior to it's collapse.... people were told to move away... it was announced on tv that it was already down before it was and there were explosions.
Edit:
And how weird that the news reporters were all saying when it actually happened (live) that it looked like a controlled demolition.


And John Gross (nist investigator) was looking rather uncomfortable - showing signs of deception.

a reply to: kwakakev

Then I found a video of WCT7 falling and knew.

Yep

Just like I once looked up and saw chemtrails with my own eyes

when you see something with your own eyes and a YouTube videos tells you what it is then there is no argument.

No science or engineering brought up can change what my own eyes saw and a YouTube video told me what it was

Those sciencey guys are just shills covering up








I feel sorry for future generations

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
Watch the last video posted by openedeyesandears..... it was already known that building 7 was coming down prior to it's collapse.... people were told to move away... it was announced on tv that it was already down before it was and there were explosions.
Edit:
And how weird that the news reporters were all saying when it actually happened (live) that it looked like a controlled demolition.


And John Gross (nist investigator) was looking rather uncomfortable - showing signs of deception.

yes it was,

it was quite obvious why it was known.

It take the ability to read to know why,

So I guess some that can only absorb YouTube will be missing out on enlightening themselves on a wealth of of knowledge that one can find from being able to read.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

The context that WTC7 showed signs of structurally failing.

Below. Account of WTC fires.

sites.google.com...

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

I do remember us being pulled off the pile. ...We were down by the pile to search or looking around. 7 World Trade Center was roaring. I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down. –Firefighter Kevin Howe

Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to col-lapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. 



Firehouse Magazine: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. 



Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. –Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.

Q. It was on fire, correct, Captain?

A. Yes, it was on fire at that time. Then they said it suffered some form of structural damage. These things were going on at the same time. The fact that we thought we found Ganci and Feehan and his place at 7 World Trade Center. Made the decision to back everybody away, took all the units and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way. –Captain Ray Goldbach

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. 
–Capt. Chris Boyle

a reply to: neutronflux
Structure failing on one side does not make a building fall symmetrically though.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

What? How else is a building supposed to fall. And WTC 7 did not fall symmetrical. Nor did it fall in its own footprint.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Jesushere

WTC7 did not fall perfectly staight look here

Want to explain how about 5 floors of the base exterior cladding still link are on TOP of the debris pile.

It wasn't just fire a top to bottom rip was created by the N Tower collapse also a chunk about 7 stories high on south west corner.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: openedeyesandears

You really need to read this post.

pgimeno

www.internationalskeptics.com...

I've run a simulation with the Box2D physics engine as implemented in the Love2D framework. I created a 2D box and two 2D sticks holding it, then with the space key I moved one of the sticks away. The trajectory of the centre of mass of the box was traced. Here's the result

As you can see, the centre of mass of the box does barely move from the vertical; not even by one pixel in this simulation.

Deeper explanation why WTC 7 would not tip over

By pgimeno

www.internationalskeptics.com...

I agree with Hellbound, skyscrapers have a lot of mass and the relatively thin columns make it harder for the structure to tip over than e.g. in the Las Gladiolas example shown by Redwood. See Bazant and Zhou, 2002 Appendix II: Why Didn't the Upper Part Pivot About Its Base?

Basically, the first attempt at pivoting over the base makes the top section gain rotational momentum. The columns can't stand the lateral reaction force exerted by the part of the structure situated below the CoG, and the result is that the top pivots mostly over its CoG instead of over its base.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: openedeyesandears

In simpler terms. Skyscrapers don’t fall over like tress because the are not solid. Skyscrapers are mostly hollow. Gravity always pulls straight down to the center of the earth. As soon as a skyscraper’s center of gravity of its load is misaligned” from perfectly perpendicular to the vertical columns, the columns cannot handle the dynamic lateral loading. They buckle, then with nothing to no longer “pivot” on, the structure falls straight down.

Simpler yet. For WTC 7 to “tip over” it would need pivot points. The pivots points will buckle before WTC 7 would ever tip over.

Again.

How did the Plasco high rise fire collapse and the Brazilian high rise fire collapse fall? Like a boat tipping over? No. Why would WTC 7 “tip over”