Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: NWOwned

And your still not posting about plasma.

And...

If my account is soooo wrong, then outline what detailed conspiracy theory you believe is more credible. Then argument those points. What are the truth movement choices after 18 years?

Is it nukes?
Thermite ceiling tiles and paint?
Dustification?
Holograms with missiles and lasers?
Fizzle no flash bombs?
Plasma?


Did I miss any?

So which one are going going to champion?

originally posted by: Jay-morris
So, was building 7 the first ever steele frame building to go into freefall because of furniture fire?

As outlined by the way the penthouse and items fell out of sight from the roof into the building before movement of the facade, the action in the WTC 7 windows, and the kink that formed during collapse. WTC 7 underwent a progressive internal collapse from east to west. Once essential gutted, the facade fell in three different modes/stages. Only for a brief time during the middle of the facade collapse did the remaining facade reach the rate of free fall acceleration.

a reply to: neutronflux

Copy and paste is getting boring mate.

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: neutronflux

Copy and paste is getting boring mate.

All to combat the same repeated falsehoods used over and over again by truth movement that have been repeatedly debunked for the last 18 years.

Or you just don’t like I don’t go for chasing after someone that wants to keep moving the goalpost.

a reply to: openedeyesandears

By the way...

And...

If my account is soooo wrong, then outline what detailed conspiracy theory you believe is more credible. Then argument those points. What are the truth movement choices after 18 years?

Is it nukes?
Thermite ceiling tiles and paint?
Dustification?
Holograms with missiles and lasers?
Fizzle no flash bombs?
Plasma?


Did I miss any?

So which one are going going to champion?

a reply to: neutronflux
Yeah, you missed one and it’s CONTROL DEMOLITION

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: neutronflux
Yeah, you missed one and it’s CONTROL DEMOLITION

You cannot answer what the most credible truth movement “theory” is after 18 years.

Is it nukes?
Thermite ceiling tiles and paint?
Dustification?
Holograms with missiles and lasers?
Fizzle no flash bombs?
Plasma?


Did I miss any?

So which one are going going to champion?

I know. It’s a trick question. There is no proof of controlled demolition by planted pyrotechnics in the video, audio, seismic, metallurgical, physical evidence.

a reply to: neutronflux

It's not a trick question for an adult with half a brain. And there's no proof of your NIST childish theory either.
Grow up and stop trolling

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: neutronflux

It's not a trick question for an adult with half a brain. And there's no proof of your NIST childish theory either.
Grow up and stop trolling

Again...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: [post=24661627]openedeyesandears[/post

Again...

Again. The floor tresses at the areas of impact had their insulation damage and stripped. The much thinner floor tresses that provided lateral strength to the vertical columns heated to around the temperature of office fires. About 1000 Celsius. Rising in temperature causes steel to expand and weaken. The thin floor tresses heated to the point they lost about 60 percent of their strength, and expanded. The floor tresses that could not expand in length were forced to bow downward under load. The misshapen floor tresses contracted upon cooling. The stress caused floor system failures, and columns to bow inward. When the bowing become great enough, the load of the upper building was not transferred to the foundation. The load was “caught” in the bowing of the vertical columns. The bowing became buckling, and the collapse was initiated.

Now..

Your not answering questions..

The question was, “Is it false The cores fell last, “And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed,”
www.skeptic.com


Long lengths of vertical columns for WTC 1 and WTC 2 stood whole seconds after the complete floor of the floor systems. That is true. It’s part of the video evidence.

Why would I watch your propaganda video when I can reference the actual collapse video.

Is the below false? Is it covered in your propaganda video? Or does your video push a false narrative by ignoring that:

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation
www.nist.gov...

Is your belief in the truth movement based on a cited fact? Or faith in the fabricated mythology of the truth movement.

Again...

If you have a more credible explanation based on cited evidence, then by all means argue a theory I should believe.

Is it nukes?
Thermite ceiling tiles and paint?
Dustification?
Holograms with missiles and lasers?
Fizzle no flash bombs?
Plasma?

I gave my theory what brought down the twin towers, but you will not lay anything on the line? Why?

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: neutronflux




Neutronflux said: Did I miss one?
Again, you missed one and it's CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
[....].

Funny you claim CONTROLLED DEMOLITION? But you rant and avoid actual arguments and proof of “CONTROLLED DEMOLITION”

From your last post, why would I find your claim of CONTROLLED DEMOLITION credible.

This is how an argument is supposed to work.

The floor trusses cooled, contracted, and pulled on the vertical columns.



The above pictures shows the progress of the columns being drawn inward. There is no evidence of explosives setting off. The building is being drawn inward in specific locations over an observable period of time with nothing exploding out. No flashing of thermite. The columns seem to be drawn straight in. There is no sign the core was cut and dropped. Thermite cutting would still require an upper and lower cut to droop the core on a significant amount of columns. Then require kicker charges to ensure the cut sections would be pushed aside to trigger collapse.

See. I reference actual video of the collapse initiation by using screenshots. Then created a logical argument by using logic, using the physical condition of the tower, and by using compare and contrast.

There is no evidence planted pyrotechnics initiated collapse. The collapse initiated in the areas of the jet impact and fires. Making it impossible for a CD system to maintain its integrity to actuate to cause collapse as captured on videos.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jay-morris
So, was building 7 the first ever steele frame building to go into freefall because of furniture fire?

As outlined by the way the penthouse and items fell out of sight from the roof into the building before movement of the facade, the action in the WTC 7 windows, and the kink that formed during collapse. WTC 7 underwent a progressive internal collapse from east to west. Once essential gutted, the facade fell in three different modes/stages. Only for a brief time during the middle of the facade collapse did the remaining facade reach the rate of free fall acceleration.

Don't you find it odd that this is the first steel framed building to collapse like that due to furniture fire?

Do you find it odd that Larry Silverstein In January 2001, made a $3.2 billion bid to lease-purchase the World Trade Center, which he finally won?

This was the first time in the complex's 31-year history that it had changed management.

The agreement gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right and the obligation to rebuild the structures if destroyed.

He was convieniantly not in the building on the day. Do you know how much money he made his to 9/11?

Sorry, but it does not seem right, and everyone should at least question it.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Yeap because he had prior knowledge of the CONTOL DEMOLITION, not terrorist attack.

a reply to: Jay-morris

You didn’t answer
As outlined by the way the penthouse and items fell out of sight from the roof into the building before movement of the facade, the action in the WTC 7 windows, and the kink that formed during collapse. WTC 7 underwent a progressive internal collapse from east to west. Once essential gutted, the facade fell in three different modes/stages. Only for a brief time during the middle of the facade collapse did the remaining facade reach the rate of free fall acceleration.


You

Do you know how much money he made his to 9/11?

Well do tell?

Care to talk about his battle with the insurance companies? And the court submitted studies studies by the insurance companies over WTC 7

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: Jay-morris

Yeap because he had prior knowledge of the CONTOL DEMOLITION, not terrorist attack.

How is that evidence of CD. Pure innuendo and you cannot state any physical evidence on a collapse caught on video, and has a seismic record.

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jay-morris
So, was building 7 the first ever steele frame building to go into freefall because of furniture fire?

As outlined by the way the penthouse and items fell out of sight from the roof into the building before movement of the facade, the action in the WTC 7 windows, and the kink that formed during collapse. WTC 7 underwent a progressive internal collapse from east to west. Once essential gutted, the facade fell in three different modes/stages. Only for a brief time during the middle of the facade collapse did the remaining facade reach the rate of free fall acceleration.

Don't you find it odd that this is the first steel framed building to collapse like that due to furniture fire?

What are you comparing it to?

a reply to: neutronflux

The evidence is in the video. Have a look

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: neutronflux

The evidence is in the video. Have a look

Then you should be able to quote and cite the evidence.

So, there is nothing credible from the video worth citing and quoting.

If your making the argument that someone is lying with no evidence, that is beyond the realm of innuendo. That would be slander in a court case.

Do you have evidence of a false account?