Is @priorbernpaine (on twitter) missing? They haven't posted at all or responded to DM's etc - to anyone - since 4/26. What do we do when a pgate researcher and loud voice like this goes dark w/out explanation all of a sudden?
And be sure to restrain yourself from revealing too much. I am sure they have entire NSA aparatus at their disposal and they are monetoring everything. I could not believe the desperation of some of the trolls - it's as if Jimmy Saville never happened, as if Dyncorp is a saint... Finder's Club a hoax. Pure desperation. Remember how anyone even mentioning Brian Podesta/NCMEC/Skippy connection was banned from twitter, now if you mention Luzatto/Pedo Ring/Kabbalah you will get suspened!
I just added a few comments on that Voat thread, more proof on Luzzatto Kabbalah connection, but a wrong godfather mentioned. The post requires yet more work, let's look into that.
Day ago I was trolled by a Freemason (his profile pic was impressive - high ranking regalia and he knew things that only an initiate or a scholar would know) He kept trolling me, as if ordered by someone, telling me how Freemasonry had nothing to do with false flags or pedophilia. His rhetoric was rather weird. Then I get tweets from his freemason friens who has picture of a GOAT as his profile pic. I shut them both up but I found it peculiar that is why I held back from exposing my full knowledge - they are onto us, and they are covering tracks. Tread very carefully.
"I'm a private person and my beliefs are a private matter, but so those of you who never read Miss Manners will stop asking, the answer is NO! The fact that I have Scots-Hebrew roots (Clan MacCabee)."
"The Snoddys have been in Ireland for centuries now, and have, of course, intermarried with the locals. (Note, by locals, I’m referring to humans)"
"It’s probably nothing to worry about because, as even tempered as Angus is, odds are that he’ll only post the one in which the two of you are clothed and not performing those “acts” with others."
Damn these people are ugly. Obviously on the inside, so much so that it protrudes outward. It's true all the money in the world can't make you good looking. Yes, the women definitely look like men, really unattractive features. The Rothschilds are a particularly ugly bunch also.
Oh, crap! Another person I followed ... we really have to come up with a new strategy. But one we already know is that if tweeting a post about Tamera Luzzatto gets someone like Bernpain suspended, then we have to do more posts on him/her.
Yes, by all means. Let's drop the pretense of concern and weaponize the power of group conjecture to smear our enemies. Let's drop the mask and kick off the third stage of moral panics and witch hunts where wild charges are hurled at any and all. Let's have our investigation be driven by hostility and vengeance.
That won't reflect badly on this community at all. Let's burn some witches. Or even better, let's burn some people who question how judgement about who is a witch.
I agree with you on this one but you aren't one to talk. You've showed up to be the desperate apologist for pure evil like Alefantis and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
You're a goofball truther who follows George Webb, a very thirsty man who chases crazy tail.
Your challenge is incredibly stupid. And yet you think it's ckever. OK. If you didn't beat your wife on the nights we said you did, you can show us you're sincere by telling us the nights you did beat your wife.
I didn't think 9/11 was an inside job until a couple of months ago. I was just like you. Then I woke up.
"who follows George Webb"
That's a strange way of saying "I can't dismiss any of the evidence George Webb found."
"telling us the nights you did beat your wife"
Epic Straw Man. This isn't 2 people on the Interwebs trying to get their minds around the largest scandal in American History. It's a deplorable shit lord trying to destroy the very foundations of our Republic. What is it with you people. You always accuse your opponents of the crimes YOU'RE committing.
"work much better at causing the collapse than thermite does."
That's what I thought too. For years I considered myself an expert in structural engineering and could dismiss anyone who challenged the official story.
The problem is I'm not a structural engineer. I'm actually a European History major. I can tell you how the French Monarchy collapsed. But ignore my opinion on steal framed sky scrapers if you please.
For years I considered myself an expert in structural engineering
That's really wierd. However, you don't need any of that for my question. Given a layman's understanding of the preparations needed to make a building collapse. How could that be done at the wtc?
I can tell you how the French Monarchy collapsed
Yeah. I believe you claimed it was because of a DeSade book that was unknown until the 1900s
Of course it didn't cause the collapse of the French Monarchy. You'd have to have been exceedingly naive to have believed that. It was merely a great example of the zeitgeist of 18th century France.
Now to answer your original question: "How could a controlled demolition actually be pulled off?"
Guess who ran the company who was in charge of security at the WTC?
So Marvin Bush was in charge of security and they pre-planted demolition charges and nanothermite 2 years before 9/11.
This doesn't really tell me anything. Let's see if we can get more specific
By demolition charge, I assume you mean a shaped charge to shear the beams and not just something to ignite the nanothermite?
Given the way the building fell, do you feel they had to place charges/nanothermite on every floor below where the collapse began?
Kudos on the two years timeline, because wiring the WTC for demolition would have been an absolutely massive job. It brings up more questions though.
Since a Bush Brother was in involved and work (let alone planning) began in 1999, how did they know George W. would be president in 2001? How could they be sure? The election was one of the closest of all time. Marvin Bush was not the head of the company, he was a member of the Board of Directors which is far, far less involved in a company and also he stopped working at that company a year before 9/11.
Also the folks in charge of security were not an off site group. For the bulk of the time you mention the head of WTC security worked for the Port Authority and worked on site. The Port Authority has their own police force and they guarded key areas of the WTC. Both the current and the previous heads of the WTC security died in the attack. So for this security company to come in and wire up both buildings, all their would have to go unnoticed by the security personnel on site.
"how did they know George W. would be president in 2001?"
I think I figured out what's fueling your disbelief. You're thinking George W. needed to be president for a controlled demolition to go unnoticed. And that's because you think Al Gore would surely have done a more thorough investigation.
And there's the problem. You're thinking Al Gore couldn't have been in on it. That's just an assumption though. What if Al Gore isn't who you think he is?
We won't know the details until Trump starts the painful process of breaking the bad news about 9/11 to the American people. But in the meantime everything points to The Deep State a.k.a. The Shadow Government as the one pulling the strings down in DC.
Here's the one time head of the Deep State getting way too cozy with the future Governor of Arkansas just a few years before a robust cocaine smuggling operation opened shop at Mena Airport in, ding ding ding, Arkansas:
What a colossal shifting of the goalposts. You're the one who brought up M. Bush. You made an assertion without evidence that charges and nanothermite were planted. When I ask for general details, you run away into your safe space of Deep State string pulling nonsense. Nothing that happened in Arkasanas has any relevance to where the charges and nanothermite were placed.
Would you agree that the wtc towers were demolished floor by floor starting tight under the plane impacts and proceeding to the ground?
By your theory would this mean each floor was rigged for demolition?
Suggesting Al Gore was in on it too isn't shifting the goal posts. It was merely addressing your skepticism the 9/11 conspiracy could have been pulled off without George W. winning the election in 2000.
"Nothing that happened in Arkansas has any relevance to where the charges and nanothermite were placed"
Correct. The Deep State importing cocaine to pad their black budget is evidence of corruption going across party lines and all the way to the top. Hence it didn't matter who won the election.
"Would you agree that the wtc towers were demolished floor"
Yes. But I suspect you're going to say what caused the collapse of each floor was due to the force of the floor above it collapsing and not due to demolition charges. Correct?
Of course that's what you believe. The problem is that floor by floor collapse theory has been thoroughly debunked by structural engineers. The proof is the speed of the collapse, it's almost free fall speed with no pauses as each floor failed.
For steel to fail it has to be loaded first. The potential energy of the steel above it must be converted to kinetic energy first. The conversion shows up a deformation of the steel itself. Think of a car driving into a wall at full speed. The car is stopped by the deformation of the steel within it.
On 9/11 that would have appeared as subtle stops and starts of the collapse as the steel is loaded up, fails and then continues again with the floor below it.
The collapse of the two towers did not happen at almost free fall speed. This is easily determined in photos of the collapse, where the debris ejected from the building is falling at freefall speed and is passing past intact floors while the collapse is perhaps 20 stories above the falling debris. This would be about 250 feet between the debris and the collapse.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/911_HighQualityPhotos305_we.jpg
Your understanding of starts and stops is mistaken and your car analogy fails for this reason. If momentum is great enough there would be no pause or stop whatsoever. If I punch my hand through a sheet of paper, the paper would slow my momentum by a minute amount but my hand would still go right through it. The principle of physics applies to my fist through paper, a knife through butter, or a massive debris pile through an intact building. The car is not stopped by the deformation of steel. The car is stopped because its momentum is not great enough to continue. Unless the deformation causes mechanical failure, you can keep driving a car with a smashed bumper/hood. This is proven at every demolition derby. Here's a better example. A car speeding towards a gate locked with a steel chain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INqsTksbgbs In this case the car has enough momentum that it simply smashes through the gate doors and keeps going.
There would "not be subtle starts and stops" at all. The car does not stop crashing through the gate, nor does the paper stop my hand. The reason is the resistance provided by the chained gate or by the paper never brings my velocity to zero. It's slows my momentum for a brief time of only miliseconds, and thus is imperceptible to the human eye.
Here's an example of how quickly structural failure can occur. In this case, they first observe a weakening of the structure and then instant failure. No pauses.
If you want to understand why the collapse kept going once it happened, you need to understand the difference between dynamic and static forces. Put a bowling on a glass table and it will hold it fine. But drop it from 12 feet and the bowling ball will smash through the glass. It's simply not strong enough to resistance the dynamic force. It would something like this
There is zero evidence of a controlled demolition. I don't know why you think that both demolition charges and nanothermite were used. In fact the whole theory of thermite or nanothermite was developed by the Truthers when the idea of a regular controlled demolition fell apart. And the controlled demolition theory fell apart for the following reasons.
The Prep
There would be no way to hide the prep of the building. Before a building is demolished, a lot of work is done to
A. Get the explosives on the structural steel. You need to remove the office walls, drywall, concrete, etc and put the explosives on the steel or else they won't cut the steel. Otherwise the explosive forces would follow the path of least resistance and the steel remains intact. The truck bomb that went off in the basement of the WTC was much, much larger than a demolition charge, but it did not cut the steel of the columns in the basement. This is dirty, noisy dusty work. Entire non loadbearing walls are removed. Ideally you want to get to the skeleton of the building. Having occupired offices with intact walls would require more explosives. In the WTC there would be enormous amount work to do. Each floor was about 2/3 of a football field.
B. You also need to weaken the steel. In a controlled demolition columns are usually precut and the charges are put right into this cut. Without doing this, you would need much more powerful and thus "much louder" explosives.
All this work would be loud, create massive amounts of hard to clean up dust and could not happen in an occupied office building without detection.
The Noise
The collapse sounded nothing like a controlled demolition where very loud sharp explosions can be heard for blocks. The collapse sounded like a subway train. The WTC would have been the largest demolition ever done by leaps and bounds A ton of explosions would be needed. Not a couple hear and there. The core columns on the lower levels would be the thickest steel ever in a demolition.* You would need massive charges for these. You can not make these explosions quieter, because if you did, they wouldn't be strong enough to cut the steel. There would a lot of audio evidence on every video of the towers. Windows of the lower floors would be shattered. Windows across the street would probably be shattered.
The Collapse
The collapse started at the same floor the fire was on. Not below. There's no way to have floor wired for demolition and then have it on fire for a hour at 1000 degrees F or more and still have the wires and detonators still able to work simultaneously all over the floor. How would they stay attached to the columns, How would the detonator wires or the RDX explosive or the thermite survive this massive heat? Why would they explode earlier? and non simultaneously. Furthermore, if thermite was used, you would be able to see flares of light even in sunlight.
The Aftermath
No steel was ever recovered showing termite damage, which produces a very recognizable slag. No columns were ever recovered that showed evidence of a linear shape charge used in demolition. A shape charge used an high explosive to melt a copper disk. This melted copper is moving at a tremendous velocity and acts like a knife through steel. (Insurgents in Iraq used shape charges in IEDs to take out armored vehicles.) It leaves a distinctive type cut and copper residue.
No precut columns were found. The Structural Engineers Association of NY had people examining the steel. They would have recognized anomalies. No evidence of conventional explosives were found either and there should have been tons and tons of it. All the blasting caps and detonation wiring used in controlled demolitions should have been in the debris. None was found and the three companies involved with removing the steel were all experienced in controlled demolitons and would have recognized these immediately.
*The steel that failed at the WTC was probably the connectors between the columns and the floor joists. The core columns were the things that stood the longest. In pictures and videos you can actually see core columns still standing hundreds of feet high for a second or two AFTER the dust cloud has passed. These only fell once all lateral support for them was stripped away. See here. That building on the left is 600 feet high. Those colunms are probably 800 feet high.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/spire.interior.box.column.jpghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goGGQhhTcDY
I've seen all those arguments and used to even believe them. They're all wrong unfortunately.
"The collapse of the two towers did not happen at almost free fall speed."
The problem is the word "almost". It's too imprecise. You can drive any argument you want through the space it provides. After "almost" they throw in some "debris" to obfuscate the real speed even further. By the time they're done you don't know if you're coming or going. Fortunately the laws of physics are laws for a reason. For each floor below the plane impact level to collapse would require vertical acceleration(down) be converted into steel deformation. You don't get both at the same time. For steel to deform it must be IMPACTED UPON. That impact energy reduces the velocity of the descent for each floor.
Collapse->Deformation->Deceleration->Collapse->Repeat for each floor.
Was it 10, 20, 30 seconds? Who cares. For the collapse to happen without explosives or fire the steel had to be deformed. That deformation would show up visually as the steel above it DECELERATING. We don't see that, even obscured by debris. A deceleration/acceleration would be seen in the total time of collapse being at least a minute more like 5 or even 50 minutes more likely.
All this is very well established in the videos I provided. How many of those videos did you watch in their entirety?
However, over 90% of floor truss connections at or below the impact floors of both buildings were either bent downward or completely sheared from the exterior wall suggesting progressive overloading of the floors below the impact zone following collapse initiation of the towers.
So the mechanism of collapse is
planes hit and start fires
Fires weaken the structural elements ......this is observable by video evidence, you can see sagging floors and exterior columns bending in right where the collapse would begin. Note these structural failures happen before any "explosion like" evidence like dust clouds are seen.
As these structural elements weaken, more load is put onto other elements. Which are also weakened from fire. They are now supporting more than they were designed for.
After a certain point, a hour or so, the load is too great and they almost all fail, this would be the floor truss connections,
So the floors break away and (break up as they do so) sheer from the stronger columns and fall on the floor below hitting it with a dynamic load that is far too much for it to bear, so it's truss connections shear as well and the progression is on and unstoppable.
Essentially there is an internal avalanche of debris as the insides break up and fall on the floors below.
The exterior columns now have no lateral support and start peeling open like a banana as is seen on the video.
After all the floors are sheared away and the dust cloud recedes, the last thing standing, maybe 700-800 feet high are part of the interior core columns. These were known as box columns. They were massive and attached to each other, which provided enough lateral support that they stood for about 10 seconds more than the rest of structure.
This is the third time I've had to tell you I know what the official story is. And the third time I've had to tell you it's physically impossible according to an ever increasing legion of structural engineers. The fires only effected the impact floors. The floors below were at room temperature and the impact of the collapsing structure above it wasn't anywhere near enough force to rip the floor trusses off their foundations. In fact the designers of the building specifically built it to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 loaded with fuel.
Furthermore you write the floors would "break up as they do so". Again you're getting fooled by imprecise phrases like "break up". The floors didn't "break up". The concrete floors WERE TURNED INTO DUST.
There has never been in the history of the universe ANY high rise sky-scraper that's completely collapsed due to fire like the WTC 1,2 and 7 did. Or even any type of collapse for that matter. Never before or since has a building failed like those WTCs did. It's structurally impossible. It can't happen. Steel floor trusses have never failed like that. And concrete has never turned to dust like that.
Finally you don't address the very inconvenient facts
1) NANOTHERMITE was found in the dust of the WTCs.
2) Steel melting exactly how it melts when using thermite is filmed and seen with the naked eye.
3) Firemen are filmed and recorded describing what looked like RIVERS of molten steel in the basements of the WTC again suggesting the use of thermite.
So to be my usual blunt ass self you're living in a fantasy land where you pretend you're an expert in steel structures and where you pretend evidence of thermite doesn't exist.
The fires only effected the impact floors. The floors below were at room temperature and the impact of the collapsing structure above it wasn't anywhere near enough force to rip the floor trusses off their foundations. In fact the designers of the building specifically built it to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 loaded with fuel.
Plane impact was not a required design requirement, however the structural engineer considered a situation like once happened with the Empire State building, a slow flying plane lost in the fog. He only considered the initial impact. He didn't consider any fires from the fuel. Modelling fire impact was beyond mid 60's capabilities. The buildings did withstand the impact of a much larger, much heavier plane smashing into them at higher speed. Even with exterior columns cut at the impact, the load was redirected to other columns and the building stood, but this means the entire structure was under greater stress, with columns now taking more load that usual. The reason the builidng was able to withstand the impact is because the building was wider than the plane. Had the building been narrower and the wings took out an entire side of exterior columns, the collapse would have begun instantly.
And a 707 was nothing like the forces crashing down from the upper floors.
it wasn't anywhere near enough force to rip the floor trusses off their foundations
As I pointed out the dynamic load was 30 times the static load. That is way more than enough force. There's no building in the world that can withstand a 30x dynamic load. You refuse to acknowledge this. In the south tower the floor right under the collapse was facing the force of a 31 story building moving at 19 mph.
You simply don't understand the concept of static forces vs dynamic forces Here's a video that explains this easily. A cardbox box easily supports a 30lb dumbbell. This is static load. But once put the dumbbell in motion and all bets are off. Dropping the dumbell from a few feet flattens the box. The dynamic load is way too much to be supported. Anyone can do this type of experiment. Put something on a bathroom scale and note the weight. Now raise it above your head and drop it on the scale. How much force is registered? If the thing you drop is heavy enough, you'll break your scale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMyw-6bDbTs
The concrete floors WERE TURNED INTO DUST.
Except you can find chunks of concrete all through the rubble pile. See photos below. The dust from the dust clouds was from mainly fiberglass fireproofing and gypsum sheetrock....they form 77% of a dust sample taken three blocks away. There was concrete bits in the WTC dust, however, this is not unusual. The bits of concrete in the dust were the bits that were tiny to begin with mainly portland cement. 15% of portland cement starts out as particles smaller than 5 micrometers in diameter. 1/10th the width of a human air. The coarse aggregate "rock" part of the concrete was not found.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html#heading06
It's not unusual at at all that some concrete was turned into dust, especially the parts that start out as 5 micron particles. A steel column moving at 100 mph would do that to some of the concrete at impact. The energy released during a simple gravitational collapse would completely account for this. Also what about the 30 floors above the floors we saw "explode." Were happened to that concrete? If there were no bombs on those floors, what should expect of all that concrete?
1) NANOTHERMITE was found in the dust of the WTCs. 2) Steel melting exactly how it melts when using thermite is filmed and seen with the naked eye. 3) Firemen are filmed and recorded describing what looked like RIVERS of molten steel in the basements of the WTC again suggesting the use of thermite.
Again there is zero evidence of thermite. Using thermite to bring the building down, it would produce massive amounts of evidence not found at the site. An output of thermite oxidation is elemental iron. Thermite also burns in a chaotic pattern leaving puddles of metal that solidifies quickly. This iron would be all over the debris site.
There's no way to tell with the naked eye what type of molten metal you see. Any material mixed in with the metal would change its color. Several other metals that existed in the WTC had lower melting points than steel. The corner where the molten metal is seen coming from is also the corner where the aluminum plane wound out.
Thermite is terrible way to produce molten steel. It burns at a high temperature, but it burns out super quickly. At which point the steel can cool again. Here's thermite on top of a bank safe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrNXbC8www&t=45s
How much molten steel was produced? a quart? How much thermite did it take? 5lbs?
How do you keep the thermite from igniting until one hour into the fire?
Nanothermite was ABSOLUTELY not found in WTC dust. Truther's try to say this, but their paper doesn't hold up at all.
A 707 impact "was not a required design requirement".
This is so indicative of your dishonesty. Whether it was "required" or not is irrelevant. The fucking structural engineers designed it to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707. Your dishonesty is disgusting.
"Again there is zero evidence of thermite."
That is a blatant lie or you're more naive than I thought. Prof Steven Jones found egregiously clear evidence showing the telltale signs of thermite combustion on steel:
And there's more, after Prof Jones found evidence of thermite in the WTC dust he was threatened and when that didn't work people tried to bribe him to change his course:
I see you have only addressed the timing issue and none of the evidence that shows why high explosive Demolition charges were not used and why thermite was not used. The entire thermite argument didn't even appear until several years afterwards because there was no evidence to support "controlled demolition" theory. It was a conclusion in search of a theory skipping over that whole "what does the evidence show part."
There were of course multiple impacts during the collapse. Exterior panels fell clear of the building and hit the ground at near freefall speed as I showed in the images above. Some folks like to use this timing for the entire collapse, but this is incorrect. The main collapse as noted by seismographic data hit a couple of seconds later. At something like 2/3rds of free fall speed. The very last things to fall, the heaviest steel columns that I showed standing after the dust cloud fell at slower than twice freefall speed. The lower parts of the core stood for about 25 seconds. A controlled demolition usually works from bottom up. They want to take out the biggest structural supports first. This would be the core columns at the bottom of the structure where they were thickest. (They used less and less steel in the core columns on higher floors, because they needed to support less weight.)
Forces of the collapse and why it could not be stopped
You are putting a lot of weight on the word deform.
And then making the assumption this would "show up visually." This is ludicrous. Shoot a bullet through a bunch of 2x4s and you just see the wood move a bit, you never see the bullet. Our eyes cannot capture things going that fast. The hole just appears in the wood, you never see the "deformation" of the wood, but, course, it had to happen.
https://youtu.be/Xf6UkByMdtU?t=67
I have a better word than deform for you, SNAP. The steel holding the floors would snap like twigs facing the massive force generated by thousands of tons of material falling even just one story. The supports would snap vastly quicker than I can snap my fingers or blink my eyes. The timing from impact to these connections snapping would be a few milliseconds. This whole process you describe
Collapse->Deformation->Deceleration->Collapse->Repeat for each floor.
is the same physical process used in breaking a bunch of boards in karate.
We can see in the video how quick this can happen.
The only difference between the karate boards and the WTC is the scale. The physical principles are the same whether it's a stack of wooden boards in a karate demo or a network of thousands of pieces of structural steel and concrete. If a structure can support a static load of X (bowling ball resting on glass table) and I hit it with a dynamic load of say 10x (bowling ball dropped onto the glass table), the structure will fail and it fail immediately. The next level will not stop it either. This is why when they chop wooden boards in karate, they separate them, so that your momentum only has to deal with one level at a time. The dynamic load of the initial collapse was something like 30 times the static load. No way you can stop that.
Remember the towers were mostly air, the vast majority of total time of the collapse would be through empty air during which the debris would be accelerating due to the force of gravity. The decceleration caused by the impact with each floor, would be relatively small compared to the entire event. The collapse was getting faster all the way down and reached speeds of 100 mph. The lower floors were demolished much quicker than the upper floors. How fast was this happening? Here's a 100mph car crash
https://youtu.be/XFkn37BDvTw?t=61
There's no way to see the metal deform at regular speed, it just happens. Our eyes can't capture it unless we slow the video waaaaaaaay down.
There's no way the eye can see something go from 90 mph to 89.5 mph for a brief instant. Impossible. We just see the overall increase in speed. Also remember the difference between velocity and momentum. Momentum was increasing all the way down due to the mass of the collapse getting bigger. So more and more debris was hitting each floor, increasing the dynamic force. The 20th floor would have 90 floors of debris smashing into it. It would provide far less resistance than the 60th floor. The collapse got progressively more destructive on the way down.
People who imagine this collapse could only happen due to external explosives are generally misunderstanding two things. The massive size and weight of the towers and thus the incredible forces they could generate by gravity alone. It's not hard to not comprehend this, because we almost never encounter forces like that in our lives. The other thing they misunderstand is they seem to think of the building below as a solid block. It was not. For one it was mostly air, for two, it was a millions of parts connected together to create a structural system. When faced with the incredible forces generated, this system would shatter and nothing could stop it.
Why do I say that? The upper block of the north tower was the smaller of the two and it was over 100 million pounds. When you put that much steel and concrete that high in the air, you have the potential energy of something like 100 tons of dynamite in each building. That is more than the W48 tactical nuclear weapon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48
There was a massive release of energy during the collapse, but you didn't need bombs for that. It already existed. All you needed was gravity once the steel couldn't support upper floors anymore.
None of your arguments hold water. You're skirting around the issue and constantly making grand assumptions and then using that as proof you're right. So for example you discount a free-fall collapse with "stood for about 25 seconds.". It's absurd. It's like you know some magic number of seconds. Anything more than 20 seconds means there was no free fall. Any evidence? No. If I say "near free-fall" instead of "free-fall", you'll come back with "Sorry but 25 seconds is too long.". End of story, discussion over.
You've filled your entire comment with this type of conjecture. You disprove deformation with 2x4s. You calculate a speed then calculate another one based on deformation and say they're too close to notice. Do you have evidence? No. Why not? Because you're special.
I mention hundreds of structural engineers and show you their web sites, their evidence, you listen to them provide details on why the official story is impossible. None of that matters you say because you waved your hands so it must be true.
To be honest I don't think you watched any of the videos I suggest you look at. Right? You're so confident in your own theory you don't have to waste your time listening to experts.
So for example you discount a free-fall collapse with "stood for about 25 seconds.". It's absurd. It's like you know some magic number of seconds. Anything more than 20 seconds means there was no free fall.
Yes absolutely. Of course, anything near 20 seconds means it's nowhere near free fall. How can you not know that?
If you don't know that, it's no wonder you're going to be fooled by false arguments. 25 or 20 seconds is not some magic number. We can calculate what freefall time is. It's an absolutely known number and I mentioned the 25 seconds was about 40% of free fall speed.
The roof of WTC 2 was 415 meters above the ground. Given standard formulas, we can calculate that something dropped from the roof of WTC would take 9.2 seconds to reach the ground if we ignore air resistance. So freefall time is 9.2 seconds.
The collapse of WTC 2 started about 100 meters from the top at around floor 77. Freefall from 315 meters would take 8.02 seconds.
I'm didn't watch your videos, because I'm confident you don't know what experts are. And the fact you think I'm pulling magic numbers for free fall shows that.
I clicked on one video and found it was a fake NIST whistleblower and you labelled him an expert. He's not a physicist or an engineer or anything to do with buildings. He's a math guy and his job at NIST was data visualization. He had no involvement whatsoever with the NIST investigation into WTC. It's a joke. He literally is presented as an expert and a whistleblower, when in fact he's a guy who read a bunch of stuff on the internet and came to conclusion it was an inside job. He's no more an authority than you or I.
If their arguments are valid, you can just write them out. And again, you refuse to address the absolute absence of evidence of explosives or thermite. Both would have left massive amounts of evidence/residue that would be found all over the WTC debris pile.
This magic number nonsense is seriously one of the most unscientific arguments, I've ever heard.
"anything near 20 seconds means it's nowhere near free fall."
And again you're using imprecise terms like "nowhere near" to dismiss criticism you can't dismiss.
You ignore the structural engineers who say the WTC collapses couldn't have happened. Instead you go with their hypothetical argument if the unlikely event the WTCs collapsed due to failure of steel floor trusses and claim victory because 25 seconds is too long to be considered "near free fall".
Don't use the term "near free fall" then. Use the term "a steel skyscraper collapsing of its own weight would take much longer to collapse given the time required to load up steel trusses".
Or how about this, just ignore the hypothetical argument. Let's go with the structural engineers original conclusion: a steel skyscraper can't collapse due to fire.
None have ever collapsed before or since. Never in the History of the Universe has a steel skyscraper collapsed period. End of story. It's physically impossible for steel to fail that way.
How about you finally go and watch the videos I provided. Or are you going to keep ignoring the evidence?
You can ignore the evidence and not watch them but then you lose the argument. Sorry. I don't make the rules. If you have to run away with your fingers in your ears screaming "la la la I can't hear you." then you lose.
I pointed how that freefall time from the very roof of the building would be 9.2 seconds. How did you miss that? This is my basis for claiming that 20 or 25 seconds would be "nowhere near" free fall, a completely accurate statement. That is over twice the speed of freefall how can you not see that?
There zero structural engineers specializing in super tall buildings who agree with the controlled demolition premises. Several real peer-reviewed papers agree with the idea that the buildings came down due to a progressive collapse due to fire weakening the structure and gravitational energy.
This is why steel supported buildings must have a lot of fireproofing. Probably the best form is brick and concrete. WTC did not fireproof its core columns with concrete. It used spray on fireproofing. This is stuff is very brittle and when the planes crashed into the building, a lot of this came off. The WTC was built very differently from many other buildings. The sponsors wanted a ton of office space and wide open floors. So the solution they came up with was external columns all around the outside of the building and a small group of core columns. They also have floor joists up to 60 feet in length. You can't firetest a completed 60 foot floor joist systems because the largest furnaces can only accommodate 18 feet.
No structural engineer will say a steel supported building can't collapse due to inadequate firerproofing.
You using something like the Plasco Building as evidence is indicative of how weak your argument is. The fire had consumed the entire structure which had been criticized already for it's weak construction. The height was 1/4 that of the WTC Towers which bee tee dubs had no fires below the impact floors which already disproves your analogy. Everything points to the Plasco being under-built a fact you can clearly see in the laughably thin steel columns clearly visible in the ruins. Let's be honest, that building's steel frame looks like a kids erector set project.
"The building's managers had ignored repeated warnings about poor safety standards and the building's weak structure"
Whereas the WTC Towers were all OVER-built, especially WTC 7 whose core steel support columns were TWICE as thick as the armor on a Soviet T-32 battle tank. WTC 7 was overbuilt due to the numerous vaults and command centers it held.
Your entire argument is that designers of the WTC Towers were all incompetent. The ones without gag orders will all adamantly tell you WTC 1 and 2 were built to withstand the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707. The WTC 7 was built to withstand twice that. WTC 7 was built like a fire hydrant or as the English say "built like a brick privy". The fact it collapsed from two minor fires on a couple of floors makes any structural engineer laugh. The ones that don't are the guys who headed the investigation at NIST. Remember that link I sent you where the co-head of the investigation says they saw no evidence of molten steel and then the video cuts to two fireman saying they saw massive rivers of molten steel in the basements of all the buildings. Oh wait you didn't even look at that video.
So I'll close it out by showing you all the people you are calling incompetent rubes. Take a good long look, go to their web sites, look at their resumes, make sure you understand who you're calling incompetent:
Dude. I'm not going to watch some 90 minute video.
The Plasco Building, the Delft University building, the McCormick Convention center, the I-75 highway overpass in Atlanta, and the 580 overpass in Oakland (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHxyIECIEp0)) are all examples of steel structures that collapsed due to fire. Of course, they are different, that is not the point. The point is they prove the concept that fire can take down steel structures and you don't need explosives or thermite to do it. And this can happen at temperatures far less than the melting point of steel. And this is why, contrary to your assertions, that the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Structural Engineers Association of NY, National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, and many other genuine engineering organizations and journals accept that after planes struck the WTC and the fires started, the building collapsed due solely to gravity and no other forces were needed. There is no controversy in the scientific community about this. The 9/11 truthers are a tiny fraction of the engineering community who in 15 years haven't been able to come up with mathematical model to show how their claims would have happened. Their papers don't pass peer review, so they had to start their own journal, the Journal of 9/11 Studies. In contrast, to your belief that their ideas are catching on, they are stumbling along, because every new claim they came up with gets debunked. They were way more influential 5-6 years ago.
You're coming at this so late, you don't even realize, that using both shaped demolition charges and thermite makes no sense whatsoever. Initially the truthers who claimed it was a controlled demolition were specifically talking about using explosives to cut steel columns. They did this for a couple of years, but actually explosive and demolition experts pointed out their ideas were nonsense because to cut structural steel, you need an high velocity explosive like RDX which creates a supersonic shock wave. It's detonation velocity is many times the speed of sound, 8,750 meters/per second. It has a high "brisance" which the quality of shattering things which is why the demolition industry uses it to cut through steel. All that means these things are loud, very loud. They would be captured on any camera filming the WTC from anywhere in lower Manhattan. Close up cameras would also feel the shock wave. People who were in the building would suffer internal injuries because of the pressure wave (16 people survived the collapse of the North Tower) There is no way to make these explosive quiet AND still have the ability to cut steel. RDX by way boils at 453 F. So how explosives were supposed to survive 1000 F + fires for over an hour, I don't know. Demolition charges leave tell tale evidence on the beams that it cuts. So we know that shaped demolition charges were not used at the WTC. there would also be thousands of blasting cap remnants and miles of wiring left over. Since they had no control over who showed up for the recovery, there would be thousands of witnesses to this, dozens of whom had experience cleaning up after a controlled demolition.
It was after the Truthers boxed themselves into this corner, did they come up with the idea of the thermite being used. Because Thermite would be quiet, they didn't have to worry now about the absence of the noise of thousands of explosive charges going off. However, this brought new problems. Thermite has never been used in the demolition industry, because it's not effective. You couldn't be sure you would get a safe demolition, you couldn't get the timing right because thermite is unpredictable. It also would produce an incredible amount of light that we would be able to see. We also know that thermite was not used at the world trade center because as part of its reaction, it spits out molten iron. Were thermite used to the cut the columns they would have irregular holes in the steel and puddles or iron everywhere. Columns were inspector by the NY Structural Engineer Association and they found nothing like this. For the longest time the Dr. Jones and the truthers were using images like this to show use of thermite. Not knowing that this photo was taken weeks later after cleanup had begun and was the work on an ironworker on site.
http://www.peace911.org/thermiteonwtccolumns_small.jpg
Dr. Jones study of the dust was reproduced and his red/grey "thermite" particles were found not to contain elemental aluminum and thus could not be thermetic. They contained epoxy, clay and iron like in carbon steel. The epoxy and clay indicated this is a type of primer paint used on steel columns. The iron oxide would be the the part of the column bonded to the epoxy.
Your entire argument is that designers of the WTC Towers were all incompetent.
No my entire argument is that you have no understanding of all the evidence that would have been present if explosives or thermite were used AND that you have no understanding that a dynamic load of 30 times the static load a floor was expected to bear would cause a failure of that floor and every single floor beneath it. You question my sincerity and claim I am being deceptive. I do not question your sincerity. I believe you actually believe this. However, I do question your capacity for understanding these issues, you simply seem to have no grasp of of the basic high school level physics involved. Freefall time, dynamic vs static capacity, what a controlled demolition would actually entail are either beyond your comprehension or you refuse to address for other reasons. You seem to think all the concrete was turned into dust. Uh Why? Why would they do this? This would require way, more work on behalf of the plotters to no effect whatsoever. Do you really think they rigged the concrete with thousands of bombs? In addition to the thousands of bombs and miles of wiring needed for a regular demolition?
I do not think the designers of the WTC incompetent. I think what happened on 9/11 was something they did not consider and even if they did would be far too expensive to try to prevent The buildings withstood the plane impacts for over an hour, allowing tens of thousands of people to get to safety. The situations at the Towers were unique. The plane impacts severed some exterior and core columns, exploded, setting the whole floor on fire at once and knocking the sprinkler system out of order and most importanly, knocked the fireproofing off structural supports. So now you had a severely weakened structure with a raging fire and no sprinklers to keep the temperatures down and compromised fireproofing. That is a situation that no structural engineer prepares for. That the buildings were structurally intact for over an hour after losing some of its core columns is due to their skills. I do think that knowing what we now know, that large span open office spaces require much more fireproofing.
You want to focus on anomalies and not the totality of the evidence. The totality of evidence shows these buildings were in trouble before they fell. Well before what you think are explosions, all three buildings were showing observable structural weakness indicating the building was in grave danger of collapse. Both towers were listing a few degrees to the side. Both had bowed out columns and floors that were completely sagging. WTC 7 was making noises and the corner was off plumb. A person on upper floor called declared that a floor below him had collapsed.
That's too bad because you would have learned NIST fiddled with the parameters within their computer models to weaken the steel floor joists until they failed in the way the WTC buildings failed.
They had to do even more fiddling to get their model to fail like WTC 7 because it was built like brick shit house. NIST invented never before seen characteristics of steel support columns. And as if that wasn't bad enough when the ran their simulation of WTC 7 collapsing it looking nothing like what actually happened. In NIST's model one side of the building caved in first but in the video footage WTC 7 doesn't do that. It maintains perfect symmetry as you would see, ding ding ding, if a controlled demolition brought it down.
And it gets worse. NIST only showed the first few seconds of their simulation. That's mind numblingly absurd. You don't build a computer model of a building collapsing and then only look at the first few seconds.
So I regret to inform you Mr "I'm not going to watch some 90 minute video." that you lose this argument. You could still win if you watch that 90 minute video and explain why it's wrong. I doubt you'll do that.
I'll leave you with the following review of the Scientific Method in the hopes you might remember what the fuck it is:
You probably don't even know why this is inept. You don't get it. The truther's have had 10 years now to come up with a mathematically sound explanation for their theory. You don't have to rely on NISTs initial model. (And if you don't understand why you would have to tweak a model, oh boy do you not understand the scientific method.). The truthers now have the raw data to make their own. They haven't.
Dipshit why are you making a comment? I told you the game is over. You lose.
You lose when you refuse to look at evidence. You can criticize these people all you want, you just have to listen to what they say first. And googling the video to find criticism of it doesn't count. You actually have to watch the videos and then explain why they're wrong.
Just to be clear, NIST report included many peer reviews and once published their conclusions have been endorsed by every single major professional engineering organization that has commented on it.
Each of the organizations below have vastly more members than ae911truth
The original study was published in the peer reviewed Journal of Structural Engineering and was endorsed by other heavyweight organizations such as
The American Institute of Architects
They told AE9/11Truth
We believe that the NIST investigation and the resulting NIST report are valid and credible
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats on WTC 7
(These are the skyscraper experts, members build the giant building all around the world.)
The Council believes that the NIST report is a responsible attempt to find the
cause of the failure, and finds that the report has investigated many of the
probable causes. The Council has several technical questions about details of
the modeling; but we would not expect that to change the conclusions: that
the floor beams failed due to fire, which led to buckling of the internal columns
resulting in global failure.
CTBUH Conclusions...The Draft NIST Report on World Trade Center 7 is a comprehensive
assessment of the events that led to its collapse.
They also specifically commented on ae911truth
The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in
the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building
professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a
direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. We
have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 ‘truth movement’ presents
and we cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition
on WTC 7 or any of the other WTC buildings. The Council considers that the
‘truth movement’ is a distraction and should not obfuscate the performance
issues which should be at the center of the debate about how best to continue
to improve and develop fire and life safety in tall buildings.
The International Code Council
As a response to NIST's findings, they updated their fireproofing requirements.
Increased bond strength for fireproofing (nearly three times greater than previously required for buildings 25 to 130 metres (75 to 420 ft) in height and seven times greater for buildings more than 130 metres (420 ft) in height).
Field installation requirements for fireproofing to ensure that: installation complies with the manufacturer's instructions; the substrates (surfaces being fireproofed) are clean and free of any condition that prevents adhesion; testing is conducted to demonstrate that required adhesion is maintained for primed, painted or encapsulated steel surfaces; and the finished condition of the installed fireproofing, upon complete drying or curing, does not exhibit cracks, voids, spalls, delamination or any exposure of the substrate.
Special field inspections of fireproofing to ensure that its as-installed thickness, density and bond strength meet specified requirements, and that a bonding agent is applied when the bond strength is less than required due to the effect of a primed, painted or encapsulated steel surface. The inspections are to be performed after the rough installation of mechanical, electrical, plumbing, sprinkler and ceiling systems.
Increasing by one hour the fire-resistance rating of structural components and assemblies in buildings 130 metres (420 ft) and higher. (This change was approved in a prior edition of the code.)
Explicit adoption of the "structural frame" approach to fire resistance ratings that requires all members of the primary structural frame to have the higher fire resistance rating commonly required for columns. The primary structural frame includes the columns, other structural members including the girders, beams, trusses, and spandrels having direct connections to the columns, and bracing members designed to carry gravity loads.
Meanwhile, you're stuck with such frauds as Gage and Jones.
That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about Have you never heard of the witch hunt regarding The Satanic Verses? The Ayatollah Khomeini sentenced the author to die for blasphemy. And you think it might be good to use in a smear job.
Also Twitter is a public company since 2013. This guy owns 5%. Explain why I should be scared
Just checked it. The mod picked up on my criticism of the post that it failed to link the main charge that some named, living breathing kid is the victim of ritual child abuse at the hands of her family members. That means it's likely that poster didn't believe the charge but never the less took the time to post about the family in a way to make them seem like they are evil spawn.
Think about the trauma that you could be causing innocent people. It's like terrorism.
9217 ago
Is @priorbernpaine (on twitter) missing? They haven't posted at all or responded to DM's etc - to anyone - since 4/26. What do we do when a pgate researcher and loud voice like this goes dark w/out explanation all of a sudden?
GeorgeT ago
And be sure to restrain yourself from revealing too much. I am sure they have entire NSA aparatus at their disposal and they are monetoring everything. I could not believe the desperation of some of the trolls - it's as if Jimmy Saville never happened, as if Dyncorp is a saint... Finder's Club a hoax. Pure desperation. Remember how anyone even mentioning Brian Podesta/NCMEC/Skippy connection was banned from twitter, now if you mention Luzatto/Pedo Ring/Kabbalah you will get suspened!
GeorgeT ago
I meant Jack Dorsi
anonOpenPress ago
I just added a few comments on that Voat thread, more proof on Luzzatto Kabbalah connection, but a wrong godfather mentioned. The post requires yet more work, let's look into that.
GeorgeT ago
Day ago I was trolled by a Freemason (his profile pic was impressive - high ranking regalia and he knew things that only an initiate or a scholar would know) He kept trolling me, as if ordered by someone, telling me how Freemasonry had nothing to do with false flags or pedophilia. His rhetoric was rather weird. Then I get tweets from his freemason friens who has picture of a GOAT as his profile pic. I shut them both up but I found it peculiar that is why I held back from exposing my full knowledge - they are onto us, and they are covering tracks. Tread very carefully.
GeorgeT ago
He is into pizza big time
DerivaUK ago
Can you explain Esalen?
LightlyToasted ago
Give https://twitter.com/PriorBernpaine a try.
LightlyToasted ago
You can follow his brother here: https://twitter.com/PriorBernpaine
redditsuckz ago
The Guy Who ran the blog for Evie's Crib goes by "Mr. T"...and has another blog "ON THE VIRG"
https://archive.is/rNkxW
Admits Jewish Roots;
"I'm a private person and my beliefs are a private matter, but so those of you who never read Miss Manners will stop asking, the answer is NO! The fact that I have Scots-Hebrew roots (Clan MacCabee)."
https://rockhopers.blogspot.ca/2005/12/with-christmas-over-virgil-returns-to.html
http://archive.is/sWPav
Says some odd shit in commets;
"The Snoddys have been in Ireland for centuries now, and have, of course, intermarried with the locals. (Note, by locals, I’m referring to humans)"
"It’s probably nothing to worry about because, as even tempered as Angus is, odds are that he’ll only post the one in which the two of you are clothed and not performing those “acts” with others."
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16112611&postID=113570806607007152&bpli=1
http://archive.is/IIvi0
Tamera Stanton Luzzatto might just be a man...
http://i.imgur.com/z9L97mG.jpg
Same place with Tati Valle-Riestra - definitly looks like a man...
http://i.imgur.com/3d6AA9q.jpg
Another Pic of Tamera Luzzato;
http://i.imgur.com/L075Cfe.jpg
Tony Podesta's former Wife Heather Podesta might even be a man...
http://i.imgur.com/3p0eHzO.jpg
Hold Everything! What is up with this photo of Tamera Luzzatto?
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/comments/1479729
Truthseeker3000 ago
Damn these people are ugly. Obviously on the inside, so much so that it protrudes outward. It's true all the money in the world can't make you good looking. Yes, the women definitely look like men, really unattractive features. The Rothschilds are a particularly ugly bunch also.
pby1000 ago
We need to have our own code for investigating this. Any ideas?
soxyon ago
Prior Bernpaine Finders Graphic https://twitter.com/PriorBernpaine/status/852366037911715840
quantokitty ago
Oh, crap! Another person I followed ... we really have to come up with a new strategy. But one we already know is that if tweeting a post about Tamera Luzzatto gets someone like Bernpain suspended, then we have to do more posts on him/her.
Jem777 ago
Research Jack connection to Esalen that is all I am going to say.
9217 ago
THIS^ (@Jem777)
Are_we_sure ago
Yes, by all means. Let's drop the pretense of concern and weaponize the power of group conjecture to smear our enemies. Let's drop the mask and kick off the third stage of moral panics and witch hunts where wild charges are hurled at any and all. Let's have our investigation be driven by hostility and vengeance.
That won't reflect badly on this community at all. Let's burn some witches. Or even better, let's burn some people who question how judgement about who is a witch.
remedy4reality ago
You're not part of our community. You're a pedo apologist and a disgusting human being.
Dressage2 ago
I knew you could never align with the forces. I guess I will send in @DarkMath to obliterate you!
The_Crux ago
I agree with you on this one but you aren't one to talk. You've showed up to be the desperate apologist for pure evil like Alefantis and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Are_we_sure ago
Ruth Bader Ginsberg is pure evil?
You're insane.
DarkMath ago
"weaponize the power of group conjecture to smear our enemies"
Our enemies? You're not one of us AreWeSure, you're a concern troll trying to throw cold water on any wiff of smoke you see.
What's that? You're not a concern troll? Ok, fair enough. Then put down any valid evidence you feel points to a crime committed by Hillary Clinton.
;-)
Are_we_sure ago
You're a goofball truther who follows George Webb, a very thirsty man who chases crazy tail.
Your challenge is incredibly stupid. And yet you think it's ckever. OK. If you didn't beat your wife on the nights we said you did, you can show us you're sincere by telling us the nights you did beat your wife.
DarkMath ago
"You're a goofball truther"
I didn't think 9/11 was an inside job until a couple of months ago. I was just like you. Then I woke up.
"who follows George Webb"
That's a strange way of saying "I can't dismiss any of the evidence George Webb found."
"telling us the nights you did beat your wife"
Epic Straw Man. This isn't 2 people on the Interwebs trying to get their minds around the largest scandal in American History. It's a deplorable shit lord trying to destroy the very foundations of our Republic. What is it with you people. You always accuse your opponents of the crimes YOU'RE committing.
Why? Because fuck you that's why.
;-)
Are_we_sure ago
Pray tell, what kind of truther are you? Controlled Demolition? Thermite? Other?
DarkMath ago
All of the above.
"Pray tell"
Oh my I was just like you. In fact I was more snarky, more sarcastic, more disgusted than you are. I never thought in a million years..........
NIST lying their ass off(wait for the fireman ;-)
Anatomy of a Great Deception
Are_we_sure ago
How could a controlled demolition actually be pulled off?
Also when you look into the science, file cabinets, desks and chairs work much better at causing the collapse than thermite does.
DarkMath ago
"work much better at causing the collapse than thermite does."
That's what I thought too. For years I considered myself an expert in structural engineering and could dismiss anyone who challenged the official story.
The problem is I'm not a structural engineer. I'm actually a European History major. I can tell you how the French Monarchy collapsed. But ignore my opinion on steal framed sky scrapers if you please.
Those opinions are better left to the experts.
Wouldn't it be cool if you weren't actually a shill and I was able to convince you to take a second look at the 9/11 evidence?
Are_we_sure ago
That's really wierd. However, you don't need any of that for my question. Given a layman's understanding of the preparations needed to make a building collapse. How could that be done at the wtc?
Yeah. I believe you claimed it was because of a DeSade book that was unknown until the 1900s
So why do you this guy in the video is an expert?
DarkMath ago
"it was because of a DeSade book"
Of course it didn't cause the collapse of the French Monarchy. You'd have to have been exceedingly naive to have believed that. It was merely a great example of the zeitgeist of 18th century France.
Now to answer your original question: "How could a controlled demolition actually be pulled off?"
Guess who ran the company who was in charge of security at the WTC?
Marvin Bush
They started pre-placing demolition charges and nanothermite 2 YEARS before 9/11.
Are_we_sure ago
So Marvin Bush was in charge of security and they pre-planted demolition charges and nanothermite 2 years before 9/11. This doesn't really tell me anything. Let's see if we can get more specific
By demolition charge, I assume you mean a shaped charge to shear the beams and not just something to ignite the nanothermite? Given the way the building fell, do you feel they had to place charges/nanothermite on every floor below where the collapse began?
Kudos on the two years timeline, because wiring the WTC for demolition would have been an absolutely massive job. It brings up more questions though.
Since a Bush Brother was in involved and work (let alone planning) began in 1999, how did they know George W. would be president in 2001? How could they be sure? The election was one of the closest of all time. Marvin Bush was not the head of the company, he was a member of the Board of Directors which is far, far less involved in a company and also he stopped working at that company a year before 9/11.
Also the folks in charge of security were not an off site group. For the bulk of the time you mention the head of WTC security worked for the Port Authority and worked on site. The Port Authority has their own police force and they guarded key areas of the WTC. Both the current and the previous heads of the WTC security died in the attack. So for this security company to come in and wire up both buildings, all their would have to go unnoticed by the security personnel on site.
DarkMath ago
"how did they know George W. would be president in 2001?"
I think I figured out what's fueling your disbelief. You're thinking George W. needed to be president for a controlled demolition to go unnoticed. And that's because you think Al Gore would surely have done a more thorough investigation.
And there's the problem. You're thinking Al Gore couldn't have been in on it. That's just an assumption though. What if Al Gore isn't who you think he is?
We won't know the details until Trump starts the painful process of breaking the bad news about 9/11 to the American people. But in the meantime everything points to The Deep State a.k.a. The Shadow Government as the one pulling the strings down in DC.
Here's the one time head of the Deep State getting way too cozy with the future Governor of Arkansas just a few years before a robust cocaine smuggling operation opened shop at Mena Airport in, ding ding ding, Arkansas:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A9RXtX4CQAAwDDs.jpg
You thought you knew these people. You don't.
There's a club and you ain't in it.
Are_we_sure ago
What a colossal shifting of the goalposts. You're the one who brought up M. Bush. You made an assertion without evidence that charges and nanothermite were planted. When I ask for general details, you run away into your safe space of Deep State string pulling nonsense. Nothing that happened in Arkasanas has any relevance to where the charges and nanothermite were placed.
Would you agree that the wtc towers were demolished floor by floor starting tight under the plane impacts and proceeding to the ground?
By your theory would this mean each floor was rigged for demolition?
DarkMath ago
"shifting of the goalposts."
Suggesting Al Gore was in on it too isn't shifting the goal posts. It was merely addressing your skepticism the 9/11 conspiracy could have been pulled off without George W. winning the election in 2000.
"Nothing that happened in Arkansas has any relevance to where the charges and nanothermite were placed"
Correct. The Deep State importing cocaine to pad their black budget is evidence of corruption going across party lines and all the way to the top. Hence it didn't matter who won the election.
"Would you agree that the wtc towers were demolished floor"
Yes. But I suspect you're going to say what caused the collapse of each floor was due to the force of the floor above it collapsing and not due to demolition charges. Correct?
Of course that's what you believe. The problem is that floor by floor collapse theory has been thoroughly debunked by structural engineers. The proof is the speed of the collapse, it's almost free fall speed with no pauses as each floor failed.
For steel to fail it has to be loaded first. The potential energy of the steel above it must be converted to kinetic energy first. The conversion shows up a deformation of the steel itself. Think of a car driving into a wall at full speed. The car is stopped by the deformation of the steel within it.
On 9/11 that would have appeared as subtle stops and starts of the collapse as the steel is loaded up, fails and then continues again with the floor below it.
Are_we_sure ago
Might as well begin with the debunk.
Collapse
The collapse of the two towers did not happen at almost free fall speed. This is easily determined in photos of the collapse, where the debris ejected from the building is falling at freefall speed and is passing past intact floors while the collapse is perhaps 20 stories above the falling debris. This would be about 250 feet between the debris and the collapse. http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/911_HighQualityPhotos305_we.jpg
Your understanding of starts and stops is mistaken and your car analogy fails for this reason. If momentum is great enough there would be no pause or stop whatsoever. If I punch my hand through a sheet of paper, the paper would slow my momentum by a minute amount but my hand would still go right through it. The principle of physics applies to my fist through paper, a knife through butter, or a massive debris pile through an intact building. The car is not stopped by the deformation of steel. The car is stopped because its momentum is not great enough to continue. Unless the deformation causes mechanical failure, you can keep driving a car with a smashed bumper/hood. This is proven at every demolition derby. Here's a better example. A car speeding towards a gate locked with a steel chain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INqsTksbgbs In this case the car has enough momentum that it simply smashes through the gate doors and keeps going.
There would "not be subtle starts and stops" at all. The car does not stop crashing through the gate, nor does the paper stop my hand. The reason is the resistance provided by the chained gate or by the paper never brings my velocity to zero. It's slows my momentum for a brief time of only miliseconds, and thus is imperceptible to the human eye.
Here's an example of how quickly structural failure can occur. In this case, they first observe a weakening of the structure and then instant failure. No pauses.
https://youtu.be/PK8dsAeMmPk?t=44 You can scale that up by, I dunno, a million and the same principle would apply.
If you want to understand why the collapse kept going once it happened, you need to understand the difference between dynamic and static forces. Put a bowling on a glass table and it will hold it fine. But drop it from 12 feet and the bowling ball will smash through the glass. It's simply not strong enough to resistance the dynamic force. It would something like this
https://youtu.be/upb1XMwKTSI?t=34
No Controlled Demolition
There is zero evidence of a controlled demolition. I don't know why you think that both demolition charges and nanothermite were used. In fact the whole theory of thermite or nanothermite was developed by the Truthers when the idea of a regular controlled demolition fell apart. And the controlled demolition theory fell apart for the following reasons.
The Prep
There would be no way to hide the prep of the building. Before a building is demolished, a lot of work is done to A. Get the explosives on the structural steel. You need to remove the office walls, drywall, concrete, etc and put the explosives on the steel or else they won't cut the steel. Otherwise the explosive forces would follow the path of least resistance and the steel remains intact. The truck bomb that went off in the basement of the WTC was much, much larger than a demolition charge, but it did not cut the steel of the columns in the basement. This is dirty, noisy dusty work. Entire non loadbearing walls are removed. Ideally you want to get to the skeleton of the building. Having occupired offices with intact walls would require more explosives. In the WTC there would be enormous amount work to do. Each floor was about 2/3 of a football field.
B. You also need to weaken the steel. In a controlled demolition columns are usually precut and the charges are put right into this cut. Without doing this, you would need much more powerful and thus "much louder" explosives.
All this work would be loud, create massive amounts of hard to clean up dust and could not happen in an occupied office building without detection.
The Noise
The collapse sounded nothing like a controlled demolition where very loud sharp explosions can be heard for blocks. The collapse sounded like a subway train. The WTC would have been the largest demolition ever done by leaps and bounds A ton of explosions would be needed. Not a couple hear and there. The core columns on the lower levels would be the thickest steel ever in a demolition.* You would need massive charges for these. You can not make these explosions quieter, because if you did, they wouldn't be strong enough to cut the steel. There would a lot of audio evidence on every video of the towers. Windows of the lower floors would be shattered. Windows across the street would probably be shattered.
The Collapse
The collapse started at the same floor the fire was on. Not below. There's no way to have floor wired for demolition and then have it on fire for a hour at 1000 degrees F or more and still have the wires and detonators still able to work simultaneously all over the floor. How would they stay attached to the columns, How would the detonator wires or the RDX explosive or the thermite survive this massive heat? Why would they explode earlier? and non simultaneously. Furthermore, if thermite was used, you would be able to see flares of light even in sunlight.
The Aftermath
No steel was ever recovered showing termite damage, which produces a very recognizable slag. No columns were ever recovered that showed evidence of a linear shape charge used in demolition. A shape charge used an high explosive to melt a copper disk. This melted copper is moving at a tremendous velocity and acts like a knife through steel. (Insurgents in Iraq used shape charges in IEDs to take out armored vehicles.) It leaves a distinctive type cut and copper residue. No precut columns were found. The Structural Engineers Association of NY had people examining the steel. They would have recognized anomalies. No evidence of conventional explosives were found either and there should have been tons and tons of it. All the blasting caps and detonation wiring used in controlled demolitions should have been in the debris. None was found and the three companies involved with removing the steel were all experienced in controlled demolitons and would have recognized these immediately.
*The steel that failed at the WTC was probably the connectors between the columns and the floor joists. The core columns were the things that stood the longest. In pictures and videos you can actually see core columns still standing hundreds of feet high for a second or two AFTER the dust cloud has passed. These only fell once all lateral support for them was stripped away. See here. That building on the left is 600 feet high. Those colunms are probably 800 feet high. http://algoxy.com/psych/images/spire.interior.box.column.jpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goGGQhhTcDY
DarkMath ago
I've seen all those arguments and used to even believe them. They're all wrong unfortunately.
"The collapse of the two towers did not happen at almost free fall speed."
The problem is the word "almost". It's too imprecise. You can drive any argument you want through the space it provides. After "almost" they throw in some "debris" to obfuscate the real speed even further. By the time they're done you don't know if you're coming or going. Fortunately the laws of physics are laws for a reason. For each floor below the plane impact level to collapse would require vertical acceleration(down) be converted into steel deformation. You don't get both at the same time. For steel to deform it must be IMPACTED UPON. That impact energy reduces the velocity of the descent for each floor.
Collapse->Deformation->Deceleration->Collapse->Repeat for each floor.
Was it 10, 20, 30 seconds? Who cares. For the collapse to happen without explosives or fire the steel had to be deformed. That deformation would show up visually as the steel above it DECELERATING. We don't see that, even obscured by debris. A deceleration/acceleration would be seen in the total time of collapse being at least a minute more like 5 or even 50 minutes more likely.
All this is very well established in the videos I provided. How many of those videos did you watch in their entirety?
Are_we_sure ago
regarding my unscientific word SNAP.
The scientific word would be shear
So the mechanism of collapse is planes hit and start fires Fires weaken the structural elements ......this is observable by video evidence, you can see sagging floors and exterior columns bending in right where the collapse would begin. Note these structural failures happen before any "explosion like" evidence like dust clouds are seen. As these structural elements weaken, more load is put onto other elements. Which are also weakened from fire. They are now supporting more than they were designed for.
After a certain point, a hour or so, the load is too great and they almost all fail, this would be the floor truss connections,
So the floors break away and (break up as they do so) sheer from the stronger columns and fall on the floor below hitting it with a dynamic load that is far too much for it to bear, so it's truss connections shear as well and the progression is on and unstoppable.
Essentially there is an internal avalanche of debris as the insides break up and fall on the floors below.
The exterior columns now have no lateral support and start peeling open like a banana as is seen on the video.
After all the floors are sheared away and the dust cloud recedes, the last thing standing, maybe 700-800 feet high are part of the interior core columns. These were known as box columns. They were massive and attached to each other, which provided enough lateral support that they stood for about 10 seconds more than the rest of structure.
https://app.aws.org/wj/supplement/WJ_2007_09_s263.pdf
DarkMath ago
"the floor truss connections"
This is the third time I've had to tell you I know what the official story is. And the third time I've had to tell you it's physically impossible according to an ever increasing legion of structural engineers. The fires only effected the impact floors. The floors below were at room temperature and the impact of the collapsing structure above it wasn't anywhere near enough force to rip the floor trusses off their foundations. In fact the designers of the building specifically built it to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 loaded with fuel.
Furthermore you write the floors would "break up as they do so". Again you're getting fooled by imprecise phrases like "break up". The floors didn't "break up". The concrete floors WERE TURNED INTO DUST.
There has never been in the history of the universe ANY high rise sky-scraper that's completely collapsed due to fire like the WTC 1,2 and 7 did. Or even any type of collapse for that matter. Never before or since has a building failed like those WTCs did. It's structurally impossible. It can't happen. Steel floor trusses have never failed like that. And concrete has never turned to dust like that.
Finally you don't address the very inconvenient facts
1) NANOTHERMITE was found in the dust of the WTCs.
2) Steel melting exactly how it melts when using thermite is filmed and seen with the naked eye.
3) Firemen are filmed and recorded describing what looked like RIVERS of molten steel in the basements of the WTC again suggesting the use of thermite.
So to be my usual blunt ass self you're living in a fantasy land where you pretend you're an expert in steel structures and where you pretend evidence of thermite doesn't exist.
O_O
Are_we_sure ago
Plane impact was not a required design requirement, however the structural engineer considered a situation like once happened with the Empire State building, a slow flying plane lost in the fog. He only considered the initial impact. He didn't consider any fires from the fuel. Modelling fire impact was beyond mid 60's capabilities. The buildings did withstand the impact of a much larger, much heavier plane smashing into them at higher speed. Even with exterior columns cut at the impact, the load was redirected to other columns and the building stood, but this means the entire structure was under greater stress, with columns now taking more load that usual. The reason the builidng was able to withstand the impact is because the building was wider than the plane. Had the building been narrower and the wings took out an entire side of exterior columns, the collapse would have begun instantly.
And a 707 was nothing like the forces crashing down from the upper floors.
You simply don't understand the concept of static forces vs dynamic forces Here's a video that explains this easily. A cardbox box easily supports a 30lb dumbbell. This is static load. But once put the dumbbell in motion and all bets are off. Dropping the dumbell from a few feet flattens the box. The dynamic load is way too much to be supported. Anyone can do this type of experiment. Put something on a bathroom scale and note the weight. Now raise it above your head and drop it on the scale. How much force is registered? If the thing you drop is heavy enough, you'll break your scale. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMyw-6bDbTs
YOu can support 1.3 KG of pennies with a sheet of paper taped tight http://www.burtonsys.com/staticvdyn/x_P1010002.jpg
But drop a few pennies taping together and they punch right through. http://www.burtonsys.com/staticvdyn/x_P1010003.jpg http://www.burtonsys.com/staticvdyn/
To turn a concrete slab completely into dust with explosives, you would need explosives drilled into the slab every few feet. Thermite wouldn't do this. The floors of the collapse were about 7,000,000 million square feet of office space. At one charge per 100 square feet, you've just added 7,000 high explosives to the conspiracy, 7,000 high explosives that were not heard during the collapse and would leave massive amounts of evidence in the rubble pile. How much detonation wiring would it take to rig 7,000,000 square feet of office space? Some of the concrete was turned into dust. Some was not. Lots of chunks of concrete were in the rubble pile showing quite clearly the floors did "break up." http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/check.jpg http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/digs.jpg http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/void.jpg http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1Concrete.jpg http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1ChunksofConcrete.jpg
It's not unusual at at all that some concrete was turned into dust, especially the parts that start out as 5 micron particles. A steel column moving at 100 mph would do that to some of the concrete at impact. The energy released during a simple gravitational collapse would completely account for this. Also what about the 30 floors above the floors we saw "explode." Were happened to that concrete? If there were no bombs on those floors, what should expect of all that concrete?
Again there is zero evidence of thermite. Using thermite to bring the building down, it would produce massive amounts of evidence not found at the site. An output of thermite oxidation is elemental iron. Thermite also burns in a chaotic pattern leaving puddles of metal that solidifies quickly. This iron would be all over the debris site.
There's no way to tell with the naked eye what type of molten metal you see. Any material mixed in with the metal would change its color. Several other metals that existed in the WTC had lower melting points than steel. The corner where the molten metal is seen coming from is also the corner where the aluminum plane wound out.
Thermite is terrible way to produce molten steel. It burns at a high temperature, but it burns out super quickly. At which point the steel can cool again. Here's thermite on top of a bank safe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrNXbC8www&t=45s
How much molten steel was produced? a quart? How much thermite did it take? 5lbs?
How do you keep the thermite from igniting until one hour into the fire?
Nanothermite was ABSOLUTELY not found in WTC dust. Truther's try to say this, but their paper doesn't hold up at all.
DarkMath ago
A 707 impact "was not a required design requirement".
This is so indicative of your dishonesty. Whether it was "required" or not is irrelevant. The fucking structural engineers designed it to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707. Your dishonesty is disgusting.
"Again there is zero evidence of thermite."
That is a blatant lie or you're more naive than I thought. Prof Steven Jones found egregiously clear evidence showing the telltale signs of thermite combustion on steel:
Thermite Evidence
And there's more, after Prof Jones found evidence of thermite in the WTC dust he was threatened and when that didn't work people tried to bribe him to change his course:
Prof Jones offered bribes.
Have you watched ANY of the video evidence I've provided you?
Are_we_sure ago
I see you have only addressed the timing issue and none of the evidence that shows why high explosive Demolition charges were not used and why thermite was not used. The entire thermite argument didn't even appear until several years afterwards because there was no evidence to support "controlled demolition" theory. It was a conclusion in search of a theory skipping over that whole "what does the evidence show part."
There were of course multiple impacts during the collapse. Exterior panels fell clear of the building and hit the ground at near freefall speed as I showed in the images above. Some folks like to use this timing for the entire collapse, but this is incorrect. The main collapse as noted by seismographic data hit a couple of seconds later. At something like 2/3rds of free fall speed. The very last things to fall, the heaviest steel columns that I showed standing after the dust cloud fell at slower than twice freefall speed. The lower parts of the core stood for about 25 seconds. A controlled demolition usually works from bottom up. They want to take out the biggest structural supports first. This would be the core columns at the bottom of the structure where they were thickest. (They used less and less steel in the core columns on higher floors, because they needed to support less weight.)
Forces of the collapse and why it could not be stopped
You are putting a lot of weight on the word deform.
And then making the assumption this would "show up visually." This is ludicrous. Shoot a bullet through a bunch of 2x4s and you just see the wood move a bit, you never see the bullet. Our eyes cannot capture things going that fast. The hole just appears in the wood, you never see the "deformation" of the wood, but, course, it had to happen. https://youtu.be/Xf6UkByMdtU?t=67
I have a better word than deform for you, SNAP. The steel holding the floors would snap like twigs facing the massive force generated by thousands of tons of material falling even just one story. The supports would snap vastly quicker than I can snap my fingers or blink my eyes. The timing from impact to these connections snapping would be a few milliseconds. This whole process you describe
is the same physical process used in breaking a bunch of boards in karate.
https://youtu.be/daR79WG9-vA?t=213
We can see in the video how quick this can happen.
The only difference between the karate boards and the WTC is the scale. The physical principles are the same whether it's a stack of wooden boards in a karate demo or a network of thousands of pieces of structural steel and concrete. If a structure can support a static load of X (bowling ball resting on glass table) and I hit it with a dynamic load of say 10x (bowling ball dropped onto the glass table), the structure will fail and it fail immediately. The next level will not stop it either. This is why when they chop wooden boards in karate, they separate them, so that your momentum only has to deal with one level at a time. The dynamic load of the initial collapse was something like 30 times the static load. No way you can stop that.
Remember the towers were mostly air, the vast majority of total time of the collapse would be through empty air during which the debris would be accelerating due to the force of gravity. The decceleration caused by the impact with each floor, would be relatively small compared to the entire event. The collapse was getting faster all the way down and reached speeds of 100 mph. The lower floors were demolished much quicker than the upper floors. How fast was this happening? Here's a 100mph car crash https://youtu.be/XFkn37BDvTw?t=61
There's no way to see the metal deform at regular speed, it just happens. Our eyes can't capture it unless we slow the video waaaaaaaay down.
There's no way the eye can see something go from 90 mph to 89.5 mph for a brief instant. Impossible. We just see the overall increase in speed. Also remember the difference between velocity and momentum. Momentum was increasing all the way down due to the mass of the collapse getting bigger. So more and more debris was hitting each floor, increasing the dynamic force. The 20th floor would have 90 floors of debris smashing into it. It would provide far less resistance than the 60th floor. The collapse got progressively more destructive on the way down.
People who imagine this collapse could only happen due to external explosives are generally misunderstanding two things. The massive size and weight of the towers and thus the incredible forces they could generate by gravity alone. It's not hard to not comprehend this, because we almost never encounter forces like that in our lives. The other thing they misunderstand is they seem to think of the building below as a solid block. It was not. For one it was mostly air, for two, it was a millions of parts connected together to create a structural system. When faced with the incredible forces generated, this system would shatter and nothing could stop it.
Why do I say that? The upper block of the north tower was the smaller of the two and it was over 100 million pounds. When you put that much steel and concrete that high in the air, you have the potential energy of something like 100 tons of dynamite in each building. That is more than the W48 tactical nuclear weapon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48
There was a massive release of energy during the collapse, but you didn't need bombs for that. It already existed. All you needed was gravity once the steel couldn't support upper floors anymore.
DarkMath ago
None of your arguments hold water. You're skirting around the issue and constantly making grand assumptions and then using that as proof you're right. So for example you discount a free-fall collapse with "stood for about 25 seconds.". It's absurd. It's like you know some magic number of seconds. Anything more than 20 seconds means there was no free fall. Any evidence? No. If I say "near free-fall" instead of "free-fall", you'll come back with "Sorry but 25 seconds is too long.". End of story, discussion over.
You've filled your entire comment with this type of conjecture. You disprove deformation with 2x4s. You calculate a speed then calculate another one based on deformation and say they're too close to notice. Do you have evidence? No. Why not? Because you're special.
I mention hundreds of structural engineers and show you their web sites, their evidence, you listen to them provide details on why the official story is impossible. None of that matters you say because you waved your hands so it must be true.
To be honest I don't think you watched any of the videos I suggest you look at. Right? You're so confident in your own theory you don't have to waste your time listening to experts.
Sigh........
Are_we_sure ago
Yes absolutely. Of course, anything near 20 seconds means it's nowhere near free fall. How can you not know that?
If you don't know that, it's no wonder you're going to be fooled by false arguments. 25 or 20 seconds is not some magic number. We can calculate what freefall time is. It's an absolutely known number and I mentioned the 25 seconds was about 40% of free fall speed.
The roof of WTC 2 was 415 meters above the ground. Given standard formulas, we can calculate that something dropped from the roof of WTC would take 9.2 seconds to reach the ground if we ignore air resistance. So freefall time is 9.2 seconds.
The collapse of WTC 2 started about 100 meters from the top at around floor 77. Freefall from 315 meters would take 8.02 seconds.
You can check yourself http://www.ambrsoft.com/CalcPhysics/acceleration/acceleration.htm
I'm didn't watch your videos, because I'm confident you don't know what experts are. And the fact you think I'm pulling magic numbers for free fall shows that.
I clicked on one video and found it was a fake NIST whistleblower and you labelled him an expert. He's not a physicist or an engineer or anything to do with buildings. He's a math guy and his job at NIST was data visualization. He had no involvement whatsoever with the NIST investigation into WTC. It's a joke. He literally is presented as an expert and a whistleblower, when in fact he's a guy who read a bunch of stuff on the internet and came to conclusion it was an inside job. He's no more an authority than you or I.
If their arguments are valid, you can just write them out. And again, you refuse to address the absolute absence of evidence of explosives or thermite. Both would have left massive amounts of evidence/residue that would be found all over the WTC debris pile.
This magic number nonsense is seriously one of the most unscientific arguments, I've ever heard.
DarkMath ago
"anything near 20 seconds means it's nowhere near free fall."
And again you're using imprecise terms like "nowhere near" to dismiss criticism you can't dismiss.
You ignore the structural engineers who say the WTC collapses couldn't have happened. Instead you go with their hypothetical argument if the unlikely event the WTCs collapsed due to failure of steel floor trusses and claim victory because 25 seconds is too long to be considered "near free fall".
Don't use the term "near free fall" then. Use the term "a steel skyscraper collapsing of its own weight would take much longer to collapse given the time required to load up steel trusses".
Or how about this, just ignore the hypothetical argument. Let's go with the structural engineers original conclusion: a steel skyscraper can't collapse due to fire.
None have ever collapsed before or since. Never in the History of the Universe has a steel skyscraper collapsed period. End of story. It's physically impossible for steel to fail that way.
How about you finally go and watch the videos I provided. Or are you going to keep ignoring the evidence?
You can ignore the evidence and not watch them but then you lose the argument. Sorry. I don't make the rules. If you have to run away with your fingers in your ears screaming "la la la I can't hear you." then you lose.
Are_we_sure ago
I pointed how that freefall time from the very roof of the building would be 9.2 seconds. How did you miss that? This is my basis for claiming that 20 or 25 seconds would be "nowhere near" free fall, a completely accurate statement. That is over twice the speed of freefall how can you not see that?
There zero structural engineers specializing in super tall buildings who agree with the controlled demolition premises. Several real peer-reviewed papers agree with the idea that the buildings came down due to a progressive collapse due to fire weakening the structure and gravitational energy.
A building in Iran just collapsed due to fire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDd9DiT7Xow
A university in Holland partially collapsed due simply to fire.
We know that steel structures fail all the time due to fire. The highway overpass that just collapsed is an example of this. Current firecodes were informed by the collapse of a convention center in Chicago. https://i0.wp.com/chicagoareafire.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/IMG_0374-Edit-496x600.jpg
This is why steel supported buildings must have a lot of fireproofing. Probably the best form is brick and concrete. WTC did not fireproof its core columns with concrete. It used spray on fireproofing. This is stuff is very brittle and when the planes crashed into the building, a lot of this came off. The WTC was built very differently from many other buildings. The sponsors wanted a ton of office space and wide open floors. So the solution they came up with was external columns all around the outside of the building and a small group of core columns. They also have floor joists up to 60 feet in length. You can't firetest a completed 60 foot floor joist systems because the largest furnaces can only accommodate 18 feet.
No structural engineer will say a steel supported building can't collapse due to inadequate firerproofing.
DarkMath ago
You using something like the Plasco Building as evidence is indicative of how weak your argument is. The fire had consumed the entire structure which had been criticized already for it's weak construction. The height was 1/4 that of the WTC Towers which bee tee dubs had no fires below the impact floors which already disproves your analogy. Everything points to the Plasco being under-built a fact you can clearly see in the laughably thin steel columns clearly visible in the ruins. Let's be honest, that building's steel frame looks like a kids erector set project. "The building's managers had ignored repeated warnings about poor safety standards and the building's weak structure"
Whereas the WTC Towers were all OVER-built, especially WTC 7 whose core steel support columns were TWICE as thick as the armor on a Soviet T-32 battle tank. WTC 7 was overbuilt due to the numerous vaults and command centers it held.
Your entire argument is that designers of the WTC Towers were all incompetent. The ones without gag orders will all adamantly tell you WTC 1 and 2 were built to withstand the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707. The WTC 7 was built to withstand twice that. WTC 7 was built like a fire hydrant or as the English say "built like a brick privy". The fact it collapsed from two minor fires on a couple of floors makes any structural engineer laugh. The ones that don't are the guys who headed the investigation at NIST. Remember that link I sent you where the co-head of the investigation says they saw no evidence of molten steel and then the video cuts to two fireman saying they saw massive rivers of molten steel in the basements of all the buildings. Oh wait you didn't even look at that video.
So I'll close it out by showing you all the people you are calling incompetent rubes. Take a good long look, go to their web sites, look at their resumes, make sure you understand who you're calling incompetent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnusson_Klemencic_Associates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_E._Robertson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tishman_Realty_%26_Construction
Are_we_sure ago
Dude. I'm not going to watch some 90 minute video.
The Plasco Building, the Delft University building, the McCormick Convention center, the I-75 highway overpass in Atlanta, and the 580 overpass in Oakland (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHxyIECIEp0)) are all examples of steel structures that collapsed due to fire. Of course, they are different, that is not the point. The point is they prove the concept that fire can take down steel structures and you don't need explosives or thermite to do it. And this can happen at temperatures far less than the melting point of steel. And this is why, contrary to your assertions, that the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Structural Engineers Association of NY, National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, and many other genuine engineering organizations and journals accept that after planes struck the WTC and the fires started, the building collapsed due solely to gravity and no other forces were needed. There is no controversy in the scientific community about this. The 9/11 truthers are a tiny fraction of the engineering community who in 15 years haven't been able to come up with mathematical model to show how their claims would have happened. Their papers don't pass peer review, so they had to start their own journal, the Journal of 9/11 Studies. In contrast, to your belief that their ideas are catching on, they are stumbling along, because every new claim they came up with gets debunked. They were way more influential 5-6 years ago.
You're coming at this so late, you don't even realize, that using both shaped demolition charges and thermite makes no sense whatsoever. Initially the truthers who claimed it was a controlled demolition were specifically talking about using explosives to cut steel columns. They did this for a couple of years, but actually explosive and demolition experts pointed out their ideas were nonsense because to cut structural steel, you need an high velocity explosive like RDX which creates a supersonic shock wave. It's detonation velocity is many times the speed of sound, 8,750 meters/per second. It has a high "brisance" which the quality of shattering things which is why the demolition industry uses it to cut through steel. All that means these things are loud, very loud. They would be captured on any camera filming the WTC from anywhere in lower Manhattan. Close up cameras would also feel the shock wave. People who were in the building would suffer internal injuries because of the pressure wave (16 people survived the collapse of the North Tower) There is no way to make these explosive quiet AND still have the ability to cut steel. RDX by way boils at 453 F. So how explosives were supposed to survive 1000 F + fires for over an hour, I don't know. Demolition charges leave tell tale evidence on the beams that it cuts. So we know that shaped demolition charges were not used at the WTC. there would also be thousands of blasting cap remnants and miles of wiring left over. Since they had no control over who showed up for the recovery, there would be thousands of witnesses to this, dozens of whom had experience cleaning up after a controlled demolition.
It was after the Truthers boxed themselves into this corner, did they come up with the idea of the thermite being used. Because Thermite would be quiet, they didn't have to worry now about the absence of the noise of thousands of explosive charges going off. However, this brought new problems. Thermite has never been used in the demolition industry, because it's not effective. You couldn't be sure you would get a safe demolition, you couldn't get the timing right because thermite is unpredictable. It also would produce an incredible amount of light that we would be able to see. We also know that thermite was not used at the world trade center because as part of its reaction, it spits out molten iron. Were thermite used to the cut the columns they would have irregular holes in the steel and puddles or iron everywhere. Columns were inspector by the NY Structural Engineer Association and they found nothing like this. For the longest time the Dr. Jones and the truthers were using images like this to show use of thermite. Not knowing that this photo was taken weeks later after cleanup had begun and was the work on an ironworker on site. http://www.peace911.org/thermiteonwtccolumns_small.jpg
Dr. Jones study of the dust was reproduced and his red/grey "thermite" particles were found not to contain elemental aluminum and thus could not be thermetic. They contained epoxy, clay and iron like in carbon steel. The epoxy and clay indicated this is a type of primer paint used on steel columns. The iron oxide would be the the part of the column bonded to the epoxy.
No my entire argument is that you have no understanding of all the evidence that would have been present if explosives or thermite were used AND that you have no understanding that a dynamic load of 30 times the static load a floor was expected to bear would cause a failure of that floor and every single floor beneath it. You question my sincerity and claim I am being deceptive. I do not question your sincerity. I believe you actually believe this. However, I do question your capacity for understanding these issues, you simply seem to have no grasp of of the basic high school level physics involved. Freefall time, dynamic vs static capacity, what a controlled demolition would actually entail are either beyond your comprehension or you refuse to address for other reasons. You seem to think all the concrete was turned into dust. Uh Why? Why would they do this? This would require way, more work on behalf of the plotters to no effect whatsoever. Do you really think they rigged the concrete with thousands of bombs? In addition to the thousands of bombs and miles of wiring needed for a regular demolition?
I do not think the designers of the WTC incompetent. I think what happened on 9/11 was something they did not consider and even if they did would be far too expensive to try to prevent The buildings withstood the plane impacts for over an hour, allowing tens of thousands of people to get to safety. The situations at the Towers were unique. The plane impacts severed some exterior and core columns, exploded, setting the whole floor on fire at once and knocking the sprinkler system out of order and most importanly, knocked the fireproofing off structural supports. So now you had a severely weakened structure with a raging fire and no sprinklers to keep the temperatures down and compromised fireproofing. That is a situation that no structural engineer prepares for. That the buildings were structurally intact for over an hour after losing some of its core columns is due to their skills. I do think that knowing what we now know, that large span open office spaces require much more fireproofing.
You want to focus on anomalies and not the totality of the evidence. The totality of evidence shows these buildings were in trouble before they fell. Well before what you think are explosions, all three buildings were showing observable structural weakness indicating the building was in grave danger of collapse. Both towers were listing a few degrees to the side. Both had bowed out columns and floors that were completely sagging. WTC 7 was making noises and the corner was off plumb. A person on upper floor called declared that a floor below him had collapsed.
DarkMath ago
"I'm not going to watch some 90 minute video."
That's too bad because you would have learned NIST fiddled with the parameters within their computer models to weaken the steel floor joists until they failed in the way the WTC buildings failed.
They had to do even more fiddling to get their model to fail like WTC 7 because it was built like brick shit house. NIST invented never before seen characteristics of steel support columns. And as if that wasn't bad enough when the ran their simulation of WTC 7 collapsing it looking nothing like what actually happened. In NIST's model one side of the building caved in first but in the video footage WTC 7 doesn't do that. It maintains perfect symmetry as you would see, ding ding ding, if a controlled demolition brought it down.
And it gets worse. NIST only showed the first few seconds of their simulation. That's mind numblingly absurd. You don't build a computer model of a building collapsing and then only look at the first few seconds.
So I regret to inform you Mr "I'm not going to watch some 90 minute video." that you lose this argument. You could still win if you watch that 90 minute video and explain why it's wrong. I doubt you'll do that.
I'll leave you with the following review of the Scientific Method in the hopes you might remember what the fuck it is:
Good: Observation -> Conclusion
Bad: Conclusion -> Observation
Game Over
Are_we_sure ago
Here the laughably inept understanding of science of the organization whose video you sent me to.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/hFVi4qbN2jM/hqdefault.jpg
You probably don't even know why this is inept. You don't get it. The truther's have had 10 years now to come up with a mathematically sound explanation for their theory. You don't have to rely on NISTs initial model. (And if you don't understand why you would have to tweak a model, oh boy do you not understand the scientific method.). The truthers now have the raw data to make their own. They haven't.
DarkMath ago
Dipshit why are you making a comment? I told you the game is over. You lose.
You lose when you refuse to look at evidence. You can criticize these people all you want, you just have to listen to what they say first. And googling the video to find criticism of it doesn't count. You actually have to watch the videos and then explain why they're wrong.
Sorry. I don't make the rules.
:-(
Are_we_sure ago
Just to be clear, NIST report included many peer reviews and once published their conclusions have been endorsed by every single major professional engineering organization that has commented on it.
Each of the organizations below have vastly more members than ae911truth
The original study was published in the peer reviewed Journal of Structural Engineering and was endorsed by other heavyweight organizations such as
The American Institute of Architects They told AE9/11Truth
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats on WTC 7
(These are the skyscraper experts, members build the giant building all around the world.)
They also specifically commented on ae911truth
The International Code Council As a response to NIST's findings, they updated their fireproofing requirements.
Meanwhile, you're stuck with such frauds as Gage and Jones.
DarkMath ago
"cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition"
Oh look you forgot to mention clear evidence of thermite and/or nanothermite within dust samples from the WTC.
Dude give it up. You're not fooling anybody. You're either a shill, an idiot or both. Does it matter which?
;-)
V____Z ago
Well that's a nice rant and all, but Twitter has been banning people for speaking truth for a while now, and Jack has been called out for it.
People found these tweets to be a bit odd https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0KtDxxXUAAcNdp.jpg
They also found that his support, and even fundraising for Hillary, resulted in censorship on her behalf.
As well, Twitter's biggest funder is a Saudi prince http://www.carbonated.tv/news/saudi-prince-alwaleed-bin-talal-twitter-stake
Are_we_sure ago
That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about Have you never heard of the witch hunt regarding The Satanic Verses? The Ayatollah Khomeini sentenced the author to die for blasphemy. And you think it might be good to use in a smear job.
Also Twitter is a public company since 2013. This guy owns 5%. Explain why I should be scared
Arrvee ago
The Satanic Verses is a famous book that was banned in Iran.
The_Crux ago
Just checked it. The mod picked up on my criticism of the post that it failed to link the main charge that some named, living breathing kid is the victim of ritual child abuse at the hands of her family members. That means it's likely that poster didn't believe the charge but never the less took the time to post about the family in a way to make them seem like they are evil spawn.
Think about the trauma that you could be causing innocent people. It's like terrorism.
PizzagateBot ago
Hi! I created the following archive link(s) for this voat submission:
PizzagateBot ago
Hi! I used Google to find related Voat posts using the URL(s) in your post and created the following link(s):