9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed...

[SFC Ollie]

As I said you will dismiss anything that goes against what you want the truth to be. You make a claim that they tested the beams to see if they would bow, yet you don't back that up with the test, who did it, when, how?

You can fucking see the buildings being pulled in, now please tell me if the steel that you couldn't see wasn't bending or bowing how was that possible? What type of demolition could have possibly caused that effect?

Now go back to the Jones's and get an answer.....

Now me, I'm going to take another look at the videos because I swear I saw the whole top secion move as a section and actually tilt before gravity grabbed it and pulled it down. I do not remember any antenna falling before the roof fell. I do believe you are mixing up your buildings, You are adding the 8 seconds that you like to ignore from bldg 7 to the towers.......

 

[daws101]

also note the wording of this sentence:" Hey asshole this has been reviewed by others in the pertinent fields of study, and they had no problem or dismissed it away simply because of who wrote it.."
which begs the question were they all twoofers?

 

[GuyPinestra]

The sudden release of the pent up energy of the bowing beams (Remember those, the ones you can't explain?) could easily have ejected those beams....... Of course I know this will be rejected as I can't do the math and most of the CT folks refuse to accept what can be plainly seen....

I thought those bowing beams were pulling the walls INWARD, Ollie...

They did. and then they broke loose.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and all that stuff, ever flip a paperclip? Probably not.....

So your contention is that a 60' span of flooring attached to both the exterior wall AND the central core would have enough 'spring' in it to push a multi-ton section of outer column over 600' feet laterally?

Really?

 

[daws101]

NIST found that the condition of the steel in the wreckage of the towers does not provide conclusive information on the condition of the building before the collapse and concluded that the material coming from the South Tower was molten aluminum from the plane, which would have melted at lower temperatures than steel. NIST also pointed out that cutting through the vertical columns would require planting an enormous amount of explosives inconspicuously in highly secured buildings, then igniting it remotely while keeping it in contact with the columns.[24] The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center performed a test with conventional thermite and was unable to cut a vertical column, despite the column being much smaller than those used in the World Trade Center.[47] Jones and others have responded that they do not believe that thermite was used, but rather a form of thermite called nano-thermite, a nanoenergetic material which developed for military use, propellants, explosives, or pyrotechnics. Historically, explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited by their relatively slow energy release rates. But because nano-thermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far improved.[48]

The NIST report provides an analysis of the structural response of the building only up to the point where collapse begins, and asserts that the enormous kinetic energy transferred by the falling part of the building makes progressive collapse inevitable once an initial collapse occurs. A paper by Zdeněk Bažant indicates that once collapse began, the kinetic energy imparted by a falling upper section onto the floor below was an order of magnitude greater than that which the lower section could support.[2]

Engineers who have investigated the collapses generally disagree that controlled demolition is required to understand the structural response of the buildings. While the top of one of the towers did tilt significantly, it could not ultimately have fallen into the street, they argue, because any such tilting would place sufficient stress on the lower story (acting as a pivot) that it would collapse long before the top had sufficiently shifted its center of gravity. Indeed, they argue, there is very little difference between progressive collapse with or without explosives in terms of the resistance that the structures could provide after collapse began.[2][49] Controlled demolition of a building to code requires weeks of preparation, including laying large quantities of explosive and cutting through beams, which would have rendered the building highly dangerous and which would have to be done without attracting the attention of the thousands of people who worked in the building.[6][50] Controlled demolition is traditionally done from the bottom of buildings rather than the top, although there are exceptions depending on structural design. There is little dispute that the collapse started high up at the point where the aircraft struck. Furthermore any explosives would have to withstand the impact of the airliners.[6]

Members of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth have collected eyewitness accounts[51] of flashes and loud explosions immediately before the fall.[16][52] Eyewitnesses have repeatedly reported of explosions happening before the collapse of the WTC towers, and the organization "International Center for 9/11 Studies" has published videos obtained from NIST, together with indications about when such explosions could be heard.[53] There are many types of loud sharp noises that are not caused by explosives,[54] and seismographic records of the collapse do not show evidence of explosions.[55] Physicist Steven E. Jones and others have argued that horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers would indicate that the towers had been brought down by controlled explosions.[56][57][58] NIST attributes these puffs to air pressure, created by the decreasing volume of the falling building above, traveling down elevator shafts and exiting some open elevator shaft doors on lower levels).[59]
World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SFC Ollie]

I thought those bowing beams were pulling the walls INWARD, Ollie...

They did. and then they broke loose.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and all that stuff, ever flip a paperclip? Probably not.....

So your contention is that a 60' span of flooring attached to both the exterior wall AND the central core would have enough 'spring' in it to push a multi-ton section of outer column over 600' feet laterally?

Really?

I don't believe it is impossible. And since i have no proof that there was anything else that did it I have to go with the obvious.

 

[daws101]

The sudden release of the pent up energy of the bowing beams (Remember those, the ones you can't explain?) could easily have ejected those beams....... Of course I know this will be rejected as I can't do the math and most of the CT folks refuse to accept what can be plainly seen....

One of the only things that NIST actually came up with that wasn't a part of the Bazant and Xhou theory,was it's claim that the sagging of the floor trusses pulled the outer columns inward and this started the buckling of the columns.
They tried to validate this theory by putting floor trusses to furnace tests that were run by Underwriters Labs..it was a failure as the NIST testing showed that the trusses would not have sagged and deformed enough to have had this effect at all.
They actually over exageratted the sagging a lot just to make it fir this theory/guess.

This particular bowing, and what you keep harping on about was easily disproved by
simply looking at the videos. The videos show that the antenna on the roof dropped before even the edges of the roof did, and the antennae were held up by the core
columns.
What this signifies is that the core columns failed before the wall columns did. It also suggests that the hat truss, that connected the core to the wall columns, was severed very quickly at the beginning of the collapse, something that "fire" certainly could not have done.

Looking at the movement of the roof of WTC 1 it shows that it started its downward acceleration apparently with no slow movement, no slow sagging characteristics as one would expect to see if the steel were being slowly damaged and approaching its failure point by fire.
When you say "easily" have ejected those beams..You don't seem to understand that those "beams" were actually outer perimeter columns that weighed 100's of tons and were ejected laterally for great distances. Fire damages steel slowly, it takes time. Not all the building was damaged. The lower portions were constructed of larger, thicker components, that physically should have provided enough resistance to cause significantly longer duration times of collapse and not a mere few seconds short of actual FF.

The crushing effect of the top, according to the NIST/Bazant theory, is said to have easily overcame the more robust and undamaged sturdy lower parts, without so much as having any resistance to overcome.
Physicists have taken the videos of the tower, specifically the top damaged parts and analyzed it and applied measurements, and calculations, that show it essentially did not hesitate AS IT WAS COMING DOWN THROUGH THE UNDAMAGED BUILDING, and instead showed a constant acceleration that was measured.
FF of the towers was said to have to be 417meteres or (1,368 ')
417 meters =0.5 gt^2
=9.22 SECONDS
and we have estimates that range from 10 seconds in the 9-11 commission report, to 10 -15 secs. in other estimates. This is said to not be physically possible as the upper block, had parts of it that were turning into dust, and parts were flying off of it AWAY from being part of the crushing down upper mass.
The upper part had to overcome the initial resistive forces of the lower. This would have been visibly noticeable. It was not.

NIST did not bother to explain what happened to the WTC after so called collapse initiation. They simply state collapse was inevitable without even providing any scientific data to back up this assertion...And you people side with an unproven guess that has no data??
Another interesting tidbit about the NIST/Bazant theory is that it was written 1-2 days AFTER the "collapses". This is a suspiciously fast time to gather your evidence, do your calculations, and come up with a thesis. There are many things that have been shown wrong about this theory that NIST attached itself to provided in the link I posted and that Dawgshit made a fool of himself over LOL!

the fact is I made you look like an ass.

 

[GuyPinestra]

The sudden release of the pent up energy of the bowing beams (Remember those, the ones you can't explain?) could easily have ejected those beams....... Of course I know this will be rejected as I can't do the math and most of the CT folks refuse to accept what can be plainly seen....

One of the only things that NIST actually came up with that wasn't a part of the Bazant and Xhou theory,was it's claim that the sagging of the floor trusses pulled the outer columns inward and this started the buckling of the columns.
They tried to validate this theory by putting floor trusses to furnace tests that were run by Underwriters Labs..it was a failure as the NIST testing showed that the trusses would not have sagged and deformed enough to have had this effect at all.
They actually over exageratted the sagging a lot just to make it fir this theory/guess.

This particular bowing, and what you keep harping on about was easily disproved by
simply looking at the videos. The videos show that the antenna on the roof dropped before even the edges of the roof did, and the antennae were held up by the core
columns.
What this signifies is that the core columns failed before the wall columns did. It also suggests that the hat truss, that connected the core to the wall columns, was severed very quickly at the beginning of the collapse, something that "fire" certainly could not have done.

Looking at the movement of the roof of WTC 1 it shows that it started its downward acceleration apparently with no slow movement, no slow sagging characteristics as one would expect to see if the steel were being slowly damaged and approaching its failure point by fire.
When you say "easily" have ejected those beams..You don't seem to understand that those "beams" were actually outer perimeter columns that weighed 100's of tons and were ejected laterally for great distances. Fire damages steel slowly, it takes time. Not all the building was damaged. The lower portions were constructed of larger, thicker components, that physically should have provided enough resistance to cause significantly longer duration times of collapse and not a mere few seconds short of actual FF.

The crushing effect of the top, according to the NIST/Bazant theory, is said to have easily overcame the more robust and undamaged sturdy lower parts, without so much as having any resistance to overcome.
Physicists have taken the videos of the tower, specifically the top damaged parts and analyzed it and applied measurements, and calculations, that show it essentially did not hesitate AS IT WAS COMING DOWN THROUGH THE UNDAMAGED BUILDING, and instead showed a constant acceleration that was measured.
FF of the towers was said to have to be 417meteres or (1,368 ')
417 meters =0.5 gt^2
=9.22 SECONDS
and we have estimates that range from 10 seconds in the 9-11 commission report, to 10 -15 secs. in other estimates. This is said to not be physically possible as the upper block, had parts of it that were turning into dust, and parts were flying off of it AWAY from being part of the crushing down upper mass.
The upper part had to overcome the initial resistive forces of the lower. This would have been visibly noticeable. It was not.

NIST did not bother to explain what happened to the WTC after so called collapse initiation. They simply state collapse was inevitable without even providing any scientific data to back up this assertion...And you people side with an unproven guess that has no data??
Another interesting tidbit about the NIST/Bazant theory is that it was written 1-2 days AFTER the "collapses". This is a suspiciously fast time to gather your evidence, do your calculations, and come up with a thesis. There are many things that have been shown wrong about this theory that NIST attached itself to provided in the link I posted and that Dawgshit made a fool of himself over LOL!

the fact is I made you look like an ass.

You keep telling yourself that, daws....

 

[GuyPinestra]

I have a question, and the floor is open...

When the North Tower came down it seems the tv antenna started dropping BEFORE the rest of the roof line. That doesn't make much sense to me that the center of the building started falling first, but anyway, that isn't my question. My question is this...

AFTER the tower came down ABC video showed the 'spire', a collection of central core columns that remained standing for several seconds. When THEY came down the video shows that they came down from the bottom, not the top. Also, the video shows a couple of the massive core columns seemingly turning to dust as they fall.

How'd they do that?

 

[daws101]

One of the only things that NIST actually came up with that wasn't a part of the Bazant and Xhou theory,was it's claim that the sagging of the floor trusses pulled the outer columns inward and this started the buckling of the columns.
They tried to validate this theory by putting floor trusses to furnace tests that were run by Underwriters Labs..it was a failure as the NIST testing showed that the trusses would not have sagged and deformed enough to have had this effect at all.
They actually over exageratted the sagging a lot just to make it fir this theory/guess.

This particular bowing, and what you keep harping on about was easily disproved by
simply looking at the videos. The videos show that the antenna on the roof dropped before even the edges of the roof did, and the antennae were held up by the core
columns.
What this signifies is that the core columns failed before the wall columns did. It also suggests that the hat truss, that connected the core to the wall columns, was severed very quickly at the beginning of the collapse, something that "fire" certainly could not have done.

Looking at the movement of the roof of WTC 1 it shows that it started its downward acceleration apparently with no slow movement, no slow sagging characteristics as one would expect to see if the steel were being slowly damaged and approaching its failure point by fire.
When you say "easily" have ejected those beams..You don't seem to understand that those "beams" were actually outer perimeter columns that weighed 100's of tons and were ejected laterally for great distances. Fire damages steel slowly, it takes time. Not all the building was damaged. The lower portions were constructed of larger, thicker components, that physically should have provided enough resistance to cause significantly longer duration times of collapse and not a mere few seconds short of actual FF.

The crushing effect of the top, according to the NIST/Bazant theory, is said to have easily overcame the more robust and undamaged sturdy lower parts, without so much as having any resistance to overcome.
Physicists have taken the videos of the tower, specifically the top damaged parts and analyzed it and applied measurements, and calculations, that show it essentially did not hesitate AS IT WAS COMING DOWN THROUGH THE UNDAMAGED BUILDING, and instead showed a constant acceleration that was measured.
FF of the towers was said to have to be 417meteres or (1,368 ')
417 meters =0.5 gt^2
=9.22 SECONDS
and we have estimates that range from 10 seconds in the 9-11 commission report, to 10 -15 secs. in other estimates. This is said to not be physically possible as the upper block, had parts of it that were turning into dust, and parts were flying off of it AWAY from being part of the crushing down upper mass.
The upper part had to overcome the initial resistive forces of the lower. This would have been visibly noticeable. It was not.

NIST did not bother to explain what happened to the WTC after so called collapse initiation. They simply state collapse was inevitable without even providing any scientific data to back up this assertion...And you people side with an unproven guess that has no data??
Another interesting tidbit about the NIST/Bazant theory is that it was written 1-2 days AFTER the "collapses". This is a suspiciously fast time to gather your evidence, do your calculations, and come up with a thesis. There are many things that have been shown wrong about this theory that NIST attached itself to provided in the link I posted and that Dawgshit made a fool of himself over LOL!

the fact is I made you look like an ass.

You keep telling yourself that, daws....

being that you're as deluded and desperate as he ,it's no surprise you'd say that.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Well if you stacked up that much steel without any support where would expect the weakest link to be?

 

[daws101]

I have a question, and the floor is open...

When the North Tower came down it seems the tv antenna started dropping BEFORE the rest of the roof line. That doesn't make much sense to me that the center of the building started falling first, but anyway, that isn't my question. My question is this...

AFTER the tower came down ABC video showed the 'spire', a collection of central core columns that remained standing for several seconds. When THEY came down the video shows that they came down from the bottom, not the top. Also, the video shows a couple of the massive core columns seemingly turning to dust as they fall.

How'd they do that?

911 WTC North Tower Core columns turned into dust - YouTube

lol.....your point?
those appear to be core columns it's no great surprise that they were the last thing to fall.
if you look at your clip objectively and not with expectation of seeing what you wish to see it looks likes the outer parts of the tower are peeling away from the core.
you'd expect that as the floors were lighter then the core columns.
but then again you guys are experts at seeing what's not there.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Looked at another video of the towers as they went down.. The antenna did not fall first. Stop believing everything you are told to believe......

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w]9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center's Collapse Explained - YouTube[/ame]

 

[GuyPinestra]

Well if you stacked up that much steel without any support where would expect the weakest link to be?

At the bottom, of course, but when that 'weak link' gives up the ghost, so to speak, wouldn't you expect the above portions to topple over rather than fall straight down?

And how do you explain the uppermost part of those base columns seeming to turn to dust before your eyes? After all, each column was 52" X 22" and 5" thick.

 

[SFC Ollie]

That was either the camera or magic, we have no particle beams that will turn steel to dust..... Unless you want to believe that we do have such technology....Then I would say you need professional help.....

 

[daws101]

Well if you stacked up that much steel without any support where would expect the weakest link to be?

At the bottom, of course, but when that 'weak link' gives up the ghost, so to speak, wouldn't you expect the above portions to topple over rather than fall straight down?

And how do you explain the uppermost part of those base columns seeming to turn to dust before your eyes? After all, each column was 52" X 22" and 5" thick.

the key word there is "seems" since no explosives or accelerants were found. it's not those it seems.

 

[daws101]

Looked at another video of the towers as they went down.. The antenna did not fall first. Stop believing everything you are told to believe......

9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center's Collapse Explained - YouTube

thanks. I was just looking for that!

 

[GuyPinestra]

I have a question, and the floor is open...

When the North Tower came down it seems the tv antenna started dropping BEFORE the rest of the roof line. That doesn't make much sense to me that the center of the building started falling first, but anyway, that isn't my question. My question is this...

AFTER the tower came down ABC video showed the 'spire', a collection of central core columns that remained standing for several seconds. When THEY came down the video shows that they came down from the bottom, not the top. Also, the video shows a couple of the massive core columns seemingly turning to dust as they fall.

How'd they do that?

911 WTC North Tower Core columns turned into dust - YouTube

lol.....your point?
those appear to be core columns it's no great surprise that they were the last thing to fall.
if you look at your clip objectively and not with expectation of seeing what you wish to see it looks likes the outer parts of the tower are peeling away from the core.
you'd expect that as the floors were lighter then the core columns.
but then again you guys are experts at seeing what's not there.

[ame=http://youtu.be/gsUYhrXonXQ]9/11 Debunked: WTC - Zero Hallmarks of Controlled Demolition - YouTube[/ame]

Nice dodge of a simple question, daws.

What I asked was "How did they get those core columns to turn to dust right before our lying eyes?"

 

[daws101]

I have a question, and the floor is open...

When the North Tower came down it seems the tv antenna started dropping BEFORE the rest of the roof line. That doesn't make much sense to me that the center of the building started falling first, but anyway, that isn't my question. My question is this...

AFTER the tower came down ABC video showed the 'spire', a collection of central core columns that remained standing for several seconds. When THEY came down the video shows that they came down from the bottom, not the top. Also, the video shows a couple of the massive core columns seemingly turning to dust as they fall.

How'd they do that?

911 WTC North Tower Core columns turned into dust - YouTube

lol.....your point?
those appear to be core columns it's no great surprise that they were the last thing to fall.
if you look at your clip objectively and not with expectation of seeing what you wish to see it looks likes the outer parts of the tower are peeling away from the core.
you'd expect that as the floors were lighter then the core columns.
but then again you guys are experts at seeing what's not there.

[ame=http://youtu.be/gsUYhrXonXQ]9/11 Debunked: WTC - Zero Hallmarks of Controlled Demolition - YouTube[/ame]

Nice dodge of a simple question, daws.

What I asked was "How did they get those core columns to turn to dust right before our lying eyes?"

as they did not turn to dust only appeared to, your "question" is based on a false premise and has no basis in reality.

 

[GuyPinestra]

lol.....your point?
those appear to be core columns it's no great surprise that they were the last thing to fall.
if you look at your clip objectively and not with expectation of seeing what you wish to see it looks likes the outer parts of the tower are peeling away from the core.
you'd expect that as the floors were lighter then the core columns.
but then again you guys are experts at seeing what's not there.

9/11 Debunked: WTC - Zero Hallmarks of Controlled Demolition - YouTube

Nice dodge of a simple question, daws.

What I asked was "How did they get those core columns to turn to dust right before our lying eyes?"

as they did not turn to dust only appeared to, your "question" is based on a false premise and has no basis in reality.

Can you explain this supposed 'mirage'? It was an ABC newsfeed, after all...

 

[daws101]

Nice dodge of a simple question, daws.

What I asked was "How did they get those core columns to turn to dust right before our lying eyes?"

as they did not turn to dust only appeared to, your "question" is based on a false premise and has no basis in reality.

Can you explain this supposed 'mirage'? It was an ABC newsfeed, after all...

let me get this straight... you believe that the abc network some how tricked viewers with efx..
obviously you a no idea what live feed means..
also what network feed it is doesn't mean shit...