you can see thats building 7 with flashes easy, and even if it was reflections which its clearly not, why would there be flashes going off near the base of the wtc towers, when they were hit near the top and middle.. explain that one!
The building with the flashes is Building 7. You can see a flash high up on the front at c.0.05, followed by 2-3 more dust puffs just below it, a flash at c.0.7, then at c.0.14 a flash high up on the side followed by a rapid downward succession of at least 5 outward dust puffs, then at c.0.17 another flash much lower down on the front again and white smoke starting to come out. Building 7's detonations are timed to coincide with "big" events (here, the second plane impact) to distract attention.
@NellJSmith Mind you, I'm sure that the Towers were also demolished - just not in the classic "ground upwards" way like Building 7. Demolition "top down" may be non-standard, but it's certainly possible, and of course would be essential if you're going to try to convince the world that the planes and the office fires were responsible for the "collapses". Simultaneous detonations in the WTC basement (reported by many) would also be needed to destroy the Towers' core columns and house the debris.
Consider how many other great deciets have been perpetrated by governments. If they can do this to thousands of their own citizens, think what else they would do. These satanists have no concience whatsoever.
Looks like the government didnt manage to get their hands on this clip and edit out the crucial evidence on this video. Thats building 7 that you can see with the flashes throughout. If you notice, the girl in the background says this about the building, but the other lady says "really? I tihnk its the World trade centers thats going wrong" or something. Funny how the 9/11 debunkers cant quite debunk pure visual evidence like this. They are scum and USA is very overdue for a revolution.
I'm wondering, if this video wasn't a hoax, then why was it not the most viewed video on the web and the accompaning story front page news of every major paper around the world? And why no serious inquiry? Wouldn't the families of the victims of 9-11 be marching to this day to expose the evidence? I'm just inquiring, not judging.
HOLY SHIT!!!! LOOK AT THE BUILDING IN THE BACKGROUND (WTC 7) These is explosions going from the top floor downwards just like a slow controlled demolition! Even the women see it and are shocked! 9/11 was so obviously an inside job!
Why do these building owners hire expensive demolition teams to implode their buildings when they can just burn them? Our government is total BULLSHIT and lies of this inside job! Google Operation Northwoods and Gulf of Tonkin and then tell yourself this was terrorism.
Any idiot can tell it is a window falling, flipping and reflecting the sun. It's not even in front of the WTC!!
Has anyone ever seen a CD that only blew out a few windows, had no flashes, no explosions, no miles of visible wireing, no tons of explosives, while bringing down the entire building???
WHY do all these asshole official storytellers can't answer my questions about WHY?
WHY was the entire white house on CIPRO 2 weeks b4 any ANTHRAX ATTACKS by "TERRORISTS" (LOL) to only DEMOCRATS AGAINST THE WAR & poor old ladies & suckered postal workers?
"TERRORIST ANTHRAX ATTACKS" FROM Ft.Dietrick-AMES STRAIN ANTHRAX- from The Army Germ Warfare division.easily supplied to the CIA or even CHENEY'S HIT SQUADS-that the fucking CIA didn't even know about.
Guy who bult them said it was built to stand after a plane hit, building 7 fell from bottom from 4 rooms on fire on top floor, another building was 90% on fire,never fell, no argument n e more
@Headshothorror4488 in the history of the world a building has never went down from fire at free fall speed whats your saying is the words of a retard
@drugwhore WTF loll thats what the fuck I'm saying retard , buildings cant fall from a small fire on top floor, you should read more carefully before you call someone a retard , someone who says the same shit u do so that would make u a retard to then right, it was built to still stand after a plane hit, it is impossible for a building to fall as they did even from a plane
@Headshothorror4488 sorry what i said was not for you your not blind the retards are the people that thinks a building can fall at free fall speed from fire alone
@drugwhore its alright, sorry for being a dick, u are right there are many retards out there but most are little kids with no real knowledge, guy who designed buildings said it would not fall from a plane, there are soooo many facts but people chose to be unbelievably stupid about it, i mean building 7 says it all , there was demo flashes and booms on tape with so much other evidence & common sense but yes people are retarded
All I have to say is they took a real american hero like patt tillman and lied about how he died, not only to us but to his own family, waited till after his loved ones put him to rest to tell them. That was just one soldier, why would you think they wouldnt lie about this? Get real.The conspiracy is not the gov't doing it, thats nothing new, the conspiracy is that 19 guys with boxcutters and very little knowledge of fliying planes did it. Some of who by the way have been found alive
by the way you have to understand how steel works, functions ,expands or contracts based on temp. and also understand how buildings are designed they function as a whole or a sum of the parts. as to lose beams and columns is to lose strength as a whole which could collapse a building.....and who is a professional on HOW EXACTLY A BUILDING WOULD FALL IF THIS? OR THAT?....please no truther wanna be engineer has any factual evidence just biased opinions
@cultivationist the pool of molten steel under the debris makes me question, it shouldnt have been there still molten weeks after. can't find any explanation for that,and witness reports that the basement blew up before the collapse, that one is compelling too. and the free fall of building 7, only one side was damaged yet it somehow fell straight down freefall speed. 9/11 report stayed away from b.7 all together. way too many "firsts" happened.i'm no pro. but the pro's didnt answer either
@cultivationist "please no truther wanna be engineer has any factual evidence just biased opinions"
The acceleration of objects on earth due to gravity is 9.8 m/sec/sec . WTC tower 7 is 226 meters tall. Lets start from 226 and subtract 9.8m/sec/sec and see how long it takes.
226
216.2 1 sec
196.2 2 sec
167.2 3 sec
128 4 sec
79 5 sec
20.2 6 sec
The actual collapse took under 7 seconds, meaning it met no resistance on the way down. Not a typical pancake collapse, huh?
@cultivationist See? I just took one tiny piece of common info (the acceleration due to gravity) and used it to prove that tower 7 fell at free fall speed. I've done this with the others as well. You don't have to be an engineer to know the official story is utter bullcrap, you just need to have common sense and to do some research. It isn't rocket science it's fucking algebra.
@zookap Ah but you miss so much. What about the simple laws of physics? You forget that even though yes WTC7 fell at free fall speed (Even NIST said so) it was because of the massive damage to it's lower floors and when the supports failed there was little to no resistance meeting the upper portion of the building.
@CClaudio21 When the building in OKC was blown up, the whole thing did not fall and it had massive structure failure.....From what I have seen on video of #7 only a part of the lower floors were burning and it should have fallen to the weaker portion of the structure first, it did not....Then again buildings have burned will severe fire damage and they did not fall...Also, why did the BBC live on air say #7 fell when it was still standing in the background...
@avionicswirenut So? These other buildings you are referring to did not have prior structural damage to LOAD BEARING columns and trusses like WTC 7 did. The fire in WTC 7 was not the only cause of the collapse, the structural damage was the main factor.
@CClaudio21 OMFG!!! The structure damage was basically nothing to do with it...the empire state got hit by a 707 and fucking stoood still and people went back in the next week. Jet fuel burns to 600'F Now steel doesn't he get damaged until 1200F' NOW EXPLAIN TO ME why it fell? Why over 10 billion tonnes couldn't hold 10 Million? I repeat, no other steel building has fell due to fires. The world trade centre is the best Frame that we have built. It was built so it would only fall from explosives.
@lukealandrummond No the Empire State Building did not get hit by a 707 it was a B-25 bomber, completely unloaded and was considerably smaller than both a Boeing 707 or 757. Therefore, your argument is invalid. Also the pilot was flying at lower speeds. The planes that hit the Trade Center Twin Towers were both traveling at almost 600 mph and fully loaded with fuel.
@lukealandrummond I would also like to add that the Twin Towers were tube frame buildings, meaning that the load bearing structure were the perimeter columns and the core was not encased in concrete. When the planes hit, the perimeter columns were heavily damaged. Nuff said.
@lukealandrummond The core was steel and dry wall. Tell me that it was a strictly load bearing structure. Why don't you look up the twin towers design.
@CClaudio21 It was specifically designed to get hit by a 707....and no, they were not tube framed....they had 47 Steel core collums designed to hold the building up...WTF ar eyou on....This is most of my research i've done...But this is the experts watch?v=PWgSaBT9hNU
@lukealandrummond If you look up the architectual design of the twin towers it will come up as tube framed. Sure there were core columns underneath them, but the perimeter steel columns were what held up the above ground structure....
@lukealandrummond The structural design will still come up as tube framed still, the perimeter columns were what transferred all of the force from wind and the weight of the building to those columns.
@CClaudio21 The core was 42 Steel collums and Reinforced concrete, if you don't believe me look up the actually design specifications and structural design
"a part-time volunteer with the East Bumfuck, Mississippi Volunteer Fire Department"
Yeah, that's the best they can trot out for firemen -- a few delusional crackpots who never saw the WTC, never saw Ground Zero, and think they know better than the thousands of professional firefighters of the NYPD who were actually at the scene for months.
@demoskunk So we truthers are delusional for pointing to the video of Larry Sivlerstein admitting that Tower 7 was a controlled demolition? We are delusional for thinking it odd that, not only was Al Queda created by the CIA but that same CIA admits in mainstream news that they dressed up in costumes and faked the famous Bin Laden video? We are delusional for doing the math to find out that all three towers fell without meeting any resistance? YOU are the one with a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
"So then you can name some that were actually at Ground Zero and believe the WTC was demo'd..?"
Once again, the Truther Cult runs away when they get caught lying.
After almost 9 yrs of trying, they can't find even ONE fireman or cop that was at GZ (or any of the demo experts on site) who believe the WTC was a demo job, or who saw any evidence of demo during the months-long cleanup of the site.
Pretty sad record for the conspiracy nuts. No wonder they hide like rats when this comes up.
"name some that were actually at Ground Zero and believe the WTC was demo'd, or claim they saw evidence of demolition?"
I see CodeTwo2 is afraid to answer that one, since the only "firemen" in the Truthie Cult are a few low-ranking dipshits from the South Armpit, Arkansas, VFD, who have never even seen Ground Zero.
@MsgtSpook "I see CodeTwo2 is afraid to answer that one..."
Nope - just sick of wiping the arses of people who won't look for info, but only throw the same old insults. HAVE A LOOK for a change - it's easy to find. So the fireman with questions that weren't there must ALL be "dipshits"? Why -'cos they don't agree with you? Your thinking is childishly simplistic.
"NYC firemen are lying about what killed their friends, and they just didn't report finding blast damage"
Yes, that is an essential part of the Truther credo, which is why they refuse to address this part. None of their crackpot ideas make a bit of sense unless the firemen & cops are either unbelievably stupid, don't know their job, or were part of a conspiracy to cover up the Secret Plot.
@FarmGirlJB "Yes, that is an essential part of the Truther credo".
Spend more time actually looking, instead of just being a professional insulter using information from TV nine years ago. There are over 100 (when I last looked) firefighters of various ranks on record AGAINST the official theories.
@CodeTwo2 "There are over 100 (when I last looked) firefighters of various ranks on record AGAINST the official theories"
So then you can name some that were actually at Ground Zero and believe the WTC was demo'd, or claim they saw evidence of demolition?
Or are you talking about some grade-school dropout who's a part-time volunteer with the East Bumfuck, Mississippi Volunteer Fire Department, who never saw Ground Zero?
@Underwood4321 "Or are you talking about some grade-school dropout who's a part-time volunteer with the East Bumfuck, Mississippi Volunteer Fire Department, who never saw Ground Zero?"
I never had a theory that only explosives were used (or not regular-type explosives). I don't have all the answers, and don't pretend to. I examine all info and try to assess the likelihood of what occured, or didn't occur. I believe that traces of thermite derivatives have been successfully demonstrated.
@CodeTwo2 It appears you would follow your government to the ends of the earth. You include the firemen in a post. How do you reconcile the fact that this government that instigated the "reports" of what happened, also knowingly allowed so many firefighters and workers to get their lungs screwed up in the clean up?
@CodeTwo2 you couldnt tell me what thermite was b4 you became a truther.....your an idiot and need to get off your internet conspiracies........honestly the size of an operation like this would be on a scale no one could fathom.not just tell one or two ppl to hush your talking 1000s of people 1000s
@cultivationist not to mention that they take the phrase "thermite signatures" to mean actual bombs when all a signature means is that stuff used to make thermite was found at Ground Zero. But potassium, sulphur, sodium are also used in electronics, office furniture and cement all in abundance at office buildings.
@cultivationist "honestly the size of an operation like this would be on a scale no one could fathom."
Well you obviously can't fathom it. Being supposedly unfathomable DOES NOT make it impossible. One needs only watch the collapses to see what happened in front of our eyes... then realize that it was achieved, however unfathomable. The doubt in peoples' minds is what gives the government scope; people simply cannot believe that they would or could do this.
@xxxWinchester1873xxx "I think this is the fifth or sixth time codetwo has run away from backing up his crap." Running... what?? Look and read it your fat, lazy self. I know you're mostly capable of only trusting anything the goverment tell you (and in the exact same format), but try and break the mould. Why not explain the errors I mentioned in NIST's offering?
@FarmGirlJB "Still waiting for Prof Jones to demonstrate... ".
Are you waiting equally, for NIST to ever finish their incomplete, unconvincing and hole-filled report? Or being Govt. & "published", is that an automatic done deal?
@blueshark69 "And once again, the Truthie Sheeple can't back up another of their lies."
That is just a lazy, repetitive insult. Several sources have tested for, and found it. Why the hell are people going to come on here and just "lie"? Don't be silly. You won't look at information... instead you hide behind "fruitcake" and other jibes, and tell yourself that only "published" info matters.
Watching some lame little Truther twist in the wind, trying to avoid admitting he's ben caught in a lie, gets funnier every time I see it.
CodeTwo is caught dead up, with his dick in the dirt, and still can't admit that every engineer on earth agrees that 1000 F is the temperature at which steel structures collapse -- but now he says that "fail" isn't really fail, and now "collapse" doesn't really mean collapse.
@MsgtSpook You're too thick to understand it. Explain design factor of safety for us all to see, and loss of steel strength at various temperatures, instead of using childish "dick" references and name-calling. Go right ahead....
You can wait all year on CodeTwo. He runs away like a little girl because he has absolutely nothing he can cite to back up his nonsense.
The fire engineers say steel structure fails and collapses ~ 1000 F, and he can't find anything different, so he pretends his scientific opinion actually counts.
@RottweillerRescue44 "The fire engineers say steel structure fails and collapses ~ 1000 F,"
Steel loses up to half strength at 600C. How is that defined as "fail"? Steel & structure are two separate things. Give me the defintion of "fail". Prove me wrong on this point, then we'll talk FoS.
@RottweillerRescue44 I guess it's too complex for you. A STRUCTURE can collapse. A piece of steel cannot. (like a wall can collapse but a brick cannot). If a structure is built with material at a Fos of two or more, and 50% strength is lost in the material members... what will happen?
@MsgtSpook "In case you didn't bother to read that other post."
I read it. It's badly worded. Structures collapse, components don't. Do you disagree? And where is your explanation of steel strength reduction with temp., and design FoS?
@CodeTwo2 Example. There's a steel bridge across a river, designed to carry a total load of 1,000 tons. Design FoS 2, so could carry 2,000 tons. Fire burns below it, heats steel to 600C, half of strength lost in the steel. 1,000 ton load remains on it at the same time. What happens?
@CodeTwo2 "explanation of steel strength reduction"
This is clearly explained in most of the references given, particularly in Eager & Musso's (MIT) journal article:
" the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."
Softening of steel is one factor in setting the fail temp at 1000 F - Warp & breaking connectors is the rest.
@LancedeBoil Thanks. I've read that before. I've yet to read anything from anywhere that convinces me any of the fires were hot enough to compromise the steel structures as a whole, or that the structures were vulnerable to the level of heat actually present in the fires. WTC 7 in particular, which had no impact via a dropping upper section like the towers.
@CodeTwo2 "fires were hot enough to compromise the steel structures as a whole"
Thus far, if there are any structural engineers or fire engineers in the world that aren't convinced, they've kept mighty quiet for 8+ years. There are no peer-reviewed articles disputing this aspect, particularly since temps exceeded 1800 F in places. It's the differences in temp that do more damage thru warp & breaking connectors.
@LancedeBoil "It's the differences in temp that do more damage thru warp & breaking connectors." Yes this a factor of course, in its way. Equally, there is redundancy in the structure, such that many columns/beams would need to provide zero support for total structural collapse to occur. The 600C figure is used (as others have said) as a safety point to assume POSSIBLE collapse and cease firefighting for the safety of the guys etc.
@CodeTwo2 However, until 9/11, collapse has never happened in the way WTC7 went down. Even in a non-scientific sense, the fires were visually nowhere near as encompassing as have been seen previously. To heat the steel structure of a whole large building to the point of total collapse needs huge heat energy. I agree with what you cite locally in the structure, but not globally. NISTS sample batches would indicate this too I think; mostly 250C.
@CodeTwo2 Also, an interesting quote from NIST, following metallurgical testing of the samples (relating to the two samples believed to have reached 600C, I believe) :
"These [steel] microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600°C for any significant time"
@CodeTwo2 "To heat the steel structure of a whole large building to the point of total collapse needs huge heat energy"
Who says? Structural engineers say it could have stemmed from the failure of one column, spreading out , once the rest of the structure were compromised from the heat.
Assuming a max temp of 250C after a 7-hour burn is just plain silly.
@ReemYakrevice "Structural engineers say it could have stemmed from the failure of one column, spreading out , once the rest of the structure were compromised from the heat."
Total uninformed rubbish. No structural engineer said that. Spread from one column? You are talking complete garbage.
@ReemYakrevice "Assuming a max temp of 250C after a 7-hour burn is just plain silly."
Is it? Before you dig yourself any deeper, how about you actually bother to read the NIST report? THEY said that. Most samples tested, max heat subjection 250C.
@blueshark69 "So these fires were only about 480 F? When normal office and residential fires reach over 1000 F in a matter of minutes?" So it seems, at least those particular beams, in the locations of the building they originally occupied, according to NIST (not my 'claim'). This is the point - all sections of the damaged building floors didn't receive destructive heating.
@CodeTwo2 "all sections of the damaged building floors didn't receive destructive heating"
Big suprise. The only ones who think that ALL parts of WTC7 needed to be exposed to 1000 F temperatures are the confused Truthers who can't bother to read anything written by structural engineers.
@blueshark69 Not confused, just not gullible. The "peer-reviewed" NIST engineers blame fire for the weakening of a structure with high FoS strength. Then, their own samples show only small numbers of heat-weakened structural members. Non- or barely-weakened steel does not totally collapse in split second "chain reactions". It's YOU that can't be bothered to read it.
@blueshark69 Not confused, just not gullible. The "peer-reviewed" NIST engineers blame fire for the weakening of a structure with high FoS strength. Then, their own samples show only small numbers of heat-weakened structural members. Non- or barely-weakened steel does not totally collapse in split second "chain reactions".
@blueshark69 "who can't bother to read anything written by structural engineers."
Incorrect - I've read ALL the reports. However, I seem to've forgotten what caused the total collapse to the ground of the undamaged sections of the towers. Perhaps you could find it in the thorough/peer-reviewed/academic/qualified NIST report, and remind me of it.
The issue at point is WTC7, which you brought up, whining about low temperatures and the fact that the entire structure wasn't heated to the fail point.
What he is referring to, obviously, is the article in Structure magazine -- peer-reviewed -- indicating how the failure of only one column could have started the progressive collapse..
@SonsOfAzazel "peer-reviewed -- indicating how the failure of only one column could have started the progressive collapse". Which peers? Is "could" your word? I see this on their website: " The terrorist attacks on 9/11 severely damaged the 7 World Trade Center (WTC7) building, which subsequently collapsed after REPORTEDLY succumbing to an uncontrollable fire inside the building."
@SonsOfAzazel If you heated HALF OF THE WHOLE BUILDING to glowing white hot, you think it would all fall down totally straight that way? Then you try and push "one column"? You actually believe buildings are THAT marginally constructed? Guess you'll quote Popular Mechanics' bedtime story to me next. Even the much-vaunted NIST report does not provide a definitive comprehensive explanation.
@xxxWinchester1873xxx "On the other hand, not one, anywhere in the world, has disputed it. "
That frankly, is pathetic. Or are we grabbing as ever, at the "published only" definition to hand off anything that disagrees? Great result NIST's published work gave us.
No -- pathetic is when you can't explain why no structural engineer on earth is willing to go on record pushing some "alternative theory."
Truthers avoid stating an actual theory, since they sound absurd when put into words.
Thermite won't cut anything horizontally. It can't be timed to sever a beam to the nearest minute, let alone a microsecond. Truther "scientists" can't demonstrate a horizontal thermite cut & can't demonstrate "nanothermite" at all.
@FarmGirlJB " 'No -- pathetic is when you can't explain why no structural engineer on earth is willing to go on record pushing some "alternative theory.' "
Because the process of "publishing" is often difficult and expensive, it's all The Believers have to continually throw. "Go on record"? It's ALL OVER the internet, by credible people.
@SonsOfAzazel "whining about low temperatures and the fact that the entire structure wasn't heated to the fail point."
So now quoting salient information from NIST, the people that purportedly explained the event, is "whining"? I get hit because I actually READ NIST's words, and point out what THEY say. I must be doing something right...
@SonsOfAzazel I've just read their report in PDF form (no mention of 'peer review'; did you invent that?). After taking in words such as "may" and "likely", I see that "initiated" progression jumped to "global collapse was the ultimate result". That was as far as it went. Bit NIST-like I think...
@SonsOfAzazel I've just read their report in PDF form (no mention of 'peer review'; did you invent that?). After taking in words such as "may" and "likely", I see that "initiated" progression jumped to "global collapse was the ultimate result". That was as far as it went. Bit NIST-like I think.
Too bad the Truthie engineers don't have the balls to even write a letter to the editor, pointing out the shortcomings, let alone an actual article refuting it.
Of course, first the Truthies have to actually FIND a structural engineer in their little cabal that can read and write.
@xxxWinchester1873xxx "Too bad the Truthie engineers don't have the balls to even write a letter to the editor, pointing out the shortcomings, let alone an actual article refuting it." Oh right - but no mention of the shortcomings from you, or the fact that it defines NOTHING? All well and good when some of the govt. believers are trying to discredit things...
@ResurrectedFish I'll listen to you (despite that someone flagged your comment as spam). What do you mean by fail? Please read more of those engineers & manufacturers, then come back with a figure for what percentage of the steel's strength is lost at 600C.
@RottweillerRescue44 "40-60%. Nobody's disputing that. But you keep insisting, with nothing at all to bak you up, that this isn't enough to fail." No-one disputes it? No-one will even address it. At least you see it. As I've said, if the structure only requires 50% of the steel's strength, then if up to 50% of that strength goes, the structure remains, no?
The basic NIST conclusions have been confimed and published in dozens of different journals all over the world. Thus far, not one published engineer or physicist has had any dispute with them.
The Truthies, on the other hand, have not one study or research paper published anywhere.
@TankMonster105 "The Truthies, on the other hand, have not one study..."
First we had "published", now we're onto "study". There is much information produced that contradicts the official line, whatever you want to call it. What does it matter that NIST has been "published"? Their report is full of omissions. What do NIST say caused the collapse of the whole buildings?
@CodeTwo2 "much information produced that contradicts the official line"
Yeah, a load of crap they upload to loony websites, because they're afraid to try actually publishing it somewhere where they actually have engineers & real scientists to review their babblings.
If it isn't published in a peer-reviewed journal, it doesn't exist in the scientific world. Which is why nobody pays any attention to these clowns except on Youtube.
@CodeTwo2 "There is much information produced that contradicts the official line"
In the world of engineering & science, it doesn't exist, because the fruitcakes who "produced" it are afraid to submit it for peer review and publication.
@blueshark69 "Like your bullshit about thermite/thermate, for which you can't produce any academic research?"
Lever yourself out of insult and blind faith mode for a moment, then find and actually READ some of it yourself (preferably BEFORE automatically deciding the author 'must' be a nutjob).
@blueshark69 "Like your bullshit about thermite/thermate, for which you can't produce any academic research?"
Lever yourself out of insult and blind faith mode for a moment, then find and actually READ some of it yourself (preferably BEFORE automatically deciding the author 'must' be a nutjob).
Golly gee -- They finally found rust and traces of aluminum in structural steel. Please, dear lord, don't let them look in my workshop. We've got lots and lots of conspiracy evidence.
@CodeTwo2 "the composition of thermite/thermate and nano-thermate:
So does this mean you've abandoned the "theory" that explosives brought down the WTC, and now think it was some hypothetical flavour of thermite/nanothermite (not an explosive)?
Or were some columns blown with explosives, and others burned out with thermite-X?
@TankMonster105 "Do we see a pattern here?" Yes we do. We see that NIST found only two samples that reached 600C. Most were 250C. We read that NIST's beam sag tests showed nowhere near the sag that their theory requires. We read that they "explain" the fall of the undamaged parts of the buildings as "global collapse ensued". We read that WTC7 fell due to a new "phenomenon". But hey, it was "published".
What these conspiracy fans are actually saying, then, is that thousands of NYC firemen are lying about what killed their friends, and they just didn't report finding blast damage, or shaped-charge cuts, in the WTC debris field.
Blast damage, and especially the unmistakeable cuts from shaped RDX charges, is so obvious that no one could possibly miss it, even if they had never seen it before. It's different from the bent & warped steel we see in a steel building burn
First you have to actually FIND a Truther. A loud-mouthed few spend their lives on Youtube, parroting the same old crap from Loose Change, but they haven't the balls to actually show up in person anywhere, like the Ground Zero gatherings, since the last time it took a squad of cops to protect them & Alex Jones from the 9-11 family members and off-duty NYC firemen.
They can't draw a crowd bigger than a dozen anymore.
Code Two marked this as spam, since she is embarrassed to get caught sounding like an idiot. Again:
"CodeTwo's theory is, apparently, that every university in the world, and every engineering, chemistry and physics journal, is either madly in love with the US govt, or is mortally terrified of Men in Black not liking each and every issue they publish"
i'm all about the 9/11 conspiracy project.. but the flashes that you see is most likely debris.. probably glass have the sun reflect off of it as it falls... the "flashes" look a little to far away from the building to actually be from the building.. also if you want to say "well then why's it only at the lower right part of the building?" that's because there's a darker building behind so it's more visible.. there are probably "flashes" above that building just not as easy to see.
"How silly does your crap have to be when not one of them would publish it"
CodeTwo's theory is, apparently, that every university in the world, and every engineering, chemistry and physics journal, is either madly in love with the US govt, or is mortally terrified of Men in Black not liking each and every issue they publish.
And let's not forget that other "expert" the Truthies keep bringing up -- Kevin Ryan, the "UL scientist" who collaborated on Herrit's non-publication about thermite.
Ryan was fired from UL for cause -- and his Bach degree in Chemistry (no papers ever published) only got him a job as a WATER TESTER for Underwriters Lab.
Now they pimp him as an explosives and engineering expert.
And now I go back through the comments and see the spam-markers are at work. Not on bullshit or offensive comments of course, but on two posts relating to the fact that NIST's commisioned test on the sagging of floor joists drives a coach & horses through their own collapse theory. How surprising...
Probably payback for whomever kept marking arguments for the other side as spam. What goes around, comes around.
Apparently you fail to realize that the UL fire tests were only on undamaged floor trusses with all fireproofing completely intact. Irrelevant to the collapse.
The only point to those tests was insuring that they actually met the fire ratings they were originaly given. Which they did.
This has been flagged as spam show
911 was an inside job- do not forget WTC7 research WTC7!
ed4ed 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you can see thats building 7 with flashes easy, and even if it was reflections which its clearly not, why would there be flashes going off near the base of the wtc towers, when they were hit near the top and middle.. explain that one!
B198LKY2011 6 months ago
Comment removed
B198LKY2011 6 months ago
This is utter bullshit, those were NOT detonations, just reflections you fucking morons.
CClaudio21 8 months ago
@CClaudio21 LMAO.. Reflections of what? Explain a little more in detail, if you will?
mjwible27 8 months ago 2
Comment removed
xutabola 10 months ago
Comment removed
xutabola 10 months ago
The building with the flashes is Building 7. You can see a flash high up on the front at c.0.05, followed by 2-3 more dust puffs just below it, a flash at c.0.7, then at c.0.14 a flash high up on the side followed by a rapid downward succession of at least 5 outward dust puffs, then at c.0.17 another flash much lower down on the front again and white smoke starting to come out. Building 7's detonations are timed to coincide with "big" events (here, the second plane impact) to distract attention.
NellJSmith 11 months ago
@NellJSmith Mind you, I'm sure that the Towers were also demolished - just not in the classic "ground upwards" way like Building 7. Demolition "top down" may be non-standard, but it's certainly possible, and of course would be essential if you're going to try to convince the world that the planes and the office fires were responsible for the "collapses". Simultaneous detonations in the WTC basement (reported by many) would also be needed to destroy the Towers' core columns and house the debris.
NellJSmith 11 months ago
@NellJSmith dude you are right!!!!!!!!!
way2easy2love 4 months ago
keep hitting 1 to brighten up this depressing video
splendid1000 11 months ago
Consider how many other great deciets have been perpetrated by governments. If they can do this to thousands of their own citizens, think what else they would do. These satanists have no concience whatsoever.
freedezi 11 months ago
Looks like the government didnt manage to get their hands on this clip and edit out the crucial evidence on this video. Thats building 7 that you can see with the flashes throughout. If you notice, the girl in the background says this about the building, but the other lady says "really? I tihnk its the World trade centers thats going wrong" or something. Funny how the 9/11 debunkers cant quite debunk pure visual evidence like this. They are scum and USA is very overdue for a revolution.
JoanBeatrington001 11 months ago
I'm wondering, if this video wasn't a hoax, then why was it not the most viewed video on the web and the accompaning story front page news of every major paper around the world? And why no serious inquiry? Wouldn't the families of the victims of 9-11 be marching to this day to expose the evidence? I'm just inquiring, not judging.
eagle1023 1 year ago
@eagle1023
most people don't go on youtube searching for 9/11 conspiracy videos just saying
ps2nolimits 9 months ago
HOLY SHIT!!!! LOOK AT THE BUILDING IN THE BACKGROUND (WTC 7) These is explosions going from the top floor downwards just like a slow controlled demolition! Even the women see it and are shocked! 9/11 was so obviously an inside job!
JoanBeatrington 1 year ago
Its a good thing that we all know that steel doesn't melt in fire.....
Unless if your a part of the US government.
TheMattswish 1 year ago 2
Why do these building owners hire expensive demolition teams to implode their buildings when they can just burn them? Our government is total BULLSHIT and lies of this inside job! Google Operation Northwoods and Gulf of Tonkin and then tell yourself this was terrorism.
sychophantt 1 year ago
It's called CONTOLLED DEMOLITION!
sychophantt 1 year ago
Any idiot can tell it is a window falling, flipping and reflecting the sun. It's not even in front of the WTC!!
Has anyone ever seen a CD that only blew out a few windows, had no flashes, no explosions, no miles of visible wireing, no tons of explosives, while bringing down the entire building???
RetSquid 1 year ago
It was pieces that fell off the building for fuck sakes...
TheRStard 1 year ago
Hell will have no mercy on the Americans/American Media behind these attacks
smasila 1 year ago
this video shows bin laden was not behind this,instead it was his mates g w bush and co
moedem 1 year ago
WHY do all these asshole official storytellers can't answer my questions about WHY?
WHY was the entire white house on CIPRO 2 weeks b4 any ANTHRAX ATTACKS by "TERRORISTS" (LOL) to only DEMOCRATS AGAINST THE WAR & poor old ladies & suckered postal workers?
"TERRORIST ANTHRAX ATTACKS" FROM Ft.Dietrick-AMES STRAIN ANTHRAX- from The Army Germ Warfare division.easily supplied to the CIA or even CHENEY'S HIT SQUADS-that the fucking CIA didn't even know about.
cadu1995 1 year ago
i bet she's dead now... im guessing it's "suicide"
Albertp64 1 year ago
Guy who bult them said it was built to stand after a plane hit, building 7 fell from bottom from 4 rooms on fire on top floor, another building was 90% on fire,never fell, no argument n e more
Headshothorror4488 1 year ago
@Headshothorror4488 in the history of the world a building has never went down from fire at free fall speed whats your saying is the words of a retard
drugwhore 1 year ago
@drugwhore WTF loll thats what the fuck I'm saying retard , buildings cant fall from a small fire on top floor, you should read more carefully before you call someone a retard , someone who says the same shit u do so that would make u a retard to then right, it was built to still stand after a plane hit, it is impossible for a building to fall as they did even from a plane
Headshothorror4488 1 year ago
@Headshothorror4488 sorry what i said was not for you your not blind the retards are the people that thinks a building can fall at free fall speed from fire alone
drugwhore 1 year ago
@drugwhore its alright, sorry for being a dick, u are right there are many retards out there but most are little kids with no real knowledge, guy who designed buildings said it would not fall from a plane, there are soooo many facts but people chose to be unbelievably stupid about it, i mean building 7 says it all , there was demo flashes and booms on tape with so much other evidence & common sense but yes people are retarded
Headshothorror4488 1 year ago
All I have to say is they took a real american hero like patt tillman and lied about how he died, not only to us but to his own family, waited till after his loved ones put him to rest to tell them. That was just one soldier, why would you think they wouldnt lie about this? Get real.The conspiracy is not the gov't doing it, thats nothing new, the conspiracy is that 19 guys with boxcutters and very little knowledge of fliying planes did it. Some of who by the way have been found alive
jays0909 1 year ago
omg, omg what's happenning
mabyvideos 1 year ago
by the way you have to understand how steel works, functions ,expands or contracts based on temp. and also understand how buildings are designed they function as a whole or a sum of the parts. as to lose beams and columns is to lose strength as a whole which could collapse a building.....and who is a professional on HOW EXACTLY A BUILDING WOULD FALL IF THIS? OR THAT?....please no truther wanna be engineer has any factual evidence just biased opinions
cultivationist 1 year ago
@cultivationist the pool of molten steel under the debris makes me question, it shouldnt have been there still molten weeks after. can't find any explanation for that,and witness reports that the basement blew up before the collapse, that one is compelling too. and the free fall of building 7, only one side was damaged yet it somehow fell straight down freefall speed. 9/11 report stayed away from b.7 all together. way too many "firsts" happened.i'm no pro. but the pro's didnt answer either
corrob 1 year ago
@cultivationist "please no truther wanna be engineer has any factual evidence just biased opinions"
The acceleration of objects on earth due to gravity is 9.8 m/sec/sec . WTC tower 7 is 226 meters tall. Lets start from 226 and subtract 9.8m/sec/sec and see how long it takes.
226
216.2 1 sec
196.2 2 sec
167.2 3 sec
128 4 sec
79 5 sec
20.2 6 sec
The actual collapse took under 7 seconds, meaning it met no resistance on the way down. Not a typical pancake collapse, huh?
zookap 1 year ago
@cultivationist See? I just took one tiny piece of common info (the acceleration due to gravity) and used it to prove that tower 7 fell at free fall speed. I've done this with the others as well. You don't have to be an engineer to know the official story is utter bullcrap, you just need to have common sense and to do some research. It isn't rocket science it's fucking algebra.
zookap 1 year ago 15
@zookap Ah but you miss so much. What about the simple laws of physics? You forget that even though yes WTC7 fell at free fall speed (Even NIST said so) it was because of the massive damage to it's lower floors and when the supports failed there was little to no resistance meeting the upper portion of the building.
CClaudio21 8 months ago
@CClaudio21 When the building in OKC was blown up, the whole thing did not fall and it had massive structure failure.....From what I have seen on video of #7 only a part of the lower floors were burning and it should have fallen to the weaker portion of the structure first, it did not....Then again buildings have burned will severe fire damage and they did not fall...Also, why did the BBC live on air say #7 fell when it was still standing in the background...
avionicswirenut 7 months ago
@avionicswirenut So? These other buildings you are referring to did not have prior structural damage to LOAD BEARING columns and trusses like WTC 7 did. The fire in WTC 7 was not the only cause of the collapse, the structural damage was the main factor.
CClaudio21 7 months ago
@CClaudio21 OMFG!!! The structure damage was basically nothing to do with it...the empire state got hit by a 707 and fucking stoood still and people went back in the next week. Jet fuel burns to 600'F Now steel doesn't he get damaged until 1200F' NOW EXPLAIN TO ME why it fell? Why over 10 billion tonnes couldn't hold 10 Million? I repeat, no other steel building has fell due to fires. The world trade centre is the best Frame that we have built. It was built so it would only fall from explosives.
lukealandrummond 6 months ago
@lukealandrummond No the Empire State Building did not get hit by a 707 it was a B-25 bomber, completely unloaded and was considerably smaller than both a Boeing 707 or 757. Therefore, your argument is invalid. Also the pilot was flying at lower speeds. The planes that hit the Trade Center Twin Towers were both traveling at almost 600 mph and fully loaded with fuel.
CClaudio21 6 months ago
@lukealandrummond I would also like to add that the Twin Towers were tube frame buildings, meaning that the load bearing structure were the perimeter columns and the core was not encased in concrete. When the planes hit, the perimeter columns were heavily damaged. Nuff said.
CClaudio21 6 months ago
@CClaudio21 Have you seen the picture of the twin towers during construction when they were basically just metal? You might wonna take a look at them
lukealandrummond 6 months ago
@lukealandrummond The core was steel and dry wall. Tell me that it was a strictly load bearing structure. Why don't you look up the twin towers design.
CClaudio21 6 months ago
@CClaudio21 It was 2 feet thick steel collums, about 8 of them and concrete walls....The plane should have been shredded by the collums
lukealandrummond 6 months ago
@lukealandrummond It was not encased in concrete, six people escaped from an elevator by breaking through the 8 inch thick drywall
CClaudio21 6 months ago
@lukealandrummond It was not encased in concrete, six people escaped from an elevator by breaking through the 8 inch thick drywall
CClaudio21 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lukealandrummond It was not encased in concrete, six people escaped from an elevator by breaking through the 8 inch thick drywall.
CClaudio21 6 months ago
@CClaudio21 It was specifically designed to get hit by a 707....and no, they were not tube framed....they had 47 Steel core collums designed to hold the building up...WTF ar eyou on....This is most of my research i've done...But this is the experts watch?v=PWgSaBT9hNU
lukealandrummond 5 months ago
@lukealandrummond If you look up the architectual design of the twin towers it will come up as tube framed. Sure there were core columns underneath them, but the perimeter steel columns were what held up the above ground structure....
CClaudio21 5 months ago
@CClaudio21 Actually that's wrong...The 42 core collums held 70% of the structure plus they're own weight
lukealandrummond 5 months ago
@lukealandrummond The structural design will still come up as tube framed still, the perimeter columns were what transferred all of the force from wind and the weight of the building to those columns.
CClaudio21 5 months ago
Comment removed
lukealandrummond 5 months ago
@CClaudio21 The core was 42 Steel collums and Reinforced concrete, if you don't believe me look up the actually design specifications and structural design
lukealandrummond 5 months ago
"a part-time volunteer with the East Bumfuck, Mississippi Volunteer Fire Department"
Yeah, that's the best they can trot out for firemen -- a few delusional crackpots who never saw the WTC, never saw Ground Zero, and think they know better than the thousands of professional firefighters of the NYPD who were actually at the scene for months.
How fucking stupid can Truthers get?
454CasullTweaked 1 year ago
falling debris
SeanSM92 1 year ago
@SeanSM92 lmao, your fucking stupid
choclatesaltyballz 1 year ago
@choclatesaltyballz your spelling is poor.
SeanSM92 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SeanSM92 why is that you stupid cunt
choclatesaltyballz 1 year ago
@SeanSM92 whys that you brain dead american?
choclatesaltyballz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@choclatesaltyballz YOU'RE means "you are", and I'm from the United Kingdom
SeanSM92 1 year ago
That's falling debris that reflected some sunlight. Sheesh, you "truthers" are delusional.
demoskunk 1 year ago
@demoskunk So we truthers are delusional for pointing to the video of Larry Sivlerstein admitting that Tower 7 was a controlled demolition? We are delusional for thinking it odd that, not only was Al Queda created by the CIA but that same CIA admits in mainstream news that they dressed up in costumes and faked the famous Bin Laden video? We are delusional for doing the math to find out that all three towers fell without meeting any resistance? YOU are the one with a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
zookap 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"So then you can name some that were actually at Ground Zero and believe the WTC was demo'd..?"
Once again, the Truther Cult runs away when they get caught lying.
After almost 9 yrs of trying, they can't find even ONE fireman or cop that was at GZ (or any of the demo experts on site) who believe the WTC was a demo job, or who saw any evidence of demo during the months-long cleanup of the site.
Pretty sad record for the conspiracy nuts. No wonder they hide like rats when this comes up.
ChopperSix 1 year ago
"name some that were actually at Ground Zero and believe the WTC was demo'd, or claim they saw evidence of demolition?"
I see CodeTwo2 is afraid to answer that one, since the only "firemen" in the Truthie Cult are a few low-ranking dipshits from the South Armpit, Arkansas, VFD, who have never even seen Ground Zero.
Whoop-de-fucking-doo
MsgtSpook 1 year ago
@MsgtSpook "I see CodeTwo2 is afraid to answer that one..."
Nope - just sick of wiping the arses of people who won't look for info, but only throw the same old insults. HAVE A LOOK for a change - it's easy to find. So the fireman with questions that weren't there must ALL be "dipshits"? Why -'cos they don't agree with you? Your thinking is childishly simplistic.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CodeTwo2 "So the fireman with questions that weren't there"
You keep avoiding the question of why NONE of the thousands of cops and firemen at Ground Zero belong to the little Truthy Cult. Not even one of them.
I suppose you think they're just really stupid, right ? Since you weren't even there but have figured out all this explosives shit?
454CasullTweaked 1 year ago
hmmmm, flashes in a building that wasn't directly hit (looks like building 7), sometime AFTER the impact, the most convincing video yet !!!!
Spacefolders 1 year ago 18
@Spacefolders - yep most convincing video of falling debris and paper - big whoop
wkwickham 1 year ago
@Spacefolders it does look like 7
fuckystoat 1 year ago
@Spacefolders Haha you're funny!
CClaudio21 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Engineering sources stating that structural steel fails around 1000 F:
Truthies keep marking it as spam, since it embarrasses them:
tinyurl (dot) com/2f44fuq Civil Engineer News
tinyurl (DOT) com/24qs3af Dunn's Fire Engrg Manual
tinyurl (DOT) com/36a8uxv Czech Technical University,Prague
Tinyurl (dot) com/26efnfd Bldg Constr for Fire Svc, by Brannigan
tinyurl (dot) com/bzmpgo Corus Steel, Inc.
FarmGirlJB 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xxxWinchester1873xxx "don't let them look in my workshop. We've got lots and lots of conspiracy evidence"
Iron oxide, corroded aluminum, barium, sulphur, copper ... must have been thermite in my barn, too. Alert the authorities.
And here I thought it was just a rusty lawnmower, some old paint & drywall scraps.
FarmGirlJB 1 year ago
"NYC firemen are lying about what killed their friends, and they just didn't report finding blast damage"
Yes, that is an essential part of the Truther credo, which is why they refuse to address this part. None of their crackpot ideas make a bit of sense unless the firemen & cops are either unbelievably stupid, don't know their job, or were part of a conspiracy to cover up the Secret Plot.
FarmGirlJB 1 year ago
@FarmGirlJB "Yes, that is an essential part of the Truther credo".
Spend more time actually looking, instead of just being a professional insulter using information from TV nine years ago. There are over 100 (when I last looked) firefighters of various ranks on record AGAINST the official theories.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 "There are over 100 (when I last looked) firefighters of various ranks on record AGAINST the official theories"
So then you can name some that were actually at Ground Zero and believe the WTC was demo'd, or claim they saw evidence of demolition?
Or are you talking about some grade-school dropout who's a part-time volunteer with the East Bumfuck, Mississippi Volunteer Fire Department, who never saw Ground Zero?
Underwood4321 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Underwood4321 "Or are you talking about some grade-school dropout who's a part-time volunteer with the East Bumfuck, Mississippi Volunteer Fire Department, who never saw Ground Zero?"
No.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
I never had a theory that only explosives were used (or not regular-type explosives). I don't have all the answers, and don't pretend to. I examine all info and try to assess the likelihood of what occured, or didn't occur. I believe that traces of thermite derivatives have been successfully demonstrated.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 It appears you would follow your government to the ends of the earth. You include the firemen in a post. How do you reconcile the fact that this government that instigated the "reports" of what happened, also knowingly allowed so many firefighters and workers to get their lungs screwed up in the clean up?
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 you couldnt tell me what thermite was b4 you became a truther.....your an idiot and need to get off your internet conspiracies........honestly the size of an operation like this would be on a scale no one could fathom.not just tell one or two ppl to hush your talking 1000s of people 1000s
cultivationist 1 year ago
@cultivationist not to mention that they take the phrase "thermite signatures" to mean actual bombs when all a signature means is that stuff used to make thermite was found at Ground Zero. But potassium, sulphur, sodium are also used in electronics, office furniture and cement all in abundance at office buildings.
TigerRifle1 1 year ago
@cultivationist "honestly the size of an operation like this would be on a scale no one could fathom."
Well you obviously can't fathom it. Being supposedly unfathomable DOES NOT make it impossible. One needs only watch the collapses to see what happened in front of our eyes... then realize that it was achieved, however unfathomable. The doubt in peoples' minds is what gives the government scope; people simply cannot believe that they would or could do this.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
""Like your bullshit about thermite/thermate, for which you can't produce any academic research?"
I think this is the fifth or sixth time codetwo has run away from backing up his crap.
Close to nine years the morons in the Truther Clusterfuck have been promising some legitimate scientific research, and still a giant FAIL. Nothing.
The scientific community is split between ignoring them and laughing at them.
xxxWinchester1873xxx 1 year ago
@xxxWinchester1873xxx "I think this is the fifth or sixth time codetwo has run away from backing up his crap." Running... what?? Look and read it your fat, lazy self. I know you're mostly capable of only trusting anything the goverment tell you (and in the exact same format), but try and break the mould. Why not explain the errors I mentioned in NIST's offering?
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 "Look and read it"
You mean that thing that Herrit's own university laughed at and refused to publish, so he had to pay to upload it to a Pakistani website?
How bad does your "research" have to be before your own employer won't touch it?
ROFLMAO
FarmGirlJB 1 year ago
@xxxWinchester1873xxx "Truther Clusterfuck have been promising some legitimate scientific research"
Still waiting for Prof Jones to demonstrate thermite/thermate cutting standing steel. After 4 yrs, he may have given up.
He also said they would demonstrate nanothermite, showing us how it could cut standing columns & beams. That was back in early 2009, IIRC ....
And the sound of giggling continues.
FarmGirlJB 1 year ago
@FarmGirlJB "Still waiting for Prof Jones to demonstrate... ".
Are you waiting equally, for NIST to ever finish their incomplete, unconvincing and hole-filled report? Or being Govt. & "published", is that an automatic done deal?
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
""Thermite/thermate is present"
And once again, the Truthie Sheeple can't back up another of their lies.
blueshark69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blueshark69 "And once again, the Truthie Sheeple can't back up another of their lies."
That is just a lazy, repetitive insult. Several sources have tested for, and found it. Why the hell are people going to come on here and just "lie"? Don't be silly. You won't look at information... instead you hide behind "fruitcake" and other jibes, and tell yourself that only "published" info matters.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TankMonster105 "You were going to give us some peer-reviewed academic paper disputing NIST"
Don't hold your breath. The Truthers have nothing published, anywhere, which is why they run away from the question every time.
blueshark69 1 year ago
Watching some lame little Truther twist in the wind, trying to avoid admitting he's ben caught in a lie, gets funnier every time I see it.
CodeTwo is caught dead up, with his dick in the dirt, and still can't admit that every engineer on earth agrees that 1000 F is the temperature at which steel structures collapse -- but now he says that "fail" isn't really fail, and now "collapse" doesn't really mean collapse.
MsgtSpook 1 year ago
@MsgtSpook You're too thick to understand it. Explain design factor of safety for us all to see, and loss of steel strength at various temperatures, instead of using childish "dick" references and name-calling. Go right ahead....
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Engineering sources that ALL confirm that structural steel FAILS at 1000 F
tinyurl (dot) com/2f44fuq Civil Engineer News
tinyurl (DOT) com/24qs3af Dunn's Fire Engrg Manual
tinyurl (DOT) com/36a8uxv Czech Technical University,Prague
Tinyurl (dot) com/26efnfd Bldg Constr for Fire Svc, by Brannigan
tinyurl (dot) com/bzmpgo Corus Steel, Inc.
The Truthies keep marking it as spam, since it embarrasses them.
RottweillerRescue44 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RottweillerRescue44
Since truthers keep marking this as spam, because it embarrasses them -- sources for steel structure FAILING at 1000 F:
tinyurl (dot) com/2f44fuq Civil Engineer News
tinyurl (DOT) com/24qs3af Dunn's Fire Engrg Manual
tinyurl (DOT) com/36a8uxv Czech Technical University,Prague
Tinyurl (dot) com/26efnfd Bldg Constr for Fire Svc, by Brannigan
tinyurl (dot) com/bzmpgo Corus Steel, Inc.
blueshark69 1 year ago
"We're still eagerly waiting."
You can wait all year on CodeTwo. He runs away like a little girl because he has absolutely nothing he can cite to back up his nonsense.
The fire engineers say steel structure fails and collapses ~ 1000 F, and he can't find anything different, so he pretends his scientific opinion actually counts.
RottweillerRescue44 1 year ago
@RottweillerRescue44 "The fire engineers say steel structure fails and collapses ~ 1000 F,"
Steel loses up to half strength at 600C. How is that defined as "fail"? Steel & structure are two separate things. Give me the defintion of "fail". Prove me wrong on this point, then we'll talk FoS.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 I meant - give me YOUR defintion of "fail".
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 "Give me the defintion of "fail".
" ... steel warps, melts, sags and COLLAPSES when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 - 1200°F.”
(Command and Control of Fires and Emergencies, Vincent Dunn, 1999 pg 46)
Do you have some alternate definition for COLLAPSES, too?
RottweillerRescue44 1 year ago
@RottweillerRescue44 I guess it's too complex for you. A STRUCTURE can collapse. A piece of steel cannot. (like a wall can collapse but a brick cannot). If a structure is built with material at a Fos of two or more, and 50% strength is lost in the material members... what will happen?
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 "A STRUCTURE can collapse"
Which,it does, around 1000 F when the steel reaches its failure temperature.
" ... steel warps, melts, sags and COLLAPSES when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 - 1200°F.”
In case you didn't bother to read that other post.
Or do you have another definition for "collapses?"
MsgtSpook 1 year ago
@MsgtSpook "In case you didn't bother to read that other post."
I read it. It's badly worded. Structures collapse, components don't. Do you disagree? And where is your explanation of steel strength reduction with temp., and design FoS?
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 Example. There's a steel bridge across a river, designed to carry a total load of 1,000 tons. Design FoS 2, so could carry 2,000 tons. Fire burns below it, heats steel to 600C, half of strength lost in the steel. 1,000 ton load remains on it at the same time. What happens?
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 "explanation of steel strength reduction"
This is clearly explained in most of the references given, particularly in Eager & Musso's (MIT) journal article:
" the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."
Softening of steel is one factor in setting the fail temp at 1000 F - Warp & breaking connectors is the rest.
LancedeBoil 1 year ago
@LancedeBoil Thanks. I've read that before. I've yet to read anything from anywhere that convinces me any of the fires were hot enough to compromise the steel structures as a whole, or that the structures were vulnerable to the level of heat actually present in the fires. WTC 7 in particular, which had no impact via a dropping upper section like the towers.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 "fires were hot enough to compromise the steel structures as a whole"
Thus far, if there are any structural engineers or fire engineers in the world that aren't convinced, they've kept mighty quiet for 8+ years. There are no peer-reviewed articles disputing this aspect, particularly since temps exceeded 1800 F in places. It's the differences in temp that do more damage thru warp & breaking connectors.
LancedeBoil 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LancedeBoil "It's the differences in temp that do more damage thru warp & breaking connectors." Yes this a factor of course, in its way. Equally, there is redundancy in the structure, such that many columns/beams would need to provide zero support for total structural collapse to occur. The 600C figure is used (as others have said) as a safety point to assume POSSIBLE collapse and cease firefighting for the safety of the guys etc.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 However, until 9/11, collapse has never happened in the way WTC7 went down. Even in a non-scientific sense, the fires were visually nowhere near as encompassing as have been seen previously. To heat the steel structure of a whole large building to the point of total collapse needs huge heat energy. I agree with what you cite locally in the structure, but not globally. NISTS sample batches would indicate this too I think; mostly 250C.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 Also, an interesting quote from NIST, following metallurgical testing of the samples (relating to the two samples believed to have reached 600C, I believe) :
"These [steel] microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600°C for any significant time"
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 "To heat the steel structure of a whole large building to the point of total collapse needs huge heat energy"
Who says? Structural engineers say it could have stemmed from the failure of one column, spreading out , once the rest of the structure were compromised from the heat.
Assuming a max temp of 250C after a 7-hour burn is just plain silly.
ReemYakrevice 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ReemYakrevice "Structural engineers say it could have stemmed from the failure of one column, spreading out , once the rest of the structure were compromised from the heat."
Total uninformed rubbish. No structural engineer said that. Spread from one column? You are talking complete garbage.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@ReemYakrevice "Assuming a max temp of 250C after a 7-hour burn is just plain silly."
Is it? Before you dig yourself any deeper, how about you actually bother to read the NIST report? THEY said that. Most samples tested, max heat subjection 250C.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 "Most samples tested"
Which of course is meaningless, and tells you nothing about the rest of the building.
Did you even bother to look at the photos of WTC 7, with flames pouring out of the windows? You think that didn't get over 250 F?
blueshark69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blueshark69 "Which of course is meaningless, and tells you nothing about the rest of the building."
Oh really? I thought NIST's "published/peer reviewed" stuff was definitive? So now they don't know about "the rest of the building"?
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@blueshark69 "Did you even bother to look at the photos of WTC 7, with flames pouring out of the windows?"
Were those peer-reviewed flames? After all, nothing else is credible eh? Thought/opinion/observation etc.....
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CodeTwo2 "mostly 250C"
So these fires were only about 480 F? When normal office and residential fires reach over 1000 F in a matter of minutes?
Photo of WTC7 fires: tinyurl (dot) com/3a6y3xy
The temps you claim would barely light a cigarette (paper ignites ~450 F)
blueshark69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blueshark69 "So these fires were only about 480 F? When normal office and residential fires reach over 1000 F in a matter of minutes?" So it seems, at least those particular beams, in the locations of the building they originally occupied, according to NIST (not my 'claim'). This is the point - all sections of the damaged building floors didn't receive destructive heating.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 "all sections of the damaged building floors didn't receive destructive heating"
Big suprise. The only ones who think that ALL parts of WTC7 needed to be exposed to 1000 F temperatures are the confused Truthers who can't bother to read anything written by structural engineers.
blueshark69 1 year ago
@blueshark69 Not confused, just not gullible. The "peer-reviewed" NIST engineers blame fire for the weakening of a structure with high FoS strength. Then, their own samples show only small numbers of heat-weakened structural members. Non- or barely-weakened steel does not totally collapse in split second "chain reactions". It's YOU that can't be bothered to read it.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@blueshark69 Not confused, just not gullible. The "peer-reviewed" NIST engineers blame fire for the weakening of a structure with high FoS strength. Then, their own samples show only small numbers of heat-weakened structural members. Non- or barely-weakened steel does not totally collapse in split second "chain reactions".
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@blueshark69 "who can't bother to read anything written by structural engineers."
Incorrect - I've read ALL the reports. However, I seem to've forgotten what caused the total collapse to the ground of the undamaged sections of the towers. Perhaps you could find it in the thorough/peer-reviewed/academic/qualified NIST report, and remind me of it.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 "nothing else is credible eh?"
The issue at point is WTC7, which you brought up, whining about low temperatures and the fact that the entire structure wasn't heated to the fail point.
What he is referring to, obviously, is the article in Structure magazine -- peer-reviewed -- indicating how the failure of only one column could have started the progressive collapse..
SonsOfAzazel 1 year ago
@SonsOfAzazel "peer-reviewed -- indicating how the failure of only one column could have started the progressive collapse". Which peers? Is "could" your word? I see this on their website: " The terrorist attacks on 9/11 severely damaged the 7 World Trade Center (WTC7) building, which subsequently collapsed after REPORTEDLY succumbing to an uncontrollable fire inside the building."
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@SonsOfAzazel If you heated HALF OF THE WHOLE BUILDING to glowing white hot, you think it would all fall down totally straight that way? Then you try and push "one column"? You actually believe buildings are THAT marginally constructed? Guess you'll quote Popular Mechanics' bedtime story to me next. Even the much-vaunted NIST report does not provide a definitive comprehensive explanation.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 "you think it would all fall down totally straight that way?"
So far all the structural engineers that have studied it, and actually published, agree that it did.
On the other hand, not one, anywhere in the world, has disputed it.
Maybe they're all in on this insane little plot you imagine.
xxxWinchester1873xxx 1 year ago
@xxxWinchester1873xxx "On the other hand, not one, anywhere in the world, has disputed it. "
That frankly, is pathetic. Or are we grabbing as ever, at the "published only" definition to hand off anything that disagrees? Great result NIST's published work gave us.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 "That frankly, is pathetic"
No -- pathetic is when you can't explain why no structural engineer on earth is willing to go on record pushing some "alternative theory."
Truthers avoid stating an actual theory, since they sound absurd when put into words.
Thermite won't cut anything horizontally. It can't be timed to sever a beam to the nearest minute, let alone a microsecond. Truther "scientists" can't demonstrate a horizontal thermite cut & can't demonstrate "nanothermite" at all.
FarmGirlJB 1 year ago
@FarmGirlJB " 'No -- pathetic is when you can't explain why no structural engineer on earth is willing to go on record pushing some "alternative theory.' "
Because the process of "publishing" is often difficult and expensive, it's all The Believers have to continually throw. "Go on record"? It's ALL OVER the internet, by credible people.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@SonsOfAzazel "whining about low temperatures and the fact that the entire structure wasn't heated to the fail point."
So now quoting salient information from NIST, the people that purportedly explained the event, is "whining"? I get hit because I actually READ NIST's words, and point out what THEY say. I must be doing something right...
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@SonsOfAzazel I've just read their report in PDF form (no mention of 'peer review'; did you invent that?). After taking in words such as "may" and "likely", I see that "initiated" progression jumped to "global collapse was the ultimate result". That was as far as it went. Bit NIST-like I think...
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@SonsOfAzazel I've just read their report in PDF form (no mention of 'peer review'; did you invent that?). After taking in words such as "may" and "likely", I see that "initiated" progression jumped to "global collapse was the ultimate result". That was as far as it went. Bit NIST-like I think.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 "That was as far as it went."
Too bad the Truthie engineers don't have the balls to even write a letter to the editor, pointing out the shortcomings, let alone an actual article refuting it.
Of course, first the Truthies have to actually FIND a structural engineer in their little cabal that can read and write.
xxxWinchester1873xxx 1 year ago
@xxxWinchester1873xxx "Too bad the Truthie engineers don't have the balls to even write a letter to the editor, pointing out the shortcomings, let alone an actual article refuting it." Oh right - but no mention of the shortcomings from you, or the fact that it defines NOTHING? All well and good when some of the govt. believers are trying to discredit things...
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2
Perhaps a better explanation, from AISC:
"The first standardized column fire tests were carried out
in 1917 at UL, Inc. in the U.S.A. Results..indicate that most steel columns collapsed
under full design load at avg steel temps
above 1000°F . In 1947, an alternate
test method for steel columns was adopted.' -- the column is tested unloaded and the failure
criterion is the attainment of an average or "critical steel temperature"
of 1000°F .
tinyurl (dot) com/2vjhj2u
LancedeBoil 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Steel structure doesn't fail ~1000 F ? Really?
Someone better explain it to all these engineers & manufacturers (links provided):
tinyurl (dot) com/2f44fuq Civil Engineer News
tinyurl (DOT) com/24qs3af Dunn's Fire Engrg Manual
tinyurl (DOT) com/36a8uxv Czech Technical University,Prague
Tinyurl (dot) com/26efnfd Bldg Constr for Fire Svc, by Brannigan
tinyurl (dot) com/bzmpgo Corus Steel, Inc.
ResurrectedFish 1 year ago
@ResurrectedFish I'll listen to you (despite that someone flagged your comment as spam). What do you mean by fail? Please read more of those engineers & manufacturers, then come back with a figure for what percentage of the steel's strength is lost at 600C.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 "Where did you ever get the impression that answering a question with a question was a legitimate answer?"
40-60%. Nobody's disputing that. But you keep insisting, with nothing at all to bak you up, that this isn't enough to fail.
So is Corus lying, and all the fire engineers? They say FAIL and COLLAPSE.
You pretend this doesn't mean "fail" and "collapse."
Waiting for your sources on steel failure ....
RottweillerRescue44 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RottweillerRescue44 "40-60%. Nobody's disputing that. But you keep insisting, with nothing at all to bak you up, that this isn't enough to fail." No-one disputes it? No-one will even address it. At least you see it. As I've said, if the structure only requires 50% of the steel's strength, then if up to 50% of that strength goes, the structure remains, no?
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
The basic NIST conclusions have been confimed and published in dozens of different journals all over the world. Thus far, not one published engineer or physicist has had any dispute with them.
The Truthies, on the other hand, have not one study or research paper published anywhere.
Do we see a pattern here?
TankMonster105 1 year ago 3
@TankMonster105 "The Truthies, on the other hand, have not one study..."
First we had "published", now we're onto "study". There is much information produced that contradicts the official line, whatever you want to call it. What does it matter that NIST has been "published"? Their report is full of omissions. What do NIST say caused the collapse of the whole buildings?
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 "much information produced that contradicts the official line"
Yeah, a load of crap they upload to loony websites, because they're afraid to try actually publishing it somewhere where they actually have engineers & real scientists to review their babblings.
If it isn't published in a peer-reviewed journal, it doesn't exist in the scientific world. Which is why nobody pays any attention to these clowns except on Youtube.
RottweillerRescue44 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 "There is much information produced that contradicts the official line"
In the world of engineering & science, it doesn't exist, because the fruitcakes who "produced" it are afraid to submit it for peer review and publication.
Small wonder.
blueshark69 1 year ago
@blueshark69 ""There is much information produced that contradicts the official line"
So are you going to back this up with some actual research links, or just run away like a little girl?
Like your bullshit about thermite/thermate, for which you can't produce any academic research?
blueshark69 1 year ago
@blueshark69 "Like your bullshit about thermite/thermate, for which you can't produce any academic research?"
Lever yourself out of insult and blind faith mode for a moment, then find and actually READ some of it yourself (preferably BEFORE automatically deciding the author 'must' be a nutjob).
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@blueshark69 "Like your bullshit about thermite/thermate, for which you can't produce any academic research?"
Lever yourself out of insult and blind faith mode for a moment, then find and actually READ some of it yourself (preferably BEFORE automatically deciding the author 'must' be a nutjob).
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 "actually READ some of it yourself "
Golly gee -- They finally found rust and traces of aluminum in structural steel. Please, dear lord, don't let them look in my workshop. We've got lots and lots of conspiracy evidence.
xxxWinchester1873xxx 1 year ago
@xxxWinchester1873xxx "Golly gee -- They finally found rust and traces of aluminum in structural steel."
Shows how much you've looked into the composition of thermite/thermate and nano-thermate.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2 "the composition of thermite/thermate and nano-thermate:
So does this mean you've abandoned the "theory" that explosives brought down the WTC, and now think it was some hypothetical flavour of thermite/nanothermite (not an explosive)?
Or were some columns blown with explosives, and others burned out with thermite-X?
FarmGirlJB 1 year ago
@TankMonster105 "Do we see a pattern here?" Yes we do. We see that NIST found only two samples that reached 600C. Most were 250C. We read that NIST's beam sag tests showed nowhere near the sag that their theory requires. We read that they "explain" the fall of the undamaged parts of the buildings as "global collapse ensued". We read that WTC7 fell due to a new "phenomenon". But hey, it was "published".
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
@CodeTwo2
Afraid to answer why there are NO peer-reviewed studies, anywhere, that dispute NIST?
And dozens , maybe hundreds, that confirm NIST?
You keep changing the subject to avoid this.
RottweillerRescue44 1 year ago
"to actually ask for proof "
What these conspiracy fans are actually saying, then, is that thousands of NYC firemen are lying about what killed their friends, and they just didn't report finding blast damage, or shaped-charge cuts, in the WTC debris field.
Blast damage, and especially the unmistakeable cuts from shaped RDX charges, is so obvious that no one could possibly miss it, even if they had never seen it before. It's different from the bent & warped steel we see in a steel building burn
blaupunkt455 1 year ago 16
"a claw hammer and a room draped in plastic"
First you have to actually FIND a Truther. A loud-mouthed few spend their lives on Youtube, parroting the same old crap from Loose Change, but they haven't the balls to actually show up in person anywhere, like the Ground Zero gatherings, since the last time it took a squad of cops to protect them & Alex Jones from the 9-11 family members and off-duty NYC firemen.
They can't draw a crowd bigger than a dozen anymore.
pilot101st 1 year ago 3
legalboxer - Incorrect. I have never marked anything on YouTube as spam.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
Truthers an alien insect race that would be best served with a claw hammer and a room draped in plastic
SonsOfAzazel 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Code Two marked this as spam, since she is embarrassed to get caught sounding like an idiot. Again:
"CodeTwo's theory is, apparently, that every university in the world, and every engineering, chemistry and physics journal, is either madly in love with the US govt, or is mortally terrified of Men in Black not liking each and every issue they publish"
legalboxer 1 year ago
i'm all about the 9/11 conspiracy project.. but the flashes that you see is most likely debris.. probably glass have the sun reflect off of it as it falls... the "flashes" look a little to far away from the building to actually be from the building.. also if you want to say "well then why's it only at the lower right part of the building?" that's because there's a darker building behind so it's more visible.. there are probably "flashes" above that building just not as easy to see.
docshuck 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"How silly does your crap have to be when not one of them would publish it"
CodeTwo's theory is, apparently, that every university in the world, and every engineering, chemistry and physics journal, is either madly in love with the US govt, or is mortally terrified of Men in Black not liking each and every issue they publish.
legalboxer 1 year ago
And let's not forget that other "expert" the Truthies keep bringing up -- Kevin Ryan, the "UL scientist" who collaborated on Herrit's non-publication about thermite.
Ryan was fired from UL for cause -- and his Bach degree in Chemistry (no papers ever published) only got him a job as a WATER TESTER for Underwriters Lab.
Now they pimp him as an explosives and engineering expert.
And they wonder why everyone laughs at them.
legalboxer 1 year ago
And now I go back through the comments and see the spam-markers are at work. Not on bullshit or offensive comments of course, but on two posts relating to the fact that NIST's commisioned test on the sagging of floor joists drives a coach & horses through their own collapse theory. How surprising...
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
"spam-markers"
Probably payback for whomever kept marking arguments for the other side as spam. What goes around, comes around.
Apparently you fail to realize that the UL fire tests were only on undamaged floor trusses with all fireproofing completely intact. Irrelevant to the collapse.
The only point to those tests was insuring that they actually met the fire ratings they were originaly given. Which they did.
HaidDeSalaami 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@HaidDeSalaami "Probably payback for whomever kept marking arguments for the other side as spam. What goes around, comes around."
I've personally never spammed ANYTHING on YouTube.
CodeTwo2 1 year ago