but how would a cutter get good ground to stand on? it looks from the pic that there is no where to stand and level yourself. also it looks like it's shortly after 9/11 since the ground is still smoking. thoughts anyone?
A post facto explanation of a photograph taken at ground zero is always going to be suspect. However, suffice it to say that since a serious investigation was never conducted, it is a moot point to try and convince non-believers of the government's explanation. Most of the evidence was removed too quickly, even if the intent of the 911 Commission was to conduct a thorough investigation, which it did not do. However, since nano-thermite was found in the dust, the preponderance is demolitions.
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
If the WTC was destroyed via demolition, how did the charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the buildings?
You cut beams like that, on an angle, to control the direction they fall, as well as the direction the slag will run. My friend took a welder's course. This was the result of people removing damaged beams, not cutting before the impact.
as if the angle cut was the only evidence, when you're standing in the worlds biggest pile of massive steel H beams _everywhere_ ALL mangled up like only so much boiled spaghetti. Pretending all the abnormal deformations around you came from a "pancake collapse! By now you'd have to be a blithering IDIOT not to understand neither basic laws of physics OR what you have right in front of you.
I think its terrible that someone has to use this as evidence of Controlled Demolition when there is plenty other evidence to prove that. If the towers truly collapsed because the floor trussed weaken and collapsed to the next floor down, How did the Massive Core Columns collapse. If the building collapsed like they say, the CORE would still be standing.
This is a very good video and something those who really care about what happen that day should take note of.
People have to be very careful what they present as evidence and how it's presented. It's one of the reason I hate sideshows like Alex Jones and his ilk, they only make things harder for all.
Same with those who speak of no planes, nukes, cgi planes, or whatever other stuff that I'm sure is FUN to contemplate but weakens the people out there doing the REAL science on this.
I am a firefighter and I would say this photograph was taken during clean up. If this photo was taken the same day or the next the firefighters there would be still in full bunker gear. The stuff their wearing would be for salvage and overhaul which is done after rescue operations.
Google FDNY firefighters and you will find them wearing all black gear. This is the gear they wear and I wear when going to a fire/MVC.
this still doesn't explain why cutting should be done at an angle when there are so many straight cuts at the site.there is photographic evidence of members of the fire team on the same day looking the same way walking from the site, perhaps those pics need to be found, they were taken on 9/11.Also it looks like the virgin rubble site before heavy machinery was added.The site still looks 'choked' to me.
When you cut steel with a "thermic lance" or an oxy-acetylene torch, the molten metal flows away from the torch, or INTO the column, if it is hollow.
So the question should be: How did they get the thermic cutter INSIDE the column to produce the molten metal flow on the outside??
Having said that, it is worth noting that the cut is not on the severe angle that many people claim: The column rests at an angle, but the cut is relatively straight. Pre-weakening cuts are not angled cuts.
Look the only thing that matters is that the buildings were designed for just such an impact and failed. That proves conclusively that the architects of the twin towers are actually reptilian illuminati shape-shifters who planted advanced technological mini-nukes within the buildings as they were constructed, timed to detonate after remote controlled missiles with holographic imaging abilities penetrated the towers.
@Mystylplx I understand your viewpoint, being a brainwashed sheep zombie such as you are. One day when our lizard-masters reveal themselves and we realise that we are a self-sustaining meat farm for technologically advanced psychic reptilian space monsters, then you may comprehend your error of ignorance.
Also, regrets for your iPod, without brain-shrinking pop drivel to hypnotise you, you might actually think for yourself, which will be scary at first, but you'll be alright eventually. Peace.
I guess the point is, as usual, why is there even a question as to when these were cut? This was a HUGE crime scene and, for the first time ever, wasn't handled like one. It was the opposite of an investigation. Everything being removed and taken away, instead of being kept for answering questions. Why is it, at every turn in 911, there was no importance to gathering evidence? These mysteries are only mysteries because they were allowed to be. What mystery would there be if evidence was kept?
Thermite theoretically could cut through vertical columns, but you'd need a package the size of a VW bus for EACH column. Most of it would be packaging material designed to keep the ignited thermite against the column and prevent it from burning straight down.
@Mystylplx Yeah, this is a thermic lance, not thermite. I looked into it a bit more later.
Sadly, the whole "vertical cut" thing is completely oversold by the official story believers, it is at best a strawman and at worst deliberate obfuscation. The best theories involve horizontal cuts with thermite at strategic locations.
Thermite theories will always be more plausible than fire-alone official versions (because that is the official version).
Wrong and wrong. Thermite is among the least believable theories. It would take a package the size of a VW bus to cut through each vertical column. Regular bombs would be far easier, but then there's the problem of no sounds of explosions.
And there is no "fire alone" theory. That's a straw man AND deliberate obfuscation. The buildings were also damaged by the impact and explosion of fully loaded jet airliners.
@Mystylplx The end result of the official theory is that only significant impact that the plane had on the buildings leading to the ultimate collapse was knocking off fire-proofing.
The damage caused by the plane itself was not a significant contributor, the fire alone was what caused the collapse (i.e. if no columns had been damaged by the plane the result would not have been any different).
That should be your starting point, if it is not you are deluding yourself.
You obviously know nothing of the "official theory." In fact, according to the "official theory" the explosions from the impacts caused significant damage, severing many of both the exterior columns as well as interior columns. You can actually see the severed exterior columns in ALL the videos, and ALL the models indicate even more interior columns would have to have been severed.
I mean seriously--you need to learn what the "official theory" actually is before you try to argue against it. What you are doing is putting up a humongous strawman.
@Mystylplx Go read: A. Irfanoglu and C. Hoffmann, An Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-1, J. of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, 06/2007
Since debunkers are so fond of jumping on things you dislike and none of you have jumped on this I take it to be part of the official canon. If it is not you must supply a refutation, if it is you must retract your claims that the planes had any more involvement aside from knocking off insulation.
Try understanding what you are quoting. They are talking specifically about "ultimate thermal load capacity," they are not saying the impacts and explosions played no role. They are not saying that the fire alone could have brought the buildings down absent the impacts and subsequent loss of thermal insulation. They ARE saying the damage to the CORE columns was immaterial, but not perimeter columns.
@Mystylplx The exterior columns were not load bearing, they failed because the load was transfered to them by the hat truss after the central columns failed. They could never have held the building up once the interior columns failed, so the damage done to them is, again, immaterial to the collapse initiation.
The only thing that ultimately caused the building to fail was the failure of the interior columns, and the only thing that caused them to fail was the heat from office fires.
IOW, when you speak of a "fire alone theory" you are implying that someone is claiming that, absent the impacts and explosions, that a normal office fire could have brought the buildings down. That's NOT what they are saying, rather, they are saying that WITH the impacts and explosions, but even WITHOUT any damage to the CORE columns, the buildings would still have come down.
@Mystylplx It is important to note as well that fireproofing is usually not rated for more than two hours (c.f. Beijing) and other buildings (e.g. Madrid) which did not have fireproofing did not suffer global collapse.
So we cannot blame the fireproofing being knocked off as causal element in high-rise building collapses, even though it was a contributory factor: We should have expected the same thing if the fire burned for much longer without any interference from an airplane.
Your argument is like pointing to one car crash where no one died and claiming that if someone dies in a different car crash we can't blame the crash. Beijing and Madrid were different, much smaller, buildings with different constructions. Just because it didn't happen that way in those cases is meaningless in THIS case.
@Mystylplx To see why we cannot attribute causality to the plane you have to extend your analogy backwards: The ultimate cause of the plane crashing is the plane taking off. The plane took off because it has tires.
Therefore the cause of the building collapse was the manufacture of the tires and the C.E.O. of that company should be held responsible?
Obviously this reasoning is absurd, we cannot treat causality in the casual way you do. The fire, and only the fire, caused the collapse.
That's a right good bit of blabber. I suppose you could extend it back and say the fires were caused by the big bang. But it's a rather pointless bit of blabber.
The plane caused the fires, collapsed 3 floors immediately, and severed most of the perimeter columns on one side and most probably some of the core columns as well, and removed the insulation from the rest. To say the plane has no causal relationship to the collapse is to ignore all that and pretend it could have happened with just an office fire.
@Mystylplx Well that is the whole point of Irfanoglu and Hoffman. The only impact the plane damage had on the subsequent collapse was the (hypothetical if you believe in good empiricism) removal of fire-proofing.
If you removed the fire proofing by hand and set the same fires with a match with zero further damage to the superstructure you would expect to see exactly the same outcome.
The plane may have been the intentional cause, but it was not the physical cause of the collapse.
You keep saying that. You obviously haven't read their paper. That's NOT what they say at all. What they say is that even if the core structure was undamaged, and considering structural as well as thermal loading, AND that insulation was removed, that 700c was sufficient to initiate collapse.
Besides, that's just one paper. NIST, for instance, didn't conclude the same thing.
@Mystylplx No, the whole point of the paper was that the structural loading was not a significant factor. Even if the fireproofing was not removed, fireproofing is only rated for about two hours at best, meaning that if the fire was left unchecked the same outcome would be expected.
That 700c you are referring to is not flame temperature, it is the temperature of the steel itself. The paper is saying that absent all other conditions steel temp was sufficient cause (in addition to necessary).
And the exterior columns were not PRIMARILY load bearing, but it's a gross oversimplification to say they weren't load bearing. When MOST of the ext. columns on one side were severed that redistributed the load on the interior columns dramatically, even quite apart from the fire.
@Mystylplx You fail to distinguish between proximate and ultimate causes and to apply the concept of causality correctly.
In this case though we cannot attribute causality to the plane because the building would not have collapsed due to plane impact alone and the fire alone was sufficient to collapse the building (albeit much later if the fireproofing had not been removed).
So the plane caused the fire, but has no causal relationship to the collapse.
"So the plane caused the fire, but has no causal relationship to the collapse."
Nonsense. No one but truthers putting up straw men are saying that. Not even the Purdue folk you quoted were saying that. NIST certainly didn't say that.
Bentham Journal doesn't count as a peer reviewed journal even though they claim it is. They are a vanity press (you pay, they publish.) They even published a nonsense paper written by a computer program once they got their $800.
"They accepted the paper and would have published it if Davis had paid. " - how do you know that?
Bentham's director of publications: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not."
And if you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you. Mahmood Alam's excuse doesn't even begin to make sense. Why would they even want to know (or care) what the real name of the author of a nonsense paper was? And why did the editor-in-chief resign after the paper was accepted if what Alam says is true?
It's clearly a desperate excuse that makes absolutely zero sense.
Notice the guy with the lance is not cutting at an angle and the drips go all the way to the ground exentually.
There's a video with the same two firemen as in the infamous steaming-ground cut-beam picture, and it looks like the video was taken within a day or two of 9/11. One has his mask off even though dust is blowing, he's dressed the same as in the picture, but with dustier pants it seems.
It's titled: "wtc night, debris, military, police, firemen, dust" and the ID is
@ :19 where was there even footing for the worker? Firefighters are still there in their gear? Yet 'gubmint' advocates keep claiming the cuts were made long after collapse. LOL!!!
PLEASE CHECK OUT MY UTUBE CHANNEL,(BAMBOOTHEWALK)UTUBE IM WALKING ACROSS AMERICA HELPING THE HOMELESS for every life lost in 911 2001 and our soldiers lost, lets change some ones life im calling all millionaires/billionaires/all celebs/HUMAN BEINGS to walk a mile with me and in that mile help some one so for every life lost is a life gained ARMAND YOUNG(BAMBOOTHEWALK)UTUBE OR MAN WALKS AGROSS AMERICA GOD BLESS R TROOPS IM CALLING ALL ANGELS
I really dont understand your motives for trying prove it was cut by workers unless your a dahthunker claiming that the laws of physics changed just for that one day in September. The bottom line is that 3 steel framed skyscrapers collapsed into their footprints and there's not a chance in hell that was caused by fire or any random anomaly after planes hit the towers. Why waste time on crappy debates like this?
911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, WE NEED A NEW INVESTIGATION NOW!
"The bottom line is that 3 steel framed skyscrapers collapsed into their footprints".
The maker of this vid actually agrees with you, did you see the last part? It's important to look at real facts when looking for the truth, and not just accept every photo as evidence. That's how the truth movement gets its credibility.
The problem is this: They lie about EVERYTHING! Give me just one reason why I should believe a single word that ever comes from their filthy mouths. Sorry...I cut steel all the time and I say you are lying like hell. That slag on the front is the clincher. I've heard and seen your "arguments" and i'm not buying. To much slag to fast covering to much area on the front. It ran in a "sheet' down the front, normal cuts would make fingers of slag if their was that much of it.
Would it not only make sense that the clean up crews were instructed to cut the material on an angle "to muddy the water of evidence", what other motive would they have?
It only makes sense to cut it straight when it takes half the time and energy.
"Would it not only make sense that the clean up crews were instructed to cut the material on an angle "to muddy the water of evidence", what other motive would they have?"
Just look at all the arguments AE911Truth have on the "collaps" of the buildings. If that isn't proof, what is.
When you see the picture of the south tower EXPLODING on the right on their website.
Just THINK about it.
That is about 4 seconds after the start of the "collapse". 30 floors above the impact zone of the plane have turned in to a dustclowd! In about four seconds!!!
AE911 Truth are nutballs who think there were "pyroclastic flows" and still claim the buildings fell at free fall. Richard Gage is an architect who's biggest building was a high school gym--he has no expertise in this area. Look instead to REAL engineers and experts who OVERWHELMINGLY disagree with Gages ill-informed, nonsensical and ignorant claims. (Like the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) for instance.)
Not really joking... :) There are LOTS of real peer reviewed papers about the collapse published in reputable peer reviewed journals (NOT Bentham) and NONE of them claim it was CD. None of them think the buildings fell at free fall or that there were "pyroclastic flows" (The buildings must have been destroyed by a volcano!!!) or any of the other EXTREMELY ignorant nonsense that Gage promotes.
You know, they used to admit right on their own site that they had ZERO expertise (AE911 Truth) in the topic they are writing about, but they took that part out. Either way, whether they admit it or not, none of them have the beginnings of expertise in the topic they are writing about. And mostly it's all Richard Gage anyway--he does almost all the writing. He got a few actual engineers to sign a petition, but that's the extent of their contribution.
Unbiased? Not hardly. David Chandler is a "truther" through and through. And he's a chemist--he also has no expertise on the topic which he writes about. His videos prove his inexpertness.
It's the pretty standard routine. We get the squibs. We get the nonsense claim that "The fires in the buildings, beyond the first few minutes, were essentially office fires and not very large ones at that." etc.
There are still flat earthers today, and most of THEM are ALSO 911 truthers.
So saying Chandler is a "truther" is "labeling people?" Hey, you're the one who made the ridiculous claim that he is "unbiased." No one who's looked at his site or videos could possibly come to such a conclusion. All he does is parrot the exact same thoroughly debunked and ignorant nonsense that all the other ignorant truthers promote.
Same crap, different day. He even cites the photo of Edna Cintron claiming it proves the fires weren't hot yet fails to show the one from a few minutes later that shows her jumping because the fires were too hot for her to stand.
Nother example--He says the roofline of WTC1 begins dropping with a "sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity" and bases this on video of the north face while ignoring the south face where the collapse actually started.
Typically he cherry picks his facts and STILL manages to get it wrong.
And it's OK if you want to believe people like Richard Gage. It's way more romantic and fun, even if incredibly ignorant.
Though it's the so-called "truth movement" that did such a great job of covering up what really happened, which is that the Bushies knew an attack was coming and allowed it to happen. The best way to cover up a conspiracy is to put forward some really crazy conspiracy theories so that all conspiracy theorists get lumped in with the crazies. Bush loves you.
Iron workers have said they would never cut diagonals (with a torch) as it takes twice as long to cut from point A to point B, rather than straight across.
This video does not say why these beams were cut at 45' angle. A coworker of mine is an ex-Army explosives engineer and he was asked what a steel beam looked like after being cut with a shaped charge.
He talked about the slag and he also specifically mentioned the grooves or jagged edges around the beam. He also has never seen this photograph either.
Since this video never explains why steel workers would cut these beams at 45's, and we KNOW beams are cut at 45's in CDs, we can assume CD atm.
Ok, fine, so somebody cut through it with a torch. What about the other mass of evidence
graybus 1 month ago
but how would a cutter get good ground to stand on? it looks from the pic that there is no where to stand and level yourself. also it looks like it's shortly after 9/11 since the ground is still smoking. thoughts anyone?
poshuajerkins 2 months ago
A post facto explanation of a photograph taken at ground zero is always going to be suspect. However, suffice it to say that since a serious investigation was never conducted, it is a moot point to try and convince non-believers of the government's explanation. Most of the evidence was removed too quickly, even if the intent of the 911 Commission was to conduct a thorough investigation, which it did not do. However, since nano-thermite was found in the dust, the preponderance is demolitions.
FalseFlag369 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
If the WTC was destroyed via demolition, how did the charges survive the plane impacts and how did the perpetrators know exactly where the planes would hit the buildings?
ctcole77 4 months ago
A building collapsing because of fire can't eject huge amounts of debris horizontally 100's of meters! The official story is A JOKE.
cwehden 5 months ago
You cut beams like that, on an angle, to control the direction they fall, as well as the direction the slag will run. My friend took a welder's course. This was the result of people removing damaged beams, not cutting before the impact.
Kovarr 6 months ago
as if the angle cut was the only evidence, when you're standing in the worlds biggest pile of massive steel H beams _everywhere_ ALL mangled up like only so much boiled spaghetti. Pretending all the abnormal deformations around you came from a "pancake collapse! By now you'd have to be a blithering IDIOT not to understand neither basic laws of physics OR what you have right in front of you.
gunthaarz 1 year ago
nice video!
NorCalTruth 1 year ago
Clearly the North Tower core, somewhere at the basement or main lobby levels. Because of the thickness of the columns.
TheMKMonarch 1 year ago
I think its terrible that someone has to use this as evidence of Controlled Demolition when there is plenty other evidence to prove that. If the towers truly collapsed because the floor trussed weaken and collapsed to the next floor down, How did the Massive Core Columns collapse. If the building collapsed like they say, the CORE would still be standing.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
if you honestly don't think 911 was an inside job then I honestly think you are an IDIOT!!
fubar6767 1 year ago
This is a very good video and something those who really care about what happen that day should take note of.
People have to be very careful what they present as evidence and how it's presented. It's one of the reason I hate sideshows like Alex Jones and his ilk, they only make things harder for all.
Same with those who speak of no planes, nukes, cgi planes, or whatever other stuff that I'm sure is FUN to contemplate but weakens the people out there doing the REAL science on this.
MoJoSB 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am a firefighter and I would say this photograph was taken during clean up. If this photo was taken the same day or the next the firefighters there would be still in full bunker gear. The stuff their wearing would be for salvage and overhaul which is done after rescue operations.
Google FDNY firefighters and you will find them wearing all black gear. This is the gear they wear and I wear when going to a fire/MVC.
dAMajorPayne 1 year ago
Comment removed
dAMajorPayne 1 year ago
this still doesn't explain why cutting should be done at an angle when there are so many straight cuts at the site.there is photographic evidence of members of the fire team on the same day looking the same way walking from the site, perhaps those pics need to be found, they were taken on 9/11.Also it looks like the virgin rubble site before heavy machinery was added.The site still looks 'choked' to me.
stratocaster539 1 year ago
When you cut steel with a "thermic lance" or an oxy-acetylene torch, the molten metal flows away from the torch, or INTO the column, if it is hollow.
So the question should be: How did they get the thermic cutter INSIDE the column to produce the molten metal flow on the outside??
Having said that, it is worth noting that the cut is not on the severe angle that many people claim: The column rests at an angle, but the cut is relatively straight. Pre-weakening cuts are not angled cuts.
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
0:17
I would say, that is the North Tower's core region at the B1 or B2 level.
MrKoenig1985 1 year ago
Look the only thing that matters is that the buildings were designed for just such an impact and failed. That proves conclusively that the architects of the twin towers are actually reptilian illuminati shape-shifters who planted advanced technological mini-nukes within the buildings as they were constructed, timed to detonate after remote controlled missiles with holographic imaging abilities penetrated the towers.
Parked3Wide 1 year ago
Comment removed
Mystylplx 1 year ago 2
@Mystylplx I understand your viewpoint, being a brainwashed sheep zombie such as you are. One day when our lizard-masters reveal themselves and we realise that we are a self-sustaining meat farm for technologically advanced psychic reptilian space monsters, then you may comprehend your error of ignorance.
Also, regrets for your iPod, without brain-shrinking pop drivel to hypnotise you, you might actually think for yourself, which will be scary at first, but you'll be alright eventually. Peace.
Parked3Wide 1 year ago
Comment removed
Mystylplx 1 year ago
I guess the point is, as usual, why is there even a question as to when these were cut? This was a HUGE crime scene and, for the first time ever, wasn't handled like one. It was the opposite of an investigation. Everything being removed and taken away, instead of being kept for answering questions. Why is it, at every turn in 911, there was no importance to gathering evidence? These mysteries are only mysteries because they were allowed to be. What mystery would there be if evidence was kept?
MiaRyanne 1 year ago
Good point, good vid. Going straight to my favourites.
But hang on...
I thought thermite can't cut through a vertical columns.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter
Thermite theoretically could cut through vertical columns, but you'd need a package the size of a VW bus for EACH column. Most of it would be packaging material designed to keep the ignited thermite against the column and prevent it from burning straight down.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Yeah, this is a thermic lance, not thermite. I looked into it a bit more later.
Sadly, the whole "vertical cut" thing is completely oversold by the official story believers, it is at best a strawman and at worst deliberate obfuscation. The best theories involve horizontal cuts with thermite at strategic locations.
Thermite theories will always be more plausible than fire-alone official versions (because that is the official version).
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter
Wrong and wrong. Thermite is among the least believable theories. It would take a package the size of a VW bus to cut through each vertical column. Regular bombs would be far easier, but then there's the problem of no sounds of explosions.
And there is no "fire alone" theory. That's a straw man AND deliberate obfuscation. The buildings were also damaged by the impact and explosion of fully loaded jet airliners.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx The end result of the official theory is that only significant impact that the plane had on the buildings leading to the ultimate collapse was knocking off fire-proofing.
The damage caused by the plane itself was not a significant contributor, the fire alone was what caused the collapse (i.e. if no columns had been damaged by the plane the result would not have been any different).
That should be your starting point, if it is not you are deluding yourself.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter
You obviously know nothing of the "official theory." In fact, according to the "official theory" the explosions from the impacts caused significant damage, severing many of both the exterior columns as well as interior columns. You can actually see the severed exterior columns in ALL the videos, and ALL the models indicate even more interior columns would have to have been severed.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter
I mean seriously--you need to learn what the "official theory" actually is before you try to argue against it. What you are doing is putting up a humongous strawman.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Go read: A. Irfanoglu and C. Hoffmann, An Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-1, J. of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, 06/2007
Since debunkers are so fond of jumping on things you dislike and none of you have jumped on this I take it to be part of the official canon. If it is not you must supply a refutation, if it is you must retract your claims that the planes had any more involvement aside from knocking off insulation.
"educate yourself a little" indeed.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter
Watch this v=gH02Eh44yUg and educate yourself a little.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx You linked: v=gH02Eh44yUg
Lol, I checked the link and it involves the same people, so I take it you must agree with their conclusions then:
"...impact damage had a negligible effect on the critical thermal load required to initiate collapse in the core structure."
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter
Try understanding what you are quoting. They are talking specifically about "ultimate thermal load capacity," they are not saying the impacts and explosions played no role. They are not saying that the fire alone could have brought the buildings down absent the impacts and subsequent loss of thermal insulation. They ARE saying the damage to the CORE columns was immaterial, but not perimeter columns.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx The exterior columns were not load bearing, they failed because the load was transfered to them by the hat truss after the central columns failed. They could never have held the building up once the interior columns failed, so the damage done to them is, again, immaterial to the collapse initiation.
The only thing that ultimately caused the building to fail was the failure of the interior columns, and the only thing that caused them to fail was the heat from office fires.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter
IOW, when you speak of a "fire alone theory" you are implying that someone is claiming that, absent the impacts and explosions, that a normal office fire could have brought the buildings down. That's NOT what they are saying, rather, they are saying that WITH the impacts and explosions, but even WITHOUT any damage to the CORE columns, the buildings would still have come down.
Do you understand the difference?
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx It is important to note as well that fireproofing is usually not rated for more than two hours (c.f. Beijing) and other buildings (e.g. Madrid) which did not have fireproofing did not suffer global collapse.
So we cannot blame the fireproofing being knocked off as causal element in high-rise building collapses, even though it was a contributory factor: We should have expected the same thing if the fire burned for much longer without any interference from an airplane.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter
Your argument is like pointing to one car crash where no one died and claiming that if someone dies in a different car crash we can't blame the crash. Beijing and Madrid were different, much smaller, buildings with different constructions. Just because it didn't happen that way in those cases is meaningless in THIS case.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx To see why we cannot attribute causality to the plane you have to extend your analogy backwards: The ultimate cause of the plane crashing is the plane taking off. The plane took off because it has tires.
Therefore the cause of the building collapse was the manufacture of the tires and the C.E.O. of that company should be held responsible?
Obviously this reasoning is absurd, we cannot treat causality in the casual way you do. The fire, and only the fire, caused the collapse.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter
That's a right good bit of blabber. I suppose you could extend it back and say the fires were caused by the big bang. But it's a rather pointless bit of blabber.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter
The plane caused the fires, collapsed 3 floors immediately, and severed most of the perimeter columns on one side and most probably some of the core columns as well, and removed the insulation from the rest. To say the plane has no causal relationship to the collapse is to ignore all that and pretend it could have happened with just an office fire.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Well that is the whole point of Irfanoglu and Hoffman. The only impact the plane damage had on the subsequent collapse was the (hypothetical if you believe in good empiricism) removal of fire-proofing.
If you removed the fire proofing by hand and set the same fires with a match with zero further damage to the superstructure you would expect to see exactly the same outcome.
The plane may have been the intentional cause, but it was not the physical cause of the collapse.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter
You keep saying that. You obviously haven't read their paper. That's NOT what they say at all. What they say is that even if the core structure was undamaged, and considering structural as well as thermal loading, AND that insulation was removed, that 700c was sufficient to initiate collapse.
Besides, that's just one paper. NIST, for instance, didn't conclude the same thing.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx No, the whole point of the paper was that the structural loading was not a significant factor. Even if the fireproofing was not removed, fireproofing is only rated for about two hours at best, meaning that if the fire was left unchecked the same outcome would be expected.
That 700c you are referring to is not flame temperature, it is the temperature of the steel itself. The paper is saying that absent all other conditions steel temp was sufficient cause (in addition to necessary).
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter
And the exterior columns were not PRIMARILY load bearing, but it's a gross oversimplification to say they weren't load bearing. When MOST of the ext. columns on one side were severed that redistributed the load on the interior columns dramatically, even quite apart from the fire.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx
(And apart from whether or not any core columns were also severed.)
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx You fail to distinguish between proximate and ultimate causes and to apply the concept of causality correctly.
In this case though we cannot attribute causality to the plane because the building would not have collapsed due to plane impact alone and the fire alone was sufficient to collapse the building (albeit much later if the fireproofing had not been removed).
So the plane caused the fire, but has no causal relationship to the collapse.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter
"So the plane caused the fire, but has no causal relationship to the collapse."
Nonsense. No one but truthers putting up straw men are saying that. Not even the Purdue folk you quoted were saying that. NIST certainly didn't say that.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
Thanks. Important. Faved.
CTV911 1 year ago
fema appendix c from the 9/11 commission itself. bentham journal analysis. use science. debunk that.
flyingfishsurf 2 years ago
@flyingfishsurf
Bentham Journal doesn't count as a peer reviewed journal even though they claim it is. They are a vanity press (you pay, they publish.) They even published a nonsense paper written by a computer program once they got their $800.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
@Mystylplx
you lie. Philip Davis paper wasn't published. stop lying
Lietuvispartizan 1 year ago
@Lietuvispartizan
You're right. They accepted the paper for publication but didn't publish when Davis didn't send in the $800.
But this is obviously a distinction without a difference. They accepted the paper and would have published it if Davis had paid.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx
"They accepted the paper and would have published it if Davis had paid. " - how do you know that?
Bentham's director of publications: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not."
Lietuvispartizan 1 year ago
@Lietuvispartizan
And if you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you. Mahmood Alam's excuse doesn't even begin to make sense. Why would they even want to know (or care) what the real name of the author of a nonsense paper was? And why did the editor-in-chief resign after the paper was accepted if what Alam says is true?
It's clearly a desperate excuse that makes absolutely zero sense.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
Notice the guy with the lance is not cutting at an angle and the drips go all the way to the ground exentually.
There's a video with the same two firemen as in the infamous steaming-ground cut-beam picture, and it looks like the video was taken within a day or two of 9/11. One has his mask off even though dust is blowing, he's dressed the same as in the picture, but with dustier pants it seems.
It's titled: "wtc night, debris, military, police, firemen, dust" and the ID is
hpNuvaiW5jo
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
LOL, the reason I asked him is because I know more about this than he or you obviously do...
I want to see you explain it, so I can correct you when you are wrong.
Judy Wood is a lying sack of shit!
AlienScientist 2 years ago
@ :19 where was there even footing for the worker? Firefighters are still there in their gear? Yet 'gubmint' advocates keep claiming the cuts were made long after collapse. LOL!!!
izzysykopth 2 years ago
"@ :19 where was there even footing for the worker? "
So, what? You think the image was faked?
"Firefighters are still there in their gear?"
Of course. There were still fires. Did you expect them to be fighting fires in their tighty whities?
Mystylplx 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PLEASE CHECK OUT MY UTUBE CHANNEL,(BAMBOOTHEWALK)UTUBE IM WALKING ACROSS AMERICA HELPING THE HOMELESS for every life lost in 911 2001 and our soldiers lost, lets change some ones life im calling all millionaires/billionaires/all celebs/HUMAN BEINGS to walk a mile with me and in that mile help some one so for every life lost is a life gained ARMAND YOUNG(BAMBOOTHEWALK)UTUBE OR MAN WALKS AGROSS AMERICA GOD BLESS R TROOPS IM CALLING ALL ANGELS
BAMBOOTHEWALK 3 years ago
What is the "Hutchison Effect" and how does it work?
AlienScientist 3 years ago
I really dont understand your motives for trying prove it was cut by workers unless your a dahthunker claiming that the laws of physics changed just for that one day in September. The bottom line is that 3 steel framed skyscrapers collapsed into their footprints and there's not a chance in hell that was caused by fire or any random anomaly after planes hit the towers. Why waste time on crappy debates like this?
911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, WE NEED A NEW INVESTIGATION NOW!
breando1 3 years ago
Thanks for this vid.
"The bottom line is that 3 steel framed skyscrapers collapsed into their footprints".
The maker of this vid actually agrees with you, did you see the last part? It's important to look at real facts when looking for the truth, and not just accept every photo as evidence. That's how the truth movement gets its credibility.
daantje757 3 years ago 2
The problem is this: They lie about EVERYTHING! Give me just one reason why I should believe a single word that ever comes from their filthy mouths. Sorry...I cut steel all the time and I say you are lying like hell. That slag on the front is the clincher. I've heard and seen your "arguments" and i'm not buying. To much slag to fast covering to much area on the front. It ran in a "sheet' down the front, normal cuts would make fingers of slag if their was that much of it.
fireye2012 3 years ago
Then what made the cut? Was this video a forgery?
Denierbud11 3 years ago 2
Would it not only make sense that the clean up crews were instructed to cut the material on an angle "to muddy the water of evidence", what other motive would they have?
It only makes sense to cut it straight when it takes half the time and energy.
NefariousEquivocator 3 years ago
"Would it not only make sense that the clean up crews were instructed to cut the material on an angle "to muddy the water of evidence", what other motive would they have?"
To control where they fell? Hmmm?
Mystylplx 2 years ago 10
@Mystylplx It is also wierd that this is the only collumn in view that is cut at an angle.
AngusPearson 2 years ago
The only one in view on this video. They were all cut at angles.
Mystylplx 2 years ago
how many times do you see loggers making a straight cut? 0!
They even make 3 angled cuts! yes, THREE!
Why? for safety and control!
alexanderpas 2 years ago 2
Does it really matter?
Just look at all the arguments AE911Truth have on the "collaps" of the buildings. If that isn't proof, what is.
When you see the picture of the south tower EXPLODING on the right on their website.
Just THINK about it.
That is about 4 seconds after the start of the "collapse". 30 floors above the impact zone of the plane have turned in to a dustclowd! In about four seconds!!!
Now, how can that be!!!
Do you think fire caused that to happen?
Or explosives?
WTFaboutWTC7 3 years ago
my position is clear, if you had just taken the time to watch the whole 4 1/2 minutes of the video.
11septembervideos 3 years ago
What makes you think I didn't watch "the whole 4 1/2 minutes of the video"? I didn't mean to offend.
There was nothing wrong with your video.
I just "think", the evidence of controled demolition is overwhelmingly been proven.
WTFaboutWTC7 3 years ago 3
ever heard of pressure waves?
alexanderpas 2 years ago
Yes, I just had one in my pants...
WTFaboutWTC7 2 years ago
me too
AlexJonesWebovision 2 years ago
Oh my god....
My pants just droped at freefall speed.
Straight down in to my own footprint.
WTFaboutWTC7 2 years ago
whoa. There was some colorful fireworks in my pants right before they fell to my ankles. you didn't warn me about that
AlexJonesWebovision 2 years ago
@WTFaboutWTC7
AE911 Truth are nutballs who think there were "pyroclastic flows" and still claim the buildings fell at free fall. Richard Gage is an architect who's biggest building was a high school gym--he has no expertise in this area. Look instead to REAL engineers and experts who OVERWHELMINGLY disagree with Gages ill-informed, nonsensical and ignorant claims. (Like the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) for instance.)
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx I like your sense of humor : )
WTFaboutWTC7 1 year ago
@WTFaboutWTC7
Not really joking... :) There are LOTS of real peer reviewed papers about the collapse published in reputable peer reviewed journals (NOT Bentham) and NONE of them claim it was CD. None of them think the buildings fell at free fall or that there were "pyroclastic flows" (The buildings must have been destroyed by a volcano!!!) or any of the other EXTREMELY ignorant nonsense that Gage promotes.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@WTFaboutWTC7
You know, they used to admit right on their own site that they had ZERO expertise (AE911 Truth) in the topic they are writing about, but they took that part out. Either way, whether they admit it or not, none of them have the beginnings of expertise in the topic they are writing about. And mostly it's all Richard Gage anyway--he does almost all the writing. He got a few actual engineers to sign a petition, but that's the extent of their contribution.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx There once was a time that people thought the earth was flat.
Watch the videos on 911speakout. org
Unbiased.
WTFaboutWTC7 1 year ago
@WTFaboutWTC7
Unbiased? Not hardly. David Chandler is a "truther" through and through. And he's a chemist--he also has no expertise on the topic which he writes about. His videos prove his inexpertness.
It's the pretty standard routine. We get the squibs. We get the nonsense claim that "The fires in the buildings, beyond the first few minutes, were essentially office fires and not very large ones at that." etc.
There are still flat earthers today, and most of THEM are ALSO 911 truthers.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx You are really good at labeling people. What are you? A believer?
WTFaboutWTC7 1 year ago
@WTFaboutWTC7
So saying Chandler is a "truther" is "labeling people?" Hey, you're the one who made the ridiculous claim that he is "unbiased." No one who's looked at his site or videos could possibly come to such a conclusion. All he does is parrot the exact same thoroughly debunked and ignorant nonsense that all the other ignorant truthers promote.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@WTFaboutWTC7
Same crap, different day. He even cites the photo of Edna Cintron claiming it proves the fires weren't hot yet fails to show the one from a few minutes later that shows her jumping because the fires were too hot for her to stand.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@WTFaboutWTC7
Nother example--He says the roofline of WTC1 begins dropping with a "sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity" and bases this on video of the north face while ignoring the south face where the collapse actually started.
Typically he cherry picks his facts and STILL manages to get it wrong.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx
It's okay if you want to believe the official conspiracy theory. It's way more comferting then whatever alternative...
WTFaboutWTC7 1 year ago
@WTFaboutWTC7
And it's OK if you want to believe people like Richard Gage. It's way more romantic and fun, even if incredibly ignorant.
Though it's the so-called "truth movement" that did such a great job of covering up what really happened, which is that the Bushies knew an attack was coming and allowed it to happen. The best way to cover up a conspiracy is to put forward some really crazy conspiracy theories so that all conspiracy theorists get lumped in with the crazies. Bush loves you.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@Mystylplx Yep!
And two planes can totally desintegrate three huge steelframe buildings at virtually freefall speed : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : )
You are funny : )
WTFaboutWTC7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WTFaboutWTC7
"And two planes can totally desintegrate three huge steelframe buildings at virtually freefall speed : "
Ignorant nonsense. The planes didn't disintegrate the buildings, the collapse did, and it was nowhere close to freefall.
This is typical of troofer arguments. You can't argue against the real facts so you make up some BS to argue against instead. Good work.
Mystylplx 1 year ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 I think credulous is the term you were looking for.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
Iron workers have said they would never cut diagonals (with a torch) as it takes twice as long to cut from point A to point B, rather than straight across.
BrianHamiltonTV 3 years ago
I agree with the video.
The angle cut is not good evidence because it could have been done by the clean-up crew.
bofors7715 3 years ago 6
@bofors7715
Funny that all the "good evidence" was promptly removed from sight to another country.
konstantinNeo 1 year ago
This video does not say why these beams were cut at 45' angle. A coworker of mine is an ex-Army explosives engineer and he was asked what a steel beam looked like after being cut with a shaped charge.
He talked about the slag and he also specifically mentioned the grooves or jagged edges around the beam. He also has never seen this photograph either.
Since this video never explains why steel workers would cut these beams at 45's, and we KNOW beams are cut at 45's in CDs, we can assume CD atm.
iiBoneZii 3 years ago
Explosives don't leavbe slag. The beams were cut at that angle to control the way they fell. You can not, on this basis, assume CD.
leftysergeant 3 years ago 2
and who's to say when the cut was made. the cut could have been made proir to 9/11, so therefore it does not prove one thing or the onter
wennykelly1 3 years ago
Here's a photo of column(s) from WTC-7 that appear to have been destroyed by explosives in my opinion:
tinyurlDOTcom/55bf46
Here's a look that gives a better perspective of where the column(s) in question were located in the WTC-7 debris pile:
tinyurlDOTcom/5jjvzz
They don't appear to have been cut with a torch.
SteveM818 3 years ago