The Firefighter gives three distinct impressions at :12 seconds. All the tech info in the world out the window he tells you everything you need to know in a one short clip. Emergency workers are trained to spot anomalies....Can you spot the clues he is giving through time in his body language?
To the friends of A&E.No university,research centers,technical journals,associations of engineers and architects believe the lies and the demolition of the"A&E".The same in Asia,Oceania,Canada,Europe and South America.The list below is today.I have the link of all.Always find more on the internet.There evidence against the towers and WTC7.Only 0.001% of U.S.engineers are in A&E.Without the universities the A&E will never convince the U.S. Congress to reopen anything.The A&E was born defected.
University of Pennsylvania, Civil Engineering Department,
University of Maryland, Department of Fire Protection Engineering,
State University of New York at Buffalo, Department. Of civil, structural & engineering
Stanford University, Engineering Department,
University of Notre Dame, Department of Civil Engineering and Geological Sciences and the Student Chapter of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
There is no longer any doubt that 911 was an inside job. Now there is only a matter of ignorance, denial, and treachery. If you will not side with the patriots who want a real 911 investigation then you will be counted among the traitors in the final analysis. Patriots there is a way to win. STOP paying taxes. Kill the TV. Save money in gold and silver coin. Only buy from local merchants and farmers. Starve the beast and let these 911 deniers live in the police state they call freedom.
A controlled demolition doesn't create a free fall
Even if WTC7 had 47 stories of free-fall, it doesn't prove a controlled demolition
The early "reports" from the early Truther conspiracy videos stated that WTCs 1, 2, & 7 all fell at free-fall speed...when finally realizing they were wrong, instead of admitting an error, they focused their attention to a 2.5 second free-fall in WTC7's collapse, which proves absolutely nothing.
Note that the Truthers use the "2.5 second free-fall" response as proof of a controlled demolition...guess where they got the info...from the NIST report!
So the same people that say that the NIST report is "bullshit government coverup propaganda" use findings from that same report to support their ignorant conspiracy theories...the NIST report does not say due to 2.5 seconds of free-fall that there is reason to suspect a controlled demolition...
@CrazyRay7979 forget the NIST report & everything else. Let's start from scratch.
How does ANY object fall through the point of most resistance in free fall acceleration? You don't have to be an expert in any field to know that should not happen. I'm sure you'll have some explaination through the use of "9/11 physics" & then I'll point out how physicists say that's impossible so let's just skip that.
A controlled demolition doesn't create a free fall
Even if WTC7 had 47 stories of free-fall, it doesn't prove a controlled demolition
The early "reports" from the early Truther conspiracy videos stated that WTCs 1, 2, & 7 all fell at free-fall speed...when finally realizing they were wrong, instead of admitting an error, they focused their attention to a 2.5 second free-fall in WTC7's collapse, which proves absolutely nothing.
@CrazyRay7979 Buildings don't just drop into a complete collapse without ALL ot the core collums resistance being removed at the same time. Of course wtc 7 was a controlled demo.
So you're calling the FDNY liars? The ones who saw the fires, fought the fires, saw the instability of the building, and predicted the collapse...is that it, you're calling the FDNY liars?
WTC 7 was clearly not a controlled demolition, aside from NO PROOF whatsoever, you Truthers can't even come up with a logical, cohesive scenario for it
Interesting since free-fall does not even prove that a controlled demolition took place AND controlled demolitions DO NOT create a free-fall.
THEY didn't, because it was obviously NOT a controlled demolition...only you Truthers think it was, why should they cater to the ignorant minority and waste time and money on something already disproven?
Care to disprove the NIST, ASCE, NFPA, AISCc, CTBUH, SEA...AND the reports from the FDNY who were there on 9/11???
...also note the FACT that you Truthers have CHANGED your story, you used to say that WTC7 fell entirely at free-fall speed and that proved a controlled demolition...aside from NO evidence of explosives ever being found...but NOW you say that a free-fall of 2.25 seconds proves a controlled demolition...aside from NO evidence of explosives ever being found
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) have no problems with it, yet you "expert" Truthers do.
Why do you Truthers keep on with the "free-fall speed" bullshit when it has been proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that the buildings fell nowhere close to free-fall speed??
Does anyone have the details of steel sections used on the exterior and core columns. Building was built massively on the lower floors, and core and exterior columns thinned in section and gauge of steel nearer the top.
Now you are trying to discredit an entire movement because of the fact that a single landscape engineer signed the petition, who is the engineer in question? Laughable..
@apbriggs07 One? I was using that as one example. Everyone on that list is laughable except for the few structural engineers and high rise architects, non of which even include wack ball Gage.
What about countless witnesses who heard explosions and reports of bombs being in the buildings? That is witness evidence. If this was a simple house fire the fire investigations would have looked for traces of accelerants etc. Especially when there is terrorist involvement and there have previously been bombs used in the same building.
@apbriggs07 They never heard bombs they heard explosions. Explosions being heard during building fires is common. Here are some Examples of building fires with explosions heard:
Explosions as Firefighters Tackle Fire at Falmouth Docks:
"Jamie Clark, who was staying about 60m (200ft) from the scene of the fire, said he was woken up by explosions."
Firefighters battle three-alarm fire involving explosions
"As more firefighters responded to the fire, more callers reported hearing explosions"
@apbriggs07 There may have been housands of hi-voltage transformers go off like grenades, and there was explosive material throughout the buildings -- propane & LPG tanks for restaurants & snack bars; O2 & NO3 tanks in medical/dental offices, oxyacetylene tanks in the maint. shops, and tens of thousands of gallons of diesel in generator
@bd886 How is one floor 3 times larger than the part of the building crashing down? It's not that hard to grasp and it's not my theory, it's what actually happened, a progressive collapse. I'll explain it again, it wasn't a small piece top half destroying a large bottom half, it was the smaller top half destroying only one floor below it, then that one floor becomes part of the top half which then crashes down on the NEXT floor after that. the top half gains mass as it smashes floor by floor.
@bd886 So don't think of it (in the example) as 10 floors can't destroy 90. Think of it as 10 floors destroying 1 floor, then the top half now has the mass = 11 floors, this 11 floors now smashes against the next floor, which creates a mass equal to 12 floors . The reason it would speed up is because the top half is getting heavier as it crashes down on each floor, because each floor being smashed up is becoming a part of the mass as it crashes down on the next floor. Gage can't grasp this.
@theBartone9119 The top part of the building "explodes" out from the lower floors though, beams are ejected sideways, concrete slabs pulverized to dust, this all requires energy. The material being ejected away from the building is actually less material crushing down on the floors below as it radiates away from the building.
@bd886 This would cause the exceleration but since it was met with resistance from the bottom, it ended up collapsing at a constant rate. This is why only a small group of 'experts' are speaking out against this, because they are just too stupid or uneducated to understand what really happened.
@theBartone9119 And don't forget that the floors at the top were much lighter in construction than those at the base. The top floor doesn't have to support the load of 100 floors on top of it!
@apbriggs07 The reason the beams were being hurled out was because it was an elastic collision. The beams were so hot from the fire that when the top half came crashing down it bend the steel and hurled them outwards. This is simple physics.
@bd886 What you are trying to do is fudge what physics is to suit your conspiracy theory. The reason you conspiracy theorists always talk about basic physics is because that's clearly all you have an understanding of. What happened on 911 was a little more than basic. Lets assume for the sake of argument that it was 10 floors crashing down on 90, you can't look at it like that though. It's more like 10 floors smashing against 1 floor, then that becomes a mass = 11 floors smashing against 89.
@theBartone9119 According to the NIST report there was a slow deformation caused by thermal expansion of the beams. What you describe sounds more like the sudden onset of controlled demolition. Do you also have your doubts about the NIST report?
@apbriggs07 There was no controlled demolition, and no evidence of such. The NIST report was fine and very detailed and satisfactory to people to actually understand physics, not people who claim others don't understand. The fact that you think hearing explosions indicates bombs going off, when large building fires always produce explosions, shows your lack of knowledge and education on the subject. I've been debating these theories since Loose Change came out lol It's all laughable evidence.
Do you understand the word "near". How does the east mechanical penthouse collapse prove that it was fire? It's controlled demolition practice to take out core beams and cause a "crimp" in a building to ensure that building materials collapse inwards and prevent buildings from falling sideways.
@bd886 You are moronic, so is Richard Gage, neither of you understand physics (which is why the Truth Movement is the laughing stock amongst people in their profession). Let me make this clear so you can understand, it was a progressive collapse, do you know what that means? It wasn't 15% destroying 95 stories (how juvenile). It was 15% destroying 1 story, then that one story became part of that percentage to destroy the second story and so on and so forth. Learn physics then come back to me
@theBartone9119 Why do you suggest that NIST didn't look for evidence of accelerants and explosives, despite witness evidence and the fact that terrorists had previously used explosives at the wtc site?
Why do fire fighters on the fire fighters for truth group also question why NIST didn't look for explosives, despite all the evidence that explosives had been used.
The buildings fell at near free fall speed, that's a simple calculation, I think you brought that one up, not sure of it's relevance either in this context. I was just bringing up the problems with the official theory rather than offering an explanation. Check out Kevin Ryan's seminar, it's very good, just over an hour long and points out the ridiculous conflicts of interest, and examples of rather poor science which are used in the report.
@apbriggs07 Simple calculations show the buildings DID NOT fall at free fall speed, and even if they did there is no evidence that means it was a controlled demolition. Building 7 took 18 seconds to fall if you include the east mechanical penthouse collapse (which proves the fire brought down the building).The towers both took around 15 seconds to fall, free fall would have been 10 seconds. Plus controlled demolitions don't cause buildings to fall at free fall anyway.These theories are laughable
@bd886 You really know nothing do you. The towers did not fall at free fall speed, and the NIST report said that WTC7 only had 2.3 seconds of free fall on the North Face which is to be expected because of the failure of the east mechanical penthouse after the 7 hour fire. You do realize that the WTC buildings weren't built like other buildings, plus, you want to speak about Newton? The Laws of gravity permit everything that happened on 911. Don't insult his name with baseless conspiracy theories
@theBartone9119 What was unique about the WTC buildings and in comparison to similar high rise buildings which have suffered massive fire but not resulted in complete and symmetrical collapse? Please do tell!
@apbriggs07 "What was unique about the WTC buildings and in comparison to similar high rise buildings which have suffered massive fire but not resulted in complete and symmetrical collapse?"
Their tube in tube design, the fact that they had steel cores and not concrete cores like other buildings of it's nature, oh ya, and the fact that planes smashed into them at 500mph. WTC7's fires burned un fought (unlike other fires) for 7 hours on fireproofing tested for only 2 hours.
@blackmuzzle I don't doubt they found material with the same chemical signature as thermite, unfortunately for them, many things have the same signature..
"Thermite isn't some high tech charge, it's rust, aluminum and an oxidizer....." - Ron Craig (International Society of Explosives Engineers).
An aluminum wheel on a rusty hub has the same chemical signature of nano- thermite.
@Daddyo930"Thermite isn't some high tech charge, it's rust, aluminum and an oxidizer" - Ron Craig (International Society of Explosives Engineers).
"An aluminum wheel on a rusty hub has the same chemical signature of nano-thermite too... Dr. Jones has not demonstrated, indeed has not even attempted to show, that the chips contain any available oxygen at all. In his burn tests, oxygen was provided from the atmosphere, not from his chips." Ryan Mackey (NASA Rocket Scientist)
@Daddyo930 "Buildings do tend to fall over because It (controlled demolition) is an exact science, and one or two explosions going off at the wrong of at the wrong time can really affect a building" - Richard Gage
"You would use an incinerary to cut the beams, you would not use explosives, which would give away your project" - Richard Gage, Founder of AE911 Truth
Richard Gage contradicted himself regarding the use of explosives in this controlled demolition theory. Explain?
@Daddyo930 Why do you say peak temps weren't at 1800 when NIST says it is? NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
See that? NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36
PAGE NUMBER to back up what I say
You haven't done this, until you do i REFUSE to take you seriously. I already don't mr. aluminum isn't a metel. mr. fire can melt steel hahah
@Daddyo930 "What your proposing NIST has already thrown out."
Question: When did I mention pancake collapse? Oh ya I didn't, so that sentence just proves even more, that you a tool who has no clue what you are talking about. I didn't describe any collapse, I described fire weakening the steel which is what happened to initiate the progressive collapse in the end.
If you would have read the NIST report?
It would have told you. mr. aluminum is not a metal. take a science class or something lol
@Daddyo930 Building 7 was only certified for 2 hours of fire resistance.
That damn fire lasted 7 hours.
That's like 5 HOURS of bare beams being contacted with, unfought fire in an ALL steel framed building with no concrete core (or concrete re-enforcement of any kind) to save it.
@Daddyo930 "American federal investigators have been unable to find evidence that tests were ever made on fire-proofing material in the World Trade Centre, a potential factor in the buildings' collapse on 11 September 2001"
This is why NIST's ran the tests, for fireproofing measures that have never been done.
Everyone knows fire can fail the beam, it's all for fireproofing.
Beams not failing is the DESIRED result.
The beams STILL sagged. The Jet fuel test shows you what happens to bare beams.
Even NIST won't support your collapse theory. Try and stick with the prevailing NIST theory of "progressive collapse". Your gonna have to do some research because this a brand new theory. What your proposing NIST has already thrown out.
@Daddyo930 "Even NIST won't support your collapse theory. "
Yes they do you fucking moron lol
They go with progressive collapse from inward bowing, it was pancake theory that got thrown out NOT progressive collapse.
But hey, you didn't even know aluminum was a metal, so I wouldn't expect you to know that (or anything at all).
You can't even reference ONE page of a NIST report because you haven't it read it, the fact you try to link me to videos proves you haven't read shit. Read the report!
@Daddyo930 Just keep telling yourself that fire can melt steel. Keep telling yourself aluminum can't glow orange if it's subjected to heat past it's melting point. Keep telling yourself Aluminum isn't a metal, and that molten doesn't mean to melt LMAO
You do realize I stopped taking you seriously after you pointed out you didn't even know aluminum was a metal but you talked about chemistry HAHA
Learn about metals and learn to reference pages of the NIST report
@Daddyo930 "NIST subsequently expanded its research in areas of high-priority need such as prevention of progressive collapse, fire resistance design and retrofit of structures, and fire resistive coatings for structural steel.[1][2]"
So it looks like NIST agrees with progressive collapse, just not pancake theory.
Is there anything else you would like to be proven wrong about?
The report mentions "progressive collapse" 16 times,
It seems you have been making a hobby out failing Lol
@Daddyo930 So if NIST mentions the work progressive collapse 16 times to describe the collapse, then it's safe to say they agree with it right? Duh Why would you say they didn't when everyone knows it was the PANCAKE THEORY that got thrown out NOT progressive collapse?
Are you just trying to save your ego because you got destroyed SO bad,
or do you actually believe the hot pile of garbage that you type out?
Why do you think you know about chemistry when you didn't even know aluminum was a metal? It is the most common metal on the planet, shouldn't you have known this?
Another question:
Why do you talk about "melting off"? It's clear you don't know what the word molten means either
Another question:
Why do you tell others to read the NIST report, when you haven't and can't even reference ONE stinking page from it?
Do you just like coming off as a retard? You like it
@theBartone9119 Look here son. You have no idea what's in the NIST report on buildings 1, 2 and 7 therefore you are in no position to present a rational argument for the government new "progressive collapse" theory. Go read the report and when you learn and understand what "progressive collapse" is and can convey in layman's terms the science behind it, we will discuss this further. Everything you said NIST disagrees with it and they have their new theory as to what caused the collapses.
@theBartone9119 Now your just grasping at straws. (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L). Now go study "progressive collapse" because all the other shit your talking about NIST throws out. NIST says that a "progressive collapse" caused the buildings to collapse. Better get your study on because you don't know anything about "progressive collapse" or what's in the NIST report.
@Daddyo930 You nit pick the NIST report like it actually means something. You thought aluminum wasn't a metal, doesn't that make you a fucking RETARD?!
@theBartone9119 I just gave you the page number you said I didn't know. I told you that NIST says your theory of how the building collapsed is WRONG! Can you read? (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L). NIST explains in the best way they can the collapse. NIST is talking about "progressive collapse". You don't even know what that means because you have not read the report and yet talk as though you have. Your a fraud.
@Daddyo930 Neil Harrit/ Prof. Jones (Scholars for 911 Truth) have said that nano-thermite was used along with hundred of tons of conventional explosives as well.
Richard Gage (AE911 Truth) has said that explosives would not have been used, and an incinerary (Thermate) would have been be used only, to keep the job quiet.
Do you Truthers believe Richard Gage, or Harrit/ Prof. Jones?
Answer that hot shot? They are your experts. If you can nitpick "mine" (NIST) I'll nit pick yours.
@theBartone9119 NIST is the only topic of discussion because they were responsible for explaining how the buildings collapsed. Until they release their reports and data for international peer review, Houston, we have a problem.
@Daddyo930 Prior to 911, Jones was best known for his paper "Behold My Hands", which he claims that ancient Mayan artwork showing dieties with circles on their palms is evidence of his religion's belief that Jesus Christ once visited America. The critics of his 911 paper even came from his own Physics Department. The University he worked for put him on paid leave.
This is your "expert" that you believe? Get a grip
@Daddyo930 Neil Harrit/ Prof. Jones (Scholars for 911 Truth) have said that nano-thermite was used along with hundred of tons of conventional explosives as well.
Richard Gage (AE911 Truth) has said that explosives would not have been used, and an incinerary (Thermate) would have been be used only, to keep the job quiet.
Do you Truthers believe Richard Gage, or Harrit/ Prof. Jones?
@theBartone9119 Well seeing as how NIST never tested for explosives in direct violation of procedure, what do you want me to say? If an independent scientist takes samples of the dust and found explosive compounds that are very hard to make in the dust, the answer is obvious. Stop trying to change the subject. Your just floundering now, looking real stupid. Go and study "progressive collapse" and then explain it to me as best you can. Good luck with that.
@Daddyo930 You are trying to change the subject lol You want to talk about NIST so people forget that you didn't know aluminum was a metal. You think FIRE can melt steel
@Daddyo930 If you can nit pick NIST? I'll nit pick your experts. Answer the question you coward?
Neil Harrit/ Prof. Jones (Scholars for 911 Truth) have said that nano-thermite was used along with hundred of tons of conventional explosives as well.
Richard Gage (AE911 Truth) has said that explosives would not have been used, and an incinerary (Thermate) would have been be used only, to keep the job quiet.
Do you Truthers believe Richard Gage, or Harrit/ Prof. Jones?
@Daddyo930 “We do not know if the thermite that we have found is the same thermite which has been used for melting the beams. It’s very, very possible that different varieties were used, and I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance.” -Niels Harrit (Prof. Jones and him wrote the paper on nano-thermite)
"You would use an incinerary to cut the beams, you would not use explosives, which would give away your project" - Richard Gage, Founder of AE911 Truth
@Daddyo930 "The 'nanothermite' samples vary by about a factor of 10 in energy content. This nonuniformity proves it is not a 'precision engineered' substance of any kind.
The top end of energy content exceeds the theoretical maximum for thermite by a factor of two, and the observed content of nanothermite by a factor of five. The substance cannot be thermite of any type. Its 'contaminants' are, in fact, the dominant species." - Ryan Mackey (NASA Rocket Scientist)
@theBartone9119 First of all you change the subject too much. Secondly, you have no idea what your talking about. Do you know anything about chemistry? Taking random quotes made by some shill does not make it a fact. Everything in chemistry is like a fingerprint. If you make an explosive, it has a unique chemical signature. The signature they analyzed looks a lot like KOMATSU's nanothermite. Spray on explosives. Yes, sound exotic. Yes, leaves a chemical fingerprint and someone found it.
@Daddyo930 "Yes, leaves a chemical fingerprint and someone found it."
"The 'nanothermite' samples vary by about a factor of 10 in energy content. This nonuniformity proves it is not a 'precision engineered' substance of any kind.
The top end of energy content exceeds the theoretical maximum for thermite by a factor of two, and the observed content of nanothermite by a factor of five. The substance cannot be thermite of any type" - Ryan Mackey (NASA Rocket Scientist)
@Daddyo930 Prof. Steven Jones' paper: "We have shown that the red material contains both elemental aluminum and iron oxide"
Oh. I see. There's iron oxide (rust) and aluminum in this mixture. There's no way that rust or aluminum could possibly have gotten into the Twin Towers, right? Except of course that the Twin Towers had tons upon tons of aluminum and every building in history that had iron it also had oxidized iron (rust) in it.
From Prof. Steven Jones' paper on 'nano-thermite': "We make no attempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present until more is learned about the red material and especially about the nature of the organic material it contains."
Yes of course, why bother making an attempt to actually identify this peticular substance, right?
We already know what other substances those chemical compounds can be found in....
@theBartone9119 I might have all the ingredients to make an Apple pie, but you can't just throw them into an oven and expect to end up with a pie! Independent scientists have carried out tests on these red/grey particles to prove that it's not just a product from the collapse.
@theBartone9119 I'm not sure if you aware but there are many scientists, physicists, chemists, architects, engineers etc, look up ae911 truth(dot)org. Nice try trying to discredit scientists based on one persons paper. Funny...
@apbriggs07 ae911 Truth? You've got to be kidding me....I'm not sure if you are aware but Richard Gage has been shunned from the scientific community due to his pseudo science. And I'm not sure if you are aware, but ae911 truth barely has any STRUCTURAL engineers or HIGH RISE architects, the only relevant ones. I even saw a software engineer on their list. Nice try trying to credit something that has no credibility in the first place. I can find more scientists who believe in big foot..
@theBartone9119 Ahh so you can completely disregard aetruth but the official NIST investigation is completely trusted, even down to their lack of science, shooting at fireproofing with a shotgun, backwardly engineering their theories to match a pre-decided result. Architects and Engineers for truth are asking for a proper investigation to be carried out, if there are any holes in the official story, why would anyone not want those to be investigated?
@apbriggs07 The NIST report is 10,000 pages and very detailed and there are no holes or lack of science. I'm not sure why you pull these statements out of your ass so carelessly but what problems did you find with the NIST report? I mean, the collapse model they did was brilliant and unlike you I've actually read over a hundred pages of the NIST report and I'm not sure why anyone in their right mind would say their are holes. AE911 Truth is a proof by intimidation scam. Gage is a crack pot.
@theBartone9119 Even the chairman and vice chairman of the 911 Commission have criticized the official account of the event. There are so many conflicting interests, evidence withheld, WTC wasn't even mentioned on the report. Took until 2008 to release a final report on WTC7. Steel evidence removed prior to the commencement of the report, the list goes on...
@theBartone9119 No need to be so rude, it is much more civil if you can hold a conversation at an adult level without need for offensive language. Thank you. Which of Gage's theories do you have an issue with?
@apbriggs07 Thirdly, what does free fall have to do with anything anyway? There is no evidence that controlled demolitions cause buildings to free at free fall, so claiming the buildings fell at free fall (which they didn't) means a controlled demolition took place, is laughable. ImplosionWorld even came out with a paper debunking the conspiracy theories, controlled demolition companies all say the theories are baseless.
@apbriggs07 Another problem I have with Gage is he hasn't built anything bigger than a gym but claims to be an expert on high rise structures (which he is not). Plus he would not nothing about tube in tube designs or buildings without concrete cores. But like I said, what really irks me is when he discusses the twin tower and pretends that what happened defied physics (top half couldn't destroy bottom half ect) if no explosives were used, which is of course false and outrages.
@theBartone9119 The claims in the NIST report are incorrect, their fire testing was based on over 2 hours of fires, the deflection of the trusses was calculated based on the heat of fires and resulted in a couple of inches of deflection. The concrete floor slab wasn't included in their calculations. The deflection required to pull and break the core beams and exterior columns in their simulation was over 4ft.
@apbriggs07 Here's the question conspiracy theorists dred: Did the secret cabal in government that supposedly pulled off 911 have foreknowledge of the random pieces of burning columns from the North Tower gutting WTC7 like a knife causing the 7 hour fire? If not, what would have been the cover story? Are you implying that they knew that WTC7 was going to be randomly hit by the burning debris to cause the fire? In your mind, they are either psychic or didn't plan on a cover story and stupid. lol
@theBartone9119 I'm jut interested in understanding why WTC7 collapsed, when similar sized steel framed high-rise buildings survived much larger fires for much longer. Once the investigation is carried out then one can start looking into the paper trail and the various financial interests who benefited and made a good profit out of 9/11. There were so many conflicts of interests and so many making big bucks out of the war on terror and contracts it is obscene.
@apbriggs07 Secondly, their is no evidence that contradicts NIST. Buckling of column 79 is what initiated to collapse sequence of WTC7. The problem I have with Gage is his wacked out theory that the top half couldn't destroy the bottom half of the tower (which is not what happened anyway). Gage has a complete lack of understanding when it comes to physics as do most truthers, yet they try to claim that the laws of physics were broken that day as far as the official account of events is concerned
@theBartone9119 So you discredit one scientist because they find evidence of an incendiary but cannot identify the particular form, but you have no issue with the official story which makes no mention of these findings. Are you aware that many of those on the NIST investigation believed that explosives were used but they later retracted their stories? Obviously the NIST investigation was funded by congress which was a clear conflict of interests.
@theBartone9119 Yes, I'm aware of that and may actually commented on having known what the knew after the investigation prior to writing the report, that they would have looked for explosives / accelerants and kept the structural steel for the purpose of the investigation.
@theBartone9119 The scientific proof can be found at nielsharrit (dot) org. Contains full gas chromatic graph analysis as well as electron microscope imagery along with the expert analysis of 9 contributing scientists. That's a published paper, a *real* piece of science. Feel free to ignore it of course...
@blackmuzzle “We do not know if the thermite that we have found is the same thermite which has been used for melting the beams. It’s very, very possible that different varieties were used, and I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance.” -Niels Harrit (Prof. Jones and him wrote the paper on nano-thermite)
"You would use an incinerary to cut the beams, you would not use explosives, which would give away your project" - Richard Gage, Founder of AE911 Truth
@theBartone9119 NIST stated in their final report that they did *not* look for exposives. As someone else said so eloquently, you cannot find what you do not look for. So even if regular explosives were used, they did not look for them.
Let's stick to the facts: Thermite was found. Everything else is speculation. Even the video analysis showing the windows being blown out is not proof for an explosion - although it does make the pancake theory very unlikely.
@blackmuzzle NIST doesn't support FEMA's pancake collapse theory, they advocate the progressive collapse theory (different). You obviously haven't read a single page of the NIST report,
@blackmuzzle Thousands of hi-voltage transformers go off like grenades, and there was explosive material throughout the buildings -- propane & LPG tanks for restaurants & snack bars; O2 & NO3 tanks in medical/dental offices, oxyacetylene tanks in the maint. shops, and tens of thousands of gallons of diesel in generator
Still not anything NEAR powerful enough to take down STEEL GIRDERS. Hell, I could understand the walls and other stuff coming down.... not the steel girders that are extremely strong and have an extremely high melting point.
@blackmuzzle The "nanothermite" samples vary by about a factor of 10 in energy content. This nonuniformity proves it is not a "precision engineered" substance of any kind.
The top end of energy content exceeds the theoretical maximum for thermite by a factor of two, and the observed content of nanothermite by a factor of five. The substance cannot be thermite of any type. Its contaminants are, in fact, the dominant species. - Ryan Mackey (NASA Scientist)
@theBartone9119 The fireproofing on the floors the aircraft hit was installed only a few years prior to 911, were no tests carried out regarding the specification of the materials used when it was installed?
@apbriggs07 The fireproofing was knocked off due to the impact of the plane. This is why that area eventually failed and caused the top half of the building to smash up each floor it hit below it. The top half weighed much more than just one floor, which is why it was able to travel all the way to the bottom in a progressive collapse because the top half gained one floors worth of mass each time a floor got smashed up but the top half of the tower.
@apbriggs07 Here is the leader of ae911 truth trying to do an experiment.
watch?v=DFVoencqfZw
This is why people like me laugh at him. He totally forgets the tower was a tube in tube design and was made of multiple floors, and thinks he can just drop a box on another one to try and prove the progressive collapse couldn't have happened. Plus he doesn't think that explosives were used, only thermite while all the people who site ae911 think explosives were used lol
And what a great job he's doing too! 1,637 Architects and Engineers have signed their petition for an independent investigation of 9/11 too. aetruth(dot)org has some great videos too, it's not just simple demonstrations of free fall using boxes. Thanks to the link of the rather poorly edited video, clearly published by "debunkers" and intended to destroy his entire argument, based purely on what is clearly a simple visual demonstration.
@apbriggs07 1, 500 + doesn't mean anything because they only have 3 HIGH RISE architects that signed and maybe about a few dozen STRUCTURAL engineers. You seem to not realize that AE911 Truth is a proof by intimidation scam. Most of the people who signed it would have no expert knowledge on the collapses of the WTC except for structural engineers and high rise architects. Gage hasn't built anything bigger than a high school gymnasium and obviously doesn't account the towers unique design.
@theBartone9119 Those are ridiculous assumptions! 1,637 Architects and Engineers have signed their petition for an independent investigation of 9/11 too - FACT.
@apbriggs07 You must not know how to read. I already acknowledged that 1,500 + architects and engineers signed the petition. I'm just saying that only STRUCTURAL engineers and HIGH RISE architects would have the proper expertise to have any relevance. I even saw a software engineer on their list and a landscape engineer on their list, how is the computer guy and the lawn mower dude going to be educated enough to think they have an expert opinion on the collapse of the WTC? Laughable..
@apbriggs07 "You would use an incinerary to cut the beams, you would not use explosives, which would give away your project" - Richard Gage, Founder of AE911 Truth
@Daddyo930"They say aluminum is silver when melted. While this is true, at higher temperatures it can be yellow." - Thanks to ScottS, Shagster, Arthur, Mark Ferran, NEU-FONZE and David B. Benson for their research.
"...If you heat up aluminum enough, it will glow orange." - Andrew Johnson (Degree in Computer Science and Physics, "911, Finding the Truth").
Melting point of Al is 1220 °F
Fires in WTC peaked at 1800 °F
= Almost 580°F of "overkill" on the Al will turn the glow yellow/ orange
@theBartone9119 The NIST report does not take into account the results of their own laboratory-controlled floor truss tests in which the steel reached temperatures in excess of 800º C without failure. So, whatever your talking about is just nonsense. Did you even bother to read the NIST report? The inconsistencies within the report beg for an international peer review.
@Daddyo930 Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36). FROM THE NIST REPORT
The test I linked you too had peak temps of 2000 degrees, just like nIst confirmed.
Fail dude..I don't care about truss tests, I saw that jet fuel test.
A lady who just happened to be on the scene of 911 with a forward looking infra red camera took some pictures. What your talking about is nonsense. NIST reports of fires raging withing the building at soaring temperatures are false. There are reports of firefighters within the building talking about isolated pockets of fire and being able to take care of them with three lines. You should stop now.
@Daddyo930 So you have no calculations, you can't even reference which pages of the NIST report you agree with, you thought aluminum wasn't a metal, and you didn't know that molten means to melt something. You think fire can melt steel. You can't even reference which pages you disagree with, I don't even believe you have read it.
"You should stop now."
I know the truth hurts, but you have nothing, and you never had nothing, I proved you wrong on everything and you know lol
@Daddyo930 You didn't even know molten aluminum can glow orange if it is significantly subjected to fires past it's melting point. You didn't know anything.....AT ALL! lol
@theBartone9119 What does that have to do with anything. You seem to have a good time laughing at some real serious shit. The only one laughing is you son. This is very serious to me but you seem cavalier about the whole thing. I wonder........
@Daddyo930 You are the one throwing the NIST report in my face when you can't even reference a page, I call you out on your bull shit, then you switch goal posts like "oh why is this funny?"
If you didn't want to talk about it then they mention that stupid "silver" shit that everyone called Jones out on years ago? Or how you didn't even know aluminum was a metal, the most COMMON metal on the planet?
If that doesn't say measures about how lost someone is, I don't know what the fuck does. Moron
@Daddyo930 "With the fire proofing blown off, the fire only needed as little as 600 degrees C to deform the naked truss steel. Conspiracy theorists point to the UL tests which show the trusses sagged but never fail to say the building should have stood. But what they don't tell you is that the test was done with fireproofing on the trusses. The test was never meant to find out what caused the truss to fail. It was testing the fire proofing to see if it was up to code." BOOM
The Firefighter gives three distinct impressions at :12 seconds. All the tech info in the world out the window he tells you everything you need to know in a one short clip. Emergency workers are trained to spot anomalies....Can you spot the clues he is giving through time in his body language?
gern2010 1 week ago
To the friends of A&E.No university,research centers,technical journals,associations of engineers and architects believe the lies and the demolition of the"A&E".The same in Asia,Oceania,Canada,Europe and South America.The list below is today.I have the link of all.Always find more on the internet.There evidence against the towers and WTC7.Only 0.001% of U.S.engineers are in A&E.Without the universities the A&E will never convince the U.S. Congress to reopen anything.The A&E was born defected.
aczjbr 1 week ago
Implosionworld . com
Structure Magazine . com
Scientific American . com
Enr.com - Engeneerin news
Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE
American Institute of Steel Construction Inc, Chicago (AISC),
aczjbr 1 week ago
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE),123,000 members
American Institute of Architects (AIA),80,000 members
Association of de Wall & Ceiling Industry,2.000 members that are primarily wall and ceiling contractors
American Concrete Institute (ACI),20,000 members spanning 108 countries.
Atlantic International University,Miami
American Council Of Engineering Companies (ACEC),6,000 independent engineering companies
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME),120,000 members
aczjbr 1 week ago
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), 35,000 members
American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 40,000 members
American Standards Institute (ANSI), 125 mil empresas e 3.500 mil members.
Department of Design and Construction (DDC) in NY,1,200 members
International Metallographic Society,
Institute of Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY),
aczjbr 1 week ago
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 370,000 members
Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, 15,000 members
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, (NCSEA), 12 mil members,
National Fire Protection Association, (NFPA), 70,000 individuals around the world,
Structural Engineering Institute, (SEI),
Society for Fire Protection Engineering, (SFPE),
Columbia University, The Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science
aczjbr 1 week ago
Cornell University, Department of Engineering, School Civil and Environmental Engineering & Department of Crop Soil Sciencies
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Engineering Department,
Michigan State University, Engineering Department
Northwestern University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Engineering Department,
aczjbr 1 week ago
Columbia University, The Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science
Cornell University, Department of Engineering, School Civil and Environmental Engineering & Department of Crop Soil Sciencies
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Engineering Department,
Michigan State University, Engineering Department
Northwestern University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Engineering Department,
aczjbr 1 week ago
University of California, Engineering Department,
National Academy of Engineering,
University of Pennsylvania, Civil Engineering Department,
University of Maryland, Department of Fire Protection Engineering,
State University of New York at Buffalo, Department. Of civil, structural & engineering
Stanford University, Engineering Department,
University of Notre Dame, Department of Civil Engineering and Geological Sciences and the Student Chapter of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
aczjbr 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Natural and Applied Sciences,
University of Perdue, School of Civil Engineering,
University of Arizona, Engineering Civil Department,
University of Colorado, Engineering Civil Department,
University of Louisville, Department of Urban and Public Affairs
University of Akron, Department of Mechanical Engineering
aczjbr 1 week ago
University of Texas at El Paso, Department of Computer Science & Department of Public Administration
University of Delaware, Department of Sociology , Criminal Justice, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Massachusetts, Engineering Department,
Washington State University; Department of Political Science, Criminal Justice , School of Electrical Engineering. and Computer Science,
aczjbr 1 week ago
@bd886
No, it DOES NOT explain controlled demolition
CrazyRay7979 2 weeks ago
There is no longer any doubt that 911 was an inside job. Now there is only a matter of ignorance, denial, and treachery. If you will not side with the patriots who want a real 911 investigation then you will be counted among the traitors in the final analysis. Patriots there is a way to win. STOP paying taxes. Kill the TV. Save money in gold and silver coin. Only buy from local merchants and farmers. Starve the beast and let these 911 deniers live in the police state they call freedom.
damienrockaterror 1 month ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@bd886
No, it is not...
As I already stated; TWICE NOW!!
A controlled demolition doesn't create a free fall
Even if WTC7 had 47 stories of free-fall, it doesn't prove a controlled demolition
The early "reports" from the early Truther conspiracy videos stated that WTCs 1, 2, & 7 all fell at free-fall speed...when finally realizing they were wrong, instead of admitting an error, they focused their attention to a 2.5 second free-fall in WTC7's collapse, which proves absolutely nothing.
CrazyRay7979 1 month ago
Note that the Truthers use the "2.5 second free-fall" response as proof of a controlled demolition...guess where they got the info...from the NIST report!
So the same people that say that the NIST report is "bullshit government coverup propaganda" use findings from that same report to support their ignorant conspiracy theories...the NIST report does not say due to 2.5 seconds of free-fall that there is reason to suspect a controlled demolition...
...if it did, wouldn't they "hide" that info??
CrazyRay7979 1 month ago
@CrazyRay7979 forget the NIST report & everything else. Let's start from scratch.
How does ANY object fall through the point of most resistance in free fall acceleration? You don't have to be an expert in any field to know that should not happen. I'm sure you'll have some explaination through the use of "9/11 physics" & then I'll point out how physicists say that's impossible so let's just skip that.
mrh785 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrh785
Ah yes, another Truther who is a "physics expert"...
FACT:
A controlled demolition doesn't create a free fall
Even if WTC7 had 47 stories of free-fall, it doesn't prove a controlled demolition
CrazyRay7979 2 weeks ago
@bd886
No, it is not...
As I already stated;
A controlled demolition doesn't create a free fall
Even if WTC7 had 47 stories of free-fall, it doesn't prove a controlled demolition
The early "reports" from the early Truther conspiracy videos stated that WTCs 1, 2, & 7 all fell at free-fall speed...when finally realizing they were wrong, instead of admitting an error, they focused their attention to a 2.5 second free-fall in WTC7's collapse, which proves absolutely nothing.
CrazyRay7979 1 month ago
@CrazyRay7979 Buildings don't just drop into a complete collapse without ALL ot the core collums resistance being removed at the same time. Of course wtc 7 was a controlled demo.
mrh785 2 weeks ago
@mrh785
So you're calling the FDNY liars? The ones who saw the fires, fought the fires, saw the instability of the building, and predicted the collapse...is that it, you're calling the FDNY liars?
WTC 7 was clearly not a controlled demolition, aside from NO PROOF whatsoever, you Truthers can't even come up with a logical, cohesive scenario for it
CrazyRay7979 2 weeks ago
@bd886
Interesting since free-fall does not even prove that a controlled demolition took place AND controlled demolitions DO NOT create a free-fall.
THEY didn't, because it was obviously NOT a controlled demolition...only you Truthers think it was, why should they cater to the ignorant minority and waste time and money on something already disproven?
Care to disprove the NIST, ASCE, NFPA, AISCc, CTBUH, SEA...AND the reports from the FDNY who were there on 9/11???
CrazyRay7979 1 month ago
@bd886
...also note the FACT that you Truthers have CHANGED your story, you used to say that WTC7 fell entirely at free-fall speed and that proved a controlled demolition...aside from NO evidence of explosives ever being found...but NOW you say that a free-fall of 2.25 seconds proves a controlled demolition...aside from NO evidence of explosives ever being found
CrazyRay7979 2 months ago
@bd886
So?
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) have no problems with it, yet you "expert" Truthers do.
CrazyRay7979 2 months ago
@bd886
Why do you Truthers keep on with the "free-fall speed" bullshit when it has been proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that the buildings fell nowhere close to free-fall speed??
CrazyRay7979 2 months ago
Does anyone have the details of steel sections used on the exterior and core columns. Building was built massively on the lower floors, and core and exterior columns thinned in section and gauge of steel nearer the top.
geschichteinchronologie(dot)ch/USA/betrug-ENGL-fraud/fraud09_structural-preparations-WTC-Silverstein(dot)htm
apbriggs07 2 months ago
Hey Bartone, KOTD called.
Naah they didnt.
NeverOwned 2 months ago
@bd886 Well it's not impossible considering it happened. You need to tune yourself into reality.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
Now you are trying to discredit an entire movement because of the fact that a single landscape engineer signed the petition, who is the engineer in question? Laughable..
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@apbriggs07 One? I was using that as one example. Everyone on that list is laughable except for the few structural engineers and high rise architects, non of which even include wack ball Gage.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 You obviously haven't paid much attention to the information in the majority of the videos that the various experts have posted then.
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@apbriggs07 lol @ experts. If you think Richard Gage and Steven Jones are experts then I feel sorry for you.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 ae911truth is more than two people!
apbriggs07 2 months ago
What about countless witnesses who heard explosions and reports of bombs being in the buildings? That is witness evidence. If this was a simple house fire the fire investigations would have looked for traces of accelerants etc. Especially when there is terrorist involvement and there have previously been bombs used in the same building.
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@apbriggs07 They never heard bombs they heard explosions. Explosions being heard during building fires is common. Here are some Examples of building fires with explosions heard:
Explosions as Firefighters Tackle Fire at Falmouth Docks:
"Jamie Clark, who was staying about 60m (200ft) from the scene of the fire, said he was woken up by explosions."
Firefighters battle three-alarm fire involving explosions
"As more firefighters responded to the fire, more callers reported hearing explosions"
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@apbriggs07 There may have been housands of hi-voltage transformers go off like grenades, and there was explosive material throughout the buildings -- propane & LPG tanks for restaurants & snack bars; O2 & NO3 tanks in medical/dental offices, oxyacetylene tanks in the maint. shops, and tens of thousands of gallons of diesel in generator
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 Yes, so clearly there should have been a forensic investigation to test for traces of explosives.
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@bd886 How is one floor 3 times larger than the part of the building crashing down? It's not that hard to grasp and it's not my theory, it's what actually happened, a progressive collapse. I'll explain it again, it wasn't a small piece top half destroying a large bottom half, it was the smaller top half destroying only one floor below it, then that one floor becomes part of the top half which then crashes down on the NEXT floor after that. the top half gains mass as it smashes floor by floor.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@bd886 So don't think of it (in the example) as 10 floors can't destroy 90. Think of it as 10 floors destroying 1 floor, then the top half now has the mass = 11 floors, this 11 floors now smashes against the next floor, which creates a mass equal to 12 floors . The reason it would speed up is because the top half is getting heavier as it crashes down on each floor, because each floor being smashed up is becoming a part of the mass as it crashes down on the next floor. Gage can't grasp this.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 The top part of the building "explodes" out from the lower floors though, beams are ejected sideways, concrete slabs pulverized to dust, this all requires energy. The material being ejected away from the building is actually less material crushing down on the floors below as it radiates away from the building.
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@bd886 This would cause the exceleration but since it was met with resistance from the bottom, it ended up collapsing at a constant rate. This is why only a small group of 'experts' are speaking out against this, because they are just too stupid or uneducated to understand what really happened.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 And don't forget that the floors at the top were much lighter in construction than those at the base. The top floor doesn't have to support the load of 100 floors on top of it!
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@apbriggs07 The reason the beams were being hurled out was because it was an elastic collision. The beams were so hot from the fire that when the top half came crashing down it bend the steel and hurled them outwards. This is simple physics.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 The beams were supposedly pulled inwards by the floor trusses sagging.
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@bd886 What you are trying to do is fudge what physics is to suit your conspiracy theory. The reason you conspiracy theorists always talk about basic physics is because that's clearly all you have an understanding of. What happened on 911 was a little more than basic. Lets assume for the sake of argument that it was 10 floors crashing down on 90, you can't look at it like that though. It's more like 10 floors smashing against 1 floor, then that becomes a mass = 11 floors smashing against 89.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 According to the NIST report there was a slow deformation caused by thermal expansion of the beams. What you describe sounds more like the sudden onset of controlled demolition. Do you also have your doubts about the NIST report?
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@apbriggs07 There was no controlled demolition, and no evidence of such. The NIST report was fine and very detailed and satisfactory to people to actually understand physics, not people who claim others don't understand. The fact that you think hearing explosions indicates bombs going off, when large building fires always produce explosions, shows your lack of knowledge and education on the subject. I've been debating these theories since Loose Change came out lol It's all laughable evidence.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 Do you think the investigation was right to ignore witnesses and not look for evidence of explosives?
apbriggs07 2 months ago
Do you understand the word "near". How does the east mechanical penthouse collapse prove that it was fire? It's controlled demolition practice to take out core beams and cause a "crimp" in a building to ensure that building materials collapse inwards and prevent buildings from falling sideways.
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@bd886 You are moronic, so is Richard Gage, neither of you understand physics (which is why the Truth Movement is the laughing stock amongst people in their profession). Let me make this clear so you can understand, it was a progressive collapse, do you know what that means? It wasn't 15% destroying 95 stories (how juvenile). It was 15% destroying 1 story, then that one story became part of that percentage to destroy the second story and so on and so forth. Learn physics then come back to me
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 Why do you suggest that NIST didn't look for evidence of accelerants and explosives, despite witness evidence and the fact that terrorists had previously used explosives at the wtc site?
Why do fire fighters on the fire fighters for truth group also question why NIST didn't look for explosives, despite all the evidence that explosives had been used.
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@apbriggs07 What evidence? There is no evidence explosives were used once so ever. Also there are no New York firefighters in that group.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
The buildings fell at near free fall speed, that's a simple calculation, I think you brought that one up, not sure of it's relevance either in this context. I was just bringing up the problems with the official theory rather than offering an explanation. Check out Kevin Ryan's seminar, it's very good, just over an hour long and points out the ridiculous conflicts of interest, and examples of rather poor science which are used in the report.
/watch?v=pkwqWxS-bUA
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@apbriggs07 Simple calculations show the buildings DID NOT fall at free fall speed, and even if they did there is no evidence that means it was a controlled demolition. Building 7 took 18 seconds to fall if you include the east mechanical penthouse collapse (which proves the fire brought down the building).The towers both took around 15 seconds to fall, free fall would have been 10 seconds. Plus controlled demolitions don't cause buildings to fall at free fall anyway.These theories are laughable
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@bd886 You really know nothing do you. The towers did not fall at free fall speed, and the NIST report said that WTC7 only had 2.3 seconds of free fall on the North Face which is to be expected because of the failure of the east mechanical penthouse after the 7 hour fire. You do realize that the WTC buildings weren't built like other buildings, plus, you want to speak about Newton? The Laws of gravity permit everything that happened on 911. Don't insult his name with baseless conspiracy theories
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 What was unique about the WTC buildings and in comparison to similar high rise buildings which have suffered massive fire but not resulted in complete and symmetrical collapse? Please do tell!
apbriggs07 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@apbriggs07 "What was unique about the WTC buildings and in comparison to similar high rise buildings which have suffered massive fire but not resulted in complete and symmetrical collapse?"
Their tube in tube design, the fact that they had steel cores and not concrete cores like other buildings of it's nature, oh ya, and the fact that planes smashed into them at 500mph. WTC7's fires burned un fought (unlike other fires) for 7 hours on fireproofing tested for only 2 hours.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@bd886 It's ok to ask questions but don't ignore the answers. All these conspiracy theories were debunked in 2007. Get with the times bro.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 The final NIST report on WTC 7 wasn't even released until 2008. Get with the times bro.
apbriggs07 2 months ago
Hahahahahahaha
wejewsdid911HAHAHA89 3 months ago
Have a look at my Grond Zero clips, too. They are worth watching.
ddetectivee 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
megamogx 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blackmuzzle I don't doubt they found material with the same chemical signature as thermite, unfortunately for them, many things have the same signature..
"Thermite isn't some high tech charge, it's rust, aluminum and an oxidizer....." - Ron Craig (International Society of Explosives Engineers).
An aluminum wheel on a rusty hub has the same chemical signature of nano- thermite.
theBartone9119 4 months ago
@Daddyo930"Thermite isn't some high tech charge, it's rust, aluminum and an oxidizer" - Ron Craig (International Society of Explosives Engineers).
"An aluminum wheel on a rusty hub has the same chemical signature of nano-thermite too... Dr. Jones has not demonstrated, indeed has not even attempted to show, that the chips contain any available oxygen at all. In his burn tests, oxygen was provided from the atmosphere, not from his chips." Ryan Mackey (NASA Rocket Scientist)
No therm*te proven.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930 "Buildings do tend to fall over because It (controlled demolition) is an exact science, and one or two explosions going off at the wrong of at the wrong time can really affect a building" - Richard Gage
"You would use an incinerary to cut the beams, you would not use explosives, which would give away your project" - Richard Gage, Founder of AE911 Truth
Richard Gage contradicted himself regarding the use of explosives in this controlled demolition theory. Explain?
theBartone9119 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930 Why do you say peak temps weren't at 1800 when NIST says it is? NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
See that? NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36
PAGE NUMBER to back up what I say
You haven't done this, until you do i REFUSE to take you seriously. I already don't mr. aluminum isn't a metel. mr. fire can melt steel hahah
theBartone9119 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930 "What your proposing NIST has already thrown out."
Question: When did I mention pancake collapse? Oh ya I didn't, so that sentence just proves even more, that you a tool who has no clue what you are talking about. I didn't describe any collapse, I described fire weakening the steel which is what happened to initiate the progressive collapse in the end.
If you would have read the NIST report?
It would have told you. mr. aluminum is not a metal. take a science class or something lol
theBartone9119 6 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930 Building 7 was only certified for 2 hours of fire resistance.
That damn fire lasted 7 hours.
That's like 5 HOURS of bare beams being contacted with, unfought fire in an ALL steel framed building with no concrete core (or concrete re-enforcement of any kind) to save it.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 "American federal investigators have been unable to find evidence that tests were ever made on fire-proofing material in the World Trade Centre, a potential factor in the buildings' collapse on 11 September 2001"
This is why NIST's ran the tests, for fireproofing measures that have never been done.
Everyone knows fire can fail the beam, it's all for fireproofing.
Beams not failing is the DESIRED result.
The beams STILL sagged. The Jet fuel test shows you what happens to bare beams.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@theBartone9119 watch?v=JeU1rxnj0o4
Even NIST won't support your collapse theory. Try and stick with the prevailing NIST theory of "progressive collapse". Your gonna have to do some research because this a brand new theory. What your proposing NIST has already thrown out.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 "Even NIST won't support your collapse theory. "
Yes they do you fucking moron lol
They go with progressive collapse from inward bowing, it was pancake theory that got thrown out NOT progressive collapse.
But hey, you didn't even know aluminum was a metal, so I wouldn't expect you to know that (or anything at all).
You can't even reference ONE page of a NIST report because you haven't it read it, the fact you try to link me to videos proves you haven't read shit. Read the report!
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 Just keep telling yourself that fire can melt steel. Keep telling yourself aluminum can't glow orange if it's subjected to heat past it's melting point. Keep telling yourself Aluminum isn't a metal, and that molten doesn't mean to melt LMAO
You do realize I stopped taking you seriously after you pointed out you didn't even know aluminum was a metal but you talked about chemistry HAHA
Learn about metals and learn to reference pages of the NIST report
then come back and try again lol
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 You think it was molten steel when those office fires weren't even hot enough to melt the steel. Your life is one big fail....
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 "NIST subsequently expanded its research in areas of high-priority need such as prevention of progressive collapse, fire resistance design and retrofit of structures, and fire resistive coatings for structural steel.[1][2]"
So it looks like NIST agrees with progressive collapse, just not pancake theory.
Is there anything else you would like to be proven wrong about?
The report mentions "progressive collapse" 16 times,
It seems you have been making a hobby out failing Lol
This is fun.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 So if NIST mentions the work progressive collapse 16 times to describe the collapse, then it's safe to say they agree with it right? Duh Why would you say they didn't when everyone knows it was the PANCAKE THEORY that got thrown out NOT progressive collapse?
Are you just trying to save your ego because you got destroyed SO bad,
or do you actually believe the hot pile of garbage that you type out?
I think I deserve an answer.....
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 So I have a question:
Why do you think you know about chemistry when you didn't even know aluminum was a metal? It is the most common metal on the planet, shouldn't you have known this?
Another question:
Why do you talk about "melting off"? It's clear you don't know what the word molten means either
Another question:
Why do you tell others to read the NIST report, when you haven't and can't even reference ONE stinking page from it?
Do you just like coming off as a retard? You like it
theBartone9119 6 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 Last question:
Who taught you that those office fires were hot enough to melt steel? They weren't lol
Why do you believe there was molten steel when that would me impossible based on science?
I'm honestly mind boggled as to how one dude can be SUCH a retard lol
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@theBartone9119 Look here son. You have no idea what's in the NIST report on buildings 1, 2 and 7 therefore you are in no position to present a rational argument for the government new "progressive collapse" theory. Go read the report and when you learn and understand what "progressive collapse" is and can convey in layman's terms the science behind it, we will discuss this further. Everything you said NIST disagrees with it and they have their new theory as to what caused the collapses.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 "Everything you said NIST disagrees with it and they have their new theory as to what caused the collapses."
Most of my info was form NIST so to say they don't agree with me is dumb.
You haven't provided page numbers to the NIST report to back up your claims you are a joke.
Forget NIST
Let's talk about how you didn't know Aluminum was a metal, do you want to talk about that?
Let's talk about how you though aluminum couldn't go orange, yes lets discuss?
You say fire can melt steel?
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@theBartone9119 Now your just grasping at straws. (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L). Now go study "progressive collapse" because all the other shit your talking about NIST throws out. NIST says that a "progressive collapse" caused the buildings to collapse. Better get your study on because you don't know anything about "progressive collapse" or what's in the NIST report.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 Dude fuck the NIST report.
You think:
Aluminum isn't a metal
Office fires can melt steel
Aluminum can't glow orange
Molten and melting off were different things
Forget about NIST.
Respond to your completely moronic and uninformed claims?
Mr. Aluminum isn't a metal
Read a book.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 You nit pick the NIST report like it actually means something. You thought aluminum wasn't a metal, doesn't that make you a fucking RETARD?!
Yes, yes it does.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@theBartone9119 I just gave you the page number you said I didn't know. I told you that NIST says your theory of how the building collapsed is WRONG! Can you read? (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L). NIST explains in the best way they can the collapse. NIST is talking about "progressive collapse". You don't even know what that means because you have not read the report and yet talk as though you have. Your a fraud.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 Dude I said fuck NIST I don't care about NIST.
You though aluminum wasn't a metal, this means you are NOT a credible source of information at all!
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 Neil Harrit/ Prof. Jones (Scholars for 911 Truth) have said that nano-thermite was used along with hundred of tons of conventional explosives as well.
Richard Gage (AE911 Truth) has said that explosives would not have been used, and an incinerary (Thermate) would have been be used only, to keep the job quiet.
Do you Truthers believe Richard Gage, or Harrit/ Prof. Jones?
Answer that hot shot? They are your experts. If you can nitpick "mine" (NIST) I'll nit pick yours.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 "NIST explains in the best way they can the collapse. NIST is talking about "progressive collapse"."
Yes NOT a pancake collapse. At least you were right about that HAHA
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 I know you want to discuss NIST, In hopes i'll forget about how you said aluminum was not a metal.
Why do you think fire can melt steel?
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@theBartone9119 NIST is the only topic of discussion because they were responsible for explaining how the buildings collapsed. Until they release their reports and data for international peer review, Houston, we have a problem.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 You preach chemistry but didn't know aluminum was a metal?
Houston we have an even BIGGER problem lol
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 Prior to 911, Jones was best known for his paper "Behold My Hands", which he claims that ancient Mayan artwork showing dieties with circles on their palms is evidence of his religion's belief that Jesus Christ once visited America. The critics of his 911 paper even came from his own Physics Department. The University he worked for put him on paid leave.
This is your "expert" that you believe? Get a grip
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 Neil Harrit/ Prof. Jones (Scholars for 911 Truth) have said that nano-thermite was used along with hundred of tons of conventional explosives as well.
Richard Gage (AE911 Truth) has said that explosives would not have been used, and an incinerary (Thermate) would have been be used only, to keep the job quiet.
Do you Truthers believe Richard Gage, or Harrit/ Prof. Jones?
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@theBartone9119 Well seeing as how NIST never tested for explosives in direct violation of procedure, what do you want me to say? If an independent scientist takes samples of the dust and found explosive compounds that are very hard to make in the dust, the answer is obvious. Stop trying to change the subject. Your just floundering now, looking real stupid. Go and study "progressive collapse" and then explain it to me as best you can. Good luck with that.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 You are trying to change the subject lol You want to talk about NIST so people forget that you didn't know aluminum was a metal. You think FIRE can melt steel
Explain? Don't mention NIST either.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 If you can nit pick NIST? I'll nit pick your experts. Answer the question you coward?
Neil Harrit/ Prof. Jones (Scholars for 911 Truth) have said that nano-thermite was used along with hundred of tons of conventional explosives as well.
Richard Gage (AE911 Truth) has said that explosives would not have been used, and an incinerary (Thermate) would have been be used only, to keep the job quiet.
Do you Truthers believe Richard Gage, or Harrit/ Prof. Jones?
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 How can the office fires melt the steel?
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 How can aluminum not be a metal? Don't go back to the NIST report either use your OWN fucking brain.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 “We do not know if the thermite that we have found is the same thermite which has been used for melting the beams. It’s very, very possible that different varieties were used, and I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance.” -Niels Harrit (Prof. Jones and him wrote the paper on nano-thermite)
"You would use an incinerary to cut the beams, you would not use explosives, which would give away your project" - Richard Gage, Founder of AE911 Truth
MMm.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 "The 'nanothermite' samples vary by about a factor of 10 in energy content. This nonuniformity proves it is not a 'precision engineered' substance of any kind.
The top end of energy content exceeds the theoretical maximum for thermite by a factor of two, and the observed content of nanothermite by a factor of five. The substance cannot be thermite of any type. Its 'contaminants' are, in fact, the dominant species." - Ryan Mackey (NASA Rocket Scientist)
Therm*te impossible.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@theBartone9119 First of all you change the subject too much. Secondly, you have no idea what your talking about. Do you know anything about chemistry? Taking random quotes made by some shill does not make it a fact. Everything in chemistry is like a fingerprint. If you make an explosive, it has a unique chemical signature. The signature they analyzed looks a lot like KOMATSU's nanothermite. Spray on explosives. Yes, sound exotic. Yes, leaves a chemical fingerprint and someone found it.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 "Yes, leaves a chemical fingerprint and someone found it."
"The 'nanothermite' samples vary by about a factor of 10 in energy content. This nonuniformity proves it is not a 'precision engineered' substance of any kind.
The top end of energy content exceeds the theoretical maximum for thermite by a factor of two, and the observed content of nanothermite by a factor of five. The substance cannot be thermite of any type" - Ryan Mackey (NASA Rocket Scientist)
Macky knows more than you.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 Unless you think you are smarter than a rocket scientist then you should be quite Mr. Aluminum is not a metal lol
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 Prof. Steven Jones' paper: "We have shown that the red material contains both elemental aluminum and iron oxide"
Oh. I see. There's iron oxide (rust) and aluminum in this mixture. There's no way that rust or aluminum could possibly have gotten into the Twin Towers, right? Except of course that the Twin Towers had tons upon tons of aluminum and every building in history that had iron it also had oxidized iron (rust) in it.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930
From Prof. Steven Jones' paper on 'nano-thermite': "We make no attempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present until more is learned about the red material and especially about the nature of the organic material it contains."
Yes of course, why bother making an attempt to actually identify this peticular substance, right?
We already know what other substances those chemical compounds can be found in....
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@theBartone9119 I might have all the ingredients to make an Apple pie, but you can't just throw them into an oven and expect to end up with a pie! Independent scientists have carried out tests on these red/grey particles to prove that it's not just a product from the collapse.
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@apbriggs07 Independent scientists? You mean Steven Jones the crack pot who tried came out with that paper about Jesus visiting America? Funny...
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 I'm not sure if you aware but there are many scientists, physicists, chemists, architects, engineers etc, look up ae911 truth(dot)org. Nice try trying to discredit scientists based on one persons paper. Funny...
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@apbriggs07 ae911 Truth? You've got to be kidding me....I'm not sure if you are aware but Richard Gage has been shunned from the scientific community due to his pseudo science. And I'm not sure if you are aware, but ae911 truth barely has any STRUCTURAL engineers or HIGH RISE architects, the only relevant ones. I even saw a software engineer on their list. Nice try trying to credit something that has no credibility in the first place. I can find more scientists who believe in big foot..
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 Ahh so you can completely disregard aetruth but the official NIST investigation is completely trusted, even down to their lack of science, shooting at fireproofing with a shotgun, backwardly engineering their theories to match a pre-decided result. Architects and Engineers for truth are asking for a proper investigation to be carried out, if there are any holes in the official story, why would anyone not want those to be investigated?
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@apbriggs07 The NIST report is 10,000 pages and very detailed and there are no holes or lack of science. I'm not sure why you pull these statements out of your ass so carelessly but what problems did you find with the NIST report? I mean, the collapse model they did was brilliant and unlike you I've actually read over a hundred pages of the NIST report and I'm not sure why anyone in their right mind would say their are holes. AE911 Truth is a proof by intimidation scam. Gage is a crack pot.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 Even the chairman and vice chairman of the 911 Commission have criticized the official account of the event. There are so many conflicting interests, evidence withheld, WTC wasn't even mentioned on the report. Took until 2008 to release a final report on WTC7. Steel evidence removed prior to the commencement of the report, the list goes on...
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 No need to be so rude, it is much more civil if you can hold a conversation at an adult level without need for offensive language. Thank you. Which of Gage's theories do you have an issue with?
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@apbriggs07 Thirdly, what does free fall have to do with anything anyway? There is no evidence that controlled demolitions cause buildings to free at free fall, so claiming the buildings fell at free fall (which they didn't) means a controlled demolition took place, is laughable. ImplosionWorld even came out with a paper debunking the conspiracy theories, controlled demolition companies all say the theories are baseless.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@apbriggs07 Another problem I have with Gage is he hasn't built anything bigger than a gym but claims to be an expert on high rise structures (which he is not). Plus he would not nothing about tube in tube designs or buildings without concrete cores. But like I said, what really irks me is when he discusses the twin tower and pretends that what happened defied physics (top half couldn't destroy bottom half ect) if no explosives were used, which is of course false and outrages.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 The claims in the NIST report are incorrect, their fire testing was based on over 2 hours of fires, the deflection of the trusses was calculated based on the heat of fires and resulted in a couple of inches of deflection. The concrete floor slab wasn't included in their calculations. The deflection required to pull and break the core beams and exterior columns in their simulation was over 4ft.
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@apbriggs07 Here's the question conspiracy theorists dred: Did the secret cabal in government that supposedly pulled off 911 have foreknowledge of the random pieces of burning columns from the North Tower gutting WTC7 like a knife causing the 7 hour fire? If not, what would have been the cover story? Are you implying that they knew that WTC7 was going to be randomly hit by the burning debris to cause the fire? In your mind, they are either psychic or didn't plan on a cover story and stupid. lol
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 I'm jut interested in understanding why WTC7 collapsed, when similar sized steel framed high-rise buildings survived much larger fires for much longer. Once the investigation is carried out then one can start looking into the paper trail and the various financial interests who benefited and made a good profit out of 9/11. There were so many conflicts of interests and so many making big bucks out of the war on terror and contracts it is obscene.
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 Lets just do what NIST did, come up with a result, and ignore any evidence which conflicts with it.
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@apbriggs07 Secondly, their is no evidence that contradicts NIST. Buckling of column 79 is what initiated to collapse sequence of WTC7. The problem I have with Gage is his wacked out theory that the top half couldn't destroy the bottom half of the tower (which is not what happened anyway). Gage has a complete lack of understanding when it comes to physics as do most truthers, yet they try to claim that the laws of physics were broken that day as far as the official account of events is concerned
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 So you discredit one scientist because they find evidence of an incendiary but cannot identify the particular form, but you have no issue with the official story which makes no mention of these findings. Are you aware that many of those on the NIST investigation believed that explosives were used but they later retracted their stories? Obviously the NIST investigation was funded by congress which was a clear conflict of interests.
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@apbriggs07 "Are you aware that many of those on the NIST investigation believed that explosives were used but they later retracted their stories?"
I highly doubt it.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 Yes, I'm aware of that and may actually commented on having known what the knew after the investigation prior to writing the report, that they would have looked for explosives / accelerants and kept the structural steel for the purpose of the investigation.
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@Daddyo930 "All these data SUGGEST that the thermitic material found in the WTC dust is a form of nano-thermite"
"These observations REMINDED us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere"
MMM Doesn't seem very conclusive to me lol
Looks like you need to research some real science before you can hang with the big dogs.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@theBartone9119 The scientific proof can be found at nielsharrit (dot) org. Contains full gas chromatic graph analysis as well as electron microscope imagery along with the expert analysis of 9 contributing scientists. That's a published paper, a *real* piece of science. Feel free to ignore it of course...
blackmuzzle 4 months ago
@blackmuzzle “We do not know if the thermite that we have found is the same thermite which has been used for melting the beams. It’s very, very possible that different varieties were used, and I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance.” -Niels Harrit (Prof. Jones and him wrote the paper on nano-thermite)
"You would use an incinerary to cut the beams, you would not use explosives, which would give away your project" - Richard Gage, Founder of AE911 Truth
theBartone9119 4 months ago
@theBartone9119 NIST stated in their final report that they did *not* look for exposives. As someone else said so eloquently, you cannot find what you do not look for. So even if regular explosives were used, they did not look for them.
Let's stick to the facts: Thermite was found. Everything else is speculation. Even the video analysis showing the windows being blown out is not proof for an explosion - although it does make the pancake theory very unlikely.
blackmuzzle 4 months ago
@blackmuzzle NIST doesn't support FEMA's pancake collapse theory, they advocate the progressive collapse theory (different). You obviously haven't read a single page of the NIST report,
theBartone9119 4 months ago
@blackmuzzle NIST debunked FEMA.
theBartone9119 4 months ago
@blackmuzzle There are always multiple explosions in large building fires as well, that is nothing unusual. Examples:
Explosions as Firefighters Tackle Fire at Falmouth Docks:
"Jamie Clark, who was staying about 60m (200ft) from the scene of the fire, said he was woken up by explosions."
Firefighters battle three-alarm fire involving explosions
"As more firefighters responded to the fire, more callers reported hearing explosions"
theBartone9119 4 months ago
@blackmuzzle Thousands of hi-voltage transformers go off like grenades, and there was explosive material throughout the buildings -- propane & LPG tanks for restaurants & snack bars; O2 & NO3 tanks in medical/dental offices, oxyacetylene tanks in the maint. shops, and tens of thousands of gallons of diesel in generator
theBartone9119 4 months ago
@theBartone9119
Still not anything NEAR powerful enough to take down STEEL GIRDERS. Hell, I could understand the walls and other stuff coming down.... not the steel girders that are extremely strong and have an extremely high melting point.
Lerianis10 4 months ago
@blackmuzzle The "nanothermite" samples vary by about a factor of 10 in energy content. This nonuniformity proves it is not a "precision engineered" substance of any kind.
The top end of energy content exceeds the theoretical maximum for thermite by a factor of two, and the observed content of nanothermite by a factor of five. The substance cannot be thermite of any type. Its contaminants are, in fact, the dominant species. - Ryan Mackey (NASA Scientist)
theBartone9119 4 months ago
@blackmuzzle So who do you believe, Harrits of Gage?
Was there explosives + Therm*te used?
..or just Therm*te?
theBartone9119 4 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 4 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@theBartone9119 The fireproofing on the floors the aircraft hit was installed only a few years prior to 911, were no tests carried out regarding the specification of the materials used when it was installed?
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@apbriggs07 The fireproofing was knocked off due to the impact of the plane. This is why that area eventually failed and caused the top half of the building to smash up each floor it hit below it. The top half weighed much more than just one floor, which is why it was able to travel all the way to the bottom in a progressive collapse because the top half gained one floors worth of mass each time a floor got smashed up but the top half of the tower.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 Yes NIST demonstrated this by firing at a plywood box with some insulation inside, with a shotgun. How very scientific!
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@apbriggs07 Here is the leader of ae911 truth trying to do an experiment.
watch?v=DFVoencqfZw
This is why people like me laugh at him. He totally forgets the tower was a tube in tube design and was made of multiple floors, and thinks he can just drop a box on another one to try and prove the progressive collapse couldn't have happened. Plus he doesn't think that explosives were used, only thermite while all the people who site ae911 think explosives were used lol
theBartone9119 2 months ago
And what a great job he's doing too! 1,637 Architects and Engineers have signed their petition for an independent investigation of 9/11 too. aetruth(dot)org has some great videos too, it's not just simple demonstrations of free fall using boxes. Thanks to the link of the rather poorly edited video, clearly published by "debunkers" and intended to destroy his entire argument, based purely on what is clearly a simple visual demonstration.
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@apbriggs07 1, 500 + doesn't mean anything because they only have 3 HIGH RISE architects that signed and maybe about a few dozen STRUCTURAL engineers. You seem to not realize that AE911 Truth is a proof by intimidation scam. Most of the people who signed it would have no expert knowledge on the collapses of the WTC except for structural engineers and high rise architects. Gage hasn't built anything bigger than a high school gymnasium and obviously doesn't account the towers unique design.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 Those are ridiculous assumptions! 1,637 Architects and Engineers have signed their petition for an independent investigation of 9/11 too - FACT.
apbriggs07 2 months ago
@apbriggs07 You must not know how to read. I already acknowledged that 1,500 + architects and engineers signed the petition. I'm just saying that only STRUCTURAL engineers and HIGH RISE architects would have the proper expertise to have any relevance. I even saw a software engineer on their list and a landscape engineer on their list, how is the computer guy and the lawn mower dude going to be educated enough to think they have an expert opinion on the collapse of the WTC? Laughable..
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@apbriggs07 "You would use an incinerary to cut the beams, you would not use explosives, which would give away your project" - Richard Gage, Founder of AE911 Truth
theBartone9119 2 months ago
@theBartone9119 and your point is?
apbriggs07 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930 My source for the 1220 F Al melting point claim?
engineeringtoolbox(dot)com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860(dot)html
That's a METALS chart, but you already know that right? ;)
My source for peak temperatures of 1800 F in the WTC?
NIST reported maximum upper layer air temps of about 1800 F in the WTC towers (see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
PS. The metals chart also shows that steel has a melting point of around 2600 - 2800 F, it wouldn't happen in fires only reaching 1800 F
Debunked.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930"They say aluminum is silver when melted. While this is true, at higher temperatures it can be yellow." - Thanks to ScottS, Shagster, Arthur, Mark Ferran, NEU-FONZE and David B. Benson for their research.
"...If you heat up aluminum enough, it will glow orange." - Andrew Johnson (Degree in Computer Science and Physics, "911, Finding the Truth").
Melting point of Al is 1220 °F
Fires in WTC peaked at 1800 °F
= Almost 580°F of "overkill" on the Al will turn the glow yellow/ orange
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@theBartone9119 The NIST report does not take into account the results of their own laboratory-controlled floor truss tests in which the steel reached temperatures in excess of 800º C without failure. So, whatever your talking about is just nonsense. Did you even bother to read the NIST report? The inconsistencies within the report beg for an international peer review.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 Dude you are nit picking the NIST report forgetting that it states 1800 F were peaked temperatures,
"own laboratory-controlled floor truss tests in which the steel reached temperatures in excess of 800º C without failure."
I believe this test:
JET FUEL EXPERIMENT:/watch?v=T_NZIwXtisU
Temp got as hot as 2010 F (NIST even said in their report jet fuel fires can do that, didn't you read it?)
The lose one ton beam failed after 4 minutes. Not as hard as you have been failing though.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36). FROM THE NIST REPORT
The test I linked you too had peak temps of 2000 degrees, just like nIst confirmed.
Fail dude..I don't care about truss tests, I saw that jet fuel test.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@theBartone9119 watch?v=vTIFmcE8ZjY
A lady who just happened to be on the scene of 911 with a forward looking infra red camera took some pictures. What your talking about is nonsense. NIST reports of fires raging withing the building at soaring temperatures are false. There are reports of firefighters within the building talking about isolated pockets of fire and being able to take care of them with three lines. You should stop now.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930 So you have no calculations, you can't even reference which pages of the NIST report you agree with, you thought aluminum wasn't a metal, and you didn't know that molten means to melt something. You think fire can melt steel. You can't even reference which pages you disagree with, I don't even believe you have read it.
"You should stop now."
I know the truth hurts, but you have nothing, and you never had nothing, I proved you wrong on everything and you know lol
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 You didn't even know molten aluminum can glow orange if it is significantly subjected to fires past it's melting point. You didn't know anything.....AT ALL! lol
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@theBartone9119 What does that have to do with anything. You seem to have a good time laughing at some real serious shit. The only one laughing is you son. This is very serious to me but you seem cavalier about the whole thing. I wonder........
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 You are the one throwing the NIST report in my face when you can't even reference a page, I call you out on your bull shit, then you switch goal posts like "oh why is this funny?"
If you didn't want to talk about it then they mention that stupid "silver" shit that everyone called Jones out on years ago? Or how you didn't even know aluminum was a metal, the most COMMON metal on the planet?
If that doesn't say measures about how lost someone is, I don't know what the fuck does. Moron
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@Daddyo930 "With the fire proofing blown off, the fire only needed as little as 600 degrees C to deform the naked truss steel. Conspiracy theorists point to the UL tests which show the trusses sagged but never fail to say the building should have stood. But what they don't tell you is that the test was done with fireproofing on the trusses. The test was never meant to find out what caused the truss to fail. It was testing the fire proofing to see if it was up to code." BOOM
theBartone9119 6 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 6 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 6 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 6 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930 Recap:
mol·ten [mohl-tn] Show IPA –verb 1. a past participle of melt. liquefied by heat; in a state of fusion; melted:
ALUMINUM: a·lu·mi·num [uh-loo-muh-nuhm] Show IPA –noun 1. Chemistry . a silver-white metallic element,
There, now you've learned 2 things:
1) Molten means the same thing as melted (just different wording)
2) Aluminum is a metal (the most common metal found in the ground)
I'm glad I can help you learn about the basics of chemistry that you were unaware of.
theBartone9119 6 months ago