again - its not about the floors- the columns themselves are constructed to carry 5 times their own weight - the volume of the total weight of the floors is far below the carry strength of the columns - and in total could not out-weight, or out-mass the mean total necessary to pulverize the beams into small sections = smaller than their construction size. The point is not the floors and all noodle models and talk about the floors is a distraction from physics and construction specifications.
I have a 'pyrolytic' electric oven that cremates anything left inside by raising the internal temperature to an excess of 600c.the process takes 90 minutes.The heating elements are made of Iron and the oven is mild steel pressed.I have had it for 7 years now with not so much as ripple in it's casing from the heat.Don't tell me that steel girder can be weakened in the open-air at this temperature because you will simply be talking crap.Black smoke = 'vitiation' = low temp fire.
It is not transferable. The elements behave completely differently depending on size. The process takes 90 minutes so it doesn't weaken. Heating rapidly and cooling rapidly would break it, the grain boundaries remain large and the metal remains strong when it heats and cools slowly. Black smoke says nothing about temperature, only that there isn't enough oxygen. For hydrocarbons in atmospheric conditions there never is, they have to be burned in a furnace to achieve a clean burn
@Weirdo10o4 The 90 minutes is simply to save energy and ensure that the process is complete. Pyrolytic action is used because it is safe to run well beyond the physical tolerances of the oven in case of malfunction in a domestic situation.Black smoke is a sign of vitiation which is 'incomplete' combustion an inherent characteristic of which is ever decreasing temperature.you are correct about furnace temps - that is exactly what would soften steel.well done!
Did I say there was pure oxygen? Hydrocarbons burn at 3,000C in pure oxygen, at a maximum of 1,000C in atmospheric conditions. NASA thermal imaging showed peaks of 1050K at the World Trade Center site. Hydrocarbons don't EVER burn clean in atmospheric conditions, they always form soot. It is not an indication of their temperature.
Heat treatment is done so that grain boundaries grow. Rapid heating and cooling leads to small grain boundaries and subsequently weaker metal.
Furthermore: High rise fires have continue far longer than what the World Trade Center Towers burned for. The World Trade Center had a record amount of fuel and oxygen, so there's absolutely no way they would start dying out in an hour and a half. The exterior walls bowed inwards by up to 1.4 meters, ''55, which means the trusses between the walls and core had to have bowed by three meters. Floor connection failures can be seen from images of the towers.
@Weirdo10o4 'record amount of oxygen' -what the hell does that mean?Most of the fuel was ejected and burnt on impact. Fires are dynamic by nature and move as combustible material is exhausted.Couple this with steel conductivity constantly carrying heat away from the fire plus patently obvious vitiating fire and the case for high temps is dead - done- put to bed. Any more assumptions? The 'bowing' has been debunked -move on!
Did you realize temp and heat are two very diff things especially since it was oxy starved hence the smoke and and jetfuel doesnt produce enough heat to melt steel
It was the Jewish reptilian Illuminati that made the twin towers fall, they did it with invisible planes, demolition teams operating in the 4th dimension so no one would see them planting the invisible charges, any other explanation is just a crazy conspiracy theory.
the central column structure is stated to have been built to carry 3x its own weight - the outer framework designed to carry 2x its own weight. Yet everyone is focussed on the flooring, which is simply suspended from the skeleton of the steel frames; flooring did not support the central frames nor outer frames. In order for the floors to move would require 1 the floors pancake and the frames stand or 2 all the frames are cut synchronously removing their load capability- the spaghetti model fails
Do you know of a simulation that shows how the buildings fell as the OS claims? This one isn't perfect but I've yet to see a proper simulation that allows the (lighter construction, damaged) top 15 floors to crush the (stronger, intact) lower 80 or so without additional energy input. It's claimed that the destructive power of objects of large mass can be "counter-intuitive". That's true, but "counter-intuitive" doesn't mean "inexplicable" - there's a reason for the observation.
This is a wonderful animation /watch?v=xYJ-SrvBxV4&feature=related
but it isn't clear if the animation is done to be consistant with Newton's laws or if it is just an animation. Either way, while beautifully done, it shows the base of the buildings being blown out in order to initiate the collapses - i.e. additional energy. The above video at least tries to show what should have happened to the South Tower once the top began to lean as observed on the day.
@SuperCrackhead5 But nearly all the fuel ignited outside of the buildings. You may have missed those enormous fireballs that went up straight after impact.
Based on what. Hydrocarbons burn at 3,000C in pure oxygen S-P staring from ambient temperature, in atmospheric conditions the reaction has to heat four molecules of nitrogen in addition to itself. NASA thermal imaging of the site showed peaks of 1050K in the days after 9/11.
@Weirdo10o4 There was no 'pure oxygen', and what you are referring to is an example of a controlled flame by using pressurised gases.Both these thing have no relevance here.
Continued: jet crashes always melt the aluminum-titanium alloy of the plane, despite burning thick and black. That is an indication of above 660C temperatures. NIST fire tests showed peaks of 1,000C. Not to mention other skyscrapers that have collapsed partially or been weakened significantly by fire. Even three years before 9/11, in an article by an FDNY Chief, firemen were told not to assume steel structures couldn't collapse. Trusses are the most dangerous type of construction inflamed
@Weirdo10o4 Nist's test were conducted with 'controlled flames' and still had no effect. Any way, where are the peer - review papers to support NIST's findings? There are none - quite damning after 10 years.So someone told the FDNY not to make assumptions, based on what exactly? Another peer-reviewed study? NO.The truss failure would inevitably follow the destruction of the core - which could only be achieved through a systematic controlled demolition.Critical thinking and research.
@Weirdo10o4 I think you will find that with observation that the shell of a plane does not 'melt'. It will fracture with impact and portions will 'spit' and explode due to the draft effect caused by air being drawn through the fuselage creating a draft chimney.Black smoke occurs through vitiation after fire temps have died down or the draft chimney effect ceases.
Are you a creationist? I ask because you seem to think that "NIST says it. I believe it. That settles it." = evidence and that finding gaps or flaws with an opposing hypothesis makes your own correct by default. If you want to claim the red chips are something other than NT then you need to provide evidence to show what they ARE. But then, that would require further research and you are against that for some reason. Perhaps you are afraid of the results?
"Gage is your cult guru" = Bare assertion (I had never heard of Gage until after I questioned the OS and he is no guru - get over it.)
"There wasn't any thermite or controlled demolitions on 911." = Bare assertion, denial
"No, it's called REALITY" ... no, it is called circular reasoning and it is a logical fallacy.
Claiming something without evidence is a bare assertion. Claiming that even if evidence exists, you won't believe it, is denial. That's what creationists do.
"I had never heard of Gage until after I questioned the OS..."
No, before you questioned the OS, the cult teaches you to accept the CD delusion.
"and he is no guru ..."
He is a guru for the 9/11 "truth" cult.
"Are you a creationist?"
No, I don't do cults. But saying the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition is about as batshit insane as saying dinosaurs roamed the earth a few thousands years ago.
@comali2212 yeah thanks for the shit little response it had absolutely no facts to support any of the shit you spew. That is just sad and pathetic you retard.
@comali2212 yeah thanks for the shit little response it had absolutely no facts to support any of the shit you spew. That is just sad and pathetic you retard.
WTC2 (south tower) was the first to collapse, it was still "WTC2". The North Tower (WTC1) fell second even though it was hit by the first plane. Tower One (North Tower) collapsed straight down as you say.
complete waste of Newtons laws otherwise eh? - no smaller part has enough mass or enertia to destroy the larger part in free fall - equal and oppostite reactions remember - the top should have just rolled off the top and fell to the street leaving the larger resisiting force ( the tower itself ) intact - talk to your physics prof to see if he would agree with Newton or not
@RichartMedia if that is what your physics prof taught you then your phsyics prof is a dumb fuck and does not understand even basic engineering. Since you fucking idiots lie so much my guess is your physics prof wouldn't support any of your shit and you are just making up more lies. You dumb fuck
To you folks saying this was impossible without preset bombs or whatever: What about the connections? the larger bottom part wasn't one, monolithic piece, even if designed to be in static load situations. It was made up of individual floors connected with specific load requirements, not designed to withstand a pancake collapse. Once the mass on top failed and presented this shock load to the floors below, connections failed and the steel may as well have been balsa wood.
@Fireman27852 You may ask yourself, if you jump from a ramp into a sea, do you expect your body accelerating with the same free fall acceleration down to the bottom of the sea or would you expect a deceleration due to the water resistance?
Now apply that to WTC, the larger part presents a huge resistance to the upper block withstanding gravity. Would you expect a slowing down or a acceleration trough the larger block? In the case of WTC 1,2,3 we witnessed an acceleration. 3rd grade physics!
@Fireman27852 "from who knows where" NIST admitted free fall speed in WTC 7 for 2.5 secconds. David Chandler a physisist measured a the downward acceleration in the WTC 1.2 with a simple tracker program. So your argument falls flat.
@Fireman27852 You can't really see how long exactly it took WTC 1, 2 to collapse completely due to dust in the lower part, but you can pretty much exactly calculate the acceleration of the upper block from the colapse initiation, which was free fall "speed". The debunkers always use that argument that it took longer than 9 secconds so = no free fall speed, even though you can measure free fall acceleration right at the start of the collapse, which contradicts every law of physics.
@RichartMedia But what if the smaller part weighed 500,000 tonnes and fell 9 feet onto a larger structure attached with mere 4 inch bolts that was filled with air? Would it REALLY stay intact with all that energy released on it?
It's a question of energy dissipation. The resisting force is not proportional to the size of the object, but the construction itself. With a tower like the Empire State Building(rigid frame), what you said would be largely true, but with the Trade Centers 70% empty floors (void of columns), it's much more complicated. The floors connections didn't have the strength to support the 50,000 tonnes that fell.
@eujeeves its demonstrates proven scientific principles on a smaller scale...every force has an equal and opposite reaction..so a smaller block falling onto a larger block...the smaller block will crush itself simultaniously with the lower block equal to the same mass...so a falling 15 stories can only crush 15 stories maximum....15 stories crushing 85 stories however is impossible...inside job!
@studmalexy the smaller top portion evaporated before it hit the grown = having no forces ontop of it to crush it down - it simply disasembled into powder
@shananagans5 You don't time it from top to bottom to find out free fall speed. Freefall speed is actually about acceleration. Alot of truthers say it never fell at freefall speed, they done the rest but the dust flying out the side was ahead at freefall speed. I think that video was done by david chandler. If the top fell off the side as in this sim, the weght would reduce on building and it collapse uneven.
@anil2 its demonstrates proven scientific principles on a smaller scale...every force has an equal and opposite reaction..so a smaller block falling onto a larger block...the smaller block will crush itself simultaniously with the lower block equal to the same mass...so a falling 15 stories can only crush 15 stories maximum....15 stories crushing 85 stories however is impossible...inside job!
That is the point - if it had been a natural collapse it would have fallen as shown in this simulation because the top was already falling asymmetrically. Unless other forces came into play, even allowing for the inner core to arrest the continued fall - and this simulation shows that well - it could not have righted itself as we saw "in real life".
congratulations pour la simulation. ça semblant réaliste, mais en fait je pense que encore ce n'est pas possible pour le étage superieur se tomber comme ça, avec le structure inferieure sans offrent pas de resistance. imagine que la base est trop plus fort et lourd que les étages superieures.
@idontfkinknow1234 Haha, we weren't talking about realism but physics programs in general :) You should cool down a bit. Have you ever used one? PhysX is pretty damn nice for home use.
lol. The video doesn't show the whole collapse because only half the building collapses. Also these are just blocks placed on top of each other with nothing to hold them together.
a couple of questions, 3 months after the attack there was molten steel still being dug up, what causes steel to melt 3 months after the towers fell? why so many people have died who helped clean up ground zero and there's a big clue there folks "ground zero" check out the nasa thermal photos
As I've said before, the buildings simply didn't collapse in the way truthers have imagined in their minds that it should have. I think this is due primarily to the fact that the buildings are incomprehensibly massive, thus containing a great deal of energy-- and high energy systems tend to behave in a counter-intuitive manner. The enormous mass translates to enormous momentum with even the slightest acceleration.
@IndividualParties please tell me youre not serious...."truther"? youre a government shill probably part of a bullhorn program...you wont get your new world order and you wont get my guns...
Actually, I'm against gun-control i.e. pro-constitution. But there is no such thing as a "new world order," in the context of conspiracy occult mythology, and the "truthers" call themselves truthers," and their movement is known as the "truth" movement, I call it the "truth" cult.
And it is true, I am part of a mass deception program organized and sponsored by the [This portion of the comment has been removed by the United States government].
1) only WTC7 experienced approximate g-acceleration for roughly 2 seconds during it's collapse.
2) It doesn't mean anything. The idea the free fall=demolition, has no coherent scientific basis. All they're saying is that accelerating portions of the skyscraper should have experienced more resistance from the lower portion. It's a physically useless objection because they cannot provide a valid quantitative assessment of the amount of resistance that should have occured.
Ok, it looks like you were referring to the Harrit et al. paper. The "conclusions" reached by Harrit et al. are false as I said. No thermite --nor any evidence proving thermite--was found. Even if it had been found, it still wouldn't be very compelling evidence that it was actually used in a series of controlled demolitions on 9/11 for one simple reason: no controlled demoltions took place in NYC on 9/11.
If you use fallacious arguments (logically or simply dishonest) then you won't be taken seriously. E.g. You said that even if it had been found, it would not be compelling evidence that it (NT) was actually used in a series of CDs on 9/11 "for one simple reason: no CD took place in NYC on 9/11". That is circular reasoning. That you don't recognise it when you use it yourself, might explain why you don't recognise this form of fallacious reasoning when NIST uses it too.
Gage is your cult guru bro, get over it;. Whatever the case, there wasn't any thermite or controlled demolitions on 911.
"That is circular reasoning."
No it's called REALITY;
1) There wasn't any fucking thermite on 9/11
2) Even if there were, there certainly weren't any fucking controlled demolitions on 9/11 like the "truth" cult has been trying to shove down our throats for the last decade.
"In 2009, Hoffman wrote three essays[4] to accompany a scientific paper written by Danish chemist Niels H. Harrit...The paper by Harrit et al., concludes that chips consisting of unreacted and partially reacted super-thermite are present in the samples of the dust. Hoffman's essays were written to help explain the findings of the paper to the layperson and to examine a hypothetical scenario involving the Harrit et al. paper's findings."
"Let's forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless. "
It also doesn't send beams off flying through the air--another observation truthers point to as evidence for their laughably preposterous controlled demolition delusion. It's always amused me that truthers actually believe the evil gov. used eplosives that powerful to cut the columns.
"for idiots like you to believe the molten iron is aluminum, and that the molten pools of steel don't exist. Obviously they got away with both."
The truth cult needs idiots like you to believe that aluminum was molten iron and that molten pools of steel exists. When's the next edition of loose change coming out? YOu guys need some new arguments.
oh....the 9/11 truth cult; still crazy after all these years.
Where do you cult fanatics think the energy to launch these "steel girders weighing tons" at "65 mph laterally" landing "five hundred feet away," came from? The only plausible source for the energy is mechanical, i.e. gravitional potential from the building being converted to KE in mechanical ejections. If the energy came from explosives it would require far more explosive force than is necessary to simply cut the columns as in a CD. Your CD delusion is preposterous and doesn't fit.
What's funny is that the cult leaders also contradicts himself.
“The explosives had to be so intense such as to hurl these beams at 65 mph laterally, landing five hundred feet away."
-Richard Gage
So first the perps used nano-thermite technology to "cut the beams," in some exotic form of thermite controlled demolition as to not make noise and "give away the project." But then he points to reports of explosions and video of laterally ejected debri as evidence? LOL
" EXPLODING towers than WTC7, some of them hot directly impaled by tons of steel, some building almost got cut in half, they did not collapse, and did not catch fire."
LOL, the towers did not explode, and I like your analysis. Is there an inverse square law for collapse mechanics? Let me gues: "The likley hood of a collapse of one building due to another is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the epicenter of the collapsing building."
@IndividualParties Yes exploding, loud initial explosion, pyroclastic clouds formed for each "floor", some detonations skipping floors entirely, steel girders weighing tons shop up and to the sides imaping themselves in other buildings a block away. Steel heated up and bent without cracks, materials fused together in from ther thermite reaction, pools of molten metal found, debris pile burning with white smoke for 3 months.
Each and every single characteristic only applies to explosives.
LOL, I've seen footage of all the collapses, there are no explosions. Your 9/11 "truth" cult gurus are even aware of this, and try to explain it away by claiming the towers were demolished with nano-thermite.
"If you wanted the building to come down, and blame it on fire, which is not explosive in nature, you would use a different type of charge, an incendiary to cut the beams. You would NOT use explosives which would give away your project."
@IndividualParties You are dumb as dirt, this is my last post to you, RDX, c4, and all other conventional explosives leave a chemical tag so that if it is used by criminals, to be able to track it where it was bought, thermite leaves no such tag, they are hoping for idiots like you to believe the molten iron is aluminum, and that the molten pools of steel don't exist. Obviously they got away with both.
You are the proof for why they can do anything, and still get away.
@IndividualParties Idiot, don't talk on things you have no clue about, thermite as any other explosive is composed of energy releasing material, composing the material different ways and adding other materials you can design it to chain react quickly or slow, explosive or incendiary. Thermite residue was not only found in the dust samples, the molten iron from it was pouring out 40 seconds before demolition.
And this was proven in a peer reviewed paper aswell as using microscopes you poor fool.
@Xendrius It actually was - this was proved by scientists in Colorado in 2009, that the evidence of "thermite" being in the dust was true, but very little has been proved NOT to have brought down the towers. Let's forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless. The argument that there was thermite and explosives seems to be rationalization of this dilemma.
"It actually was - this was proved by scientists in Colorado in 2009, that the evidence of "thermite" being in the dust was true."
Are you talking about Niels H. Harrit et. al? I can't recall when that was published, I thought it was before 2009, either way, their conclusions were nonsense.
@Xendrius Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it, then switch to explosives? Let's also give ourselves selective amnesia and pretend thermite can burn sideways to melt vertical columns. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work. While there are relatively large canisters which can burn small holes sideways, I have yet to see this elusive steel cutting technique used to cut a vertical column...
@Xendrius The last thing is that this thermite charge didn't go off during the impact and decided to go off later. Yes, thermite needs a very hot source or primary explosive to go off but this primary explosive didn't go off either. (Enter sound of explosives right? Wrong, the sounds were described as happening at the time of collapse. From what I've seen of thermite, it needs longer than microseconds to work on thick steel.)
eh, you might be able to produce an explosive with certian varities, but generally thermite is not an explosive, it's a cutting agent. Thermite does not "explode," silly.
"If you wanted the building to come down, and blame it on fire, which is not explosive in nature, you would use a different type of charge, an incendiary to cut the beams. You would not use explosves which would give away your project."
@IndividualParties Does not matter if it does not come under the "explosives" catergory, what it does is cut through steel with less noise, according to the official theory normal random fires throughout the upper section weakened the beams. Jetfuel fire does not even come close to Thermite in heat, let alone Thermate ,sealed in specially designed boxes attached to the core columns it would do wonders as far as a cymetrical progressive cutting of the core columns is concerned,
Right, it would have cut the steel. It wouldn’t have exploded causing enormous steel beams to be ejected laterally, nor would it have resulted in reports of “explosions,” both of which are cited as evidence for the controlled demolition delusion. Basically the "truth" cult uses thermite to explain away the lack of noise, but then they point to “reports of explosions” and “lateral ejections due to explosives” as evidence...an explosive contradiction.
Google: energetic composites united states patent 5266132 1993
"A composition of this invention is termed a metastable interstitial composite (MIC). MICs are a new class of energetic materials which provide much more flexibility in their use than unimolecular energetic materials. MICs will be useful in EXPLOSIVES APPLICATIONS and in applications where a source of gas or heat is needed." (my caps)
"If you wanted the building to come down, and blame it on fire, which is not explosive in nature, you would use a different type of charge, an INCENDIARY to CUT the beams. YOU WOULD NOT USE EXPLOSIVES which would give away your project." (my caps)
-Richard Gage - high priest in the 9/11 "truth" cult.
(2) you knew NT (MICs) can be used where rapid (explosive, even) production of heat and/or gases are needed but were deliberately spreading dis/misinformation on the web. Whether their explosive "abilities" were used on 9/11 or not is an ENTIRELY different argument. You claimed that it could not be used as an explosive. You are incorrect. At least please have the grace to admit when you are wrong and stop making dishonest and/or ignorant claims.
(2) you knew NT (MICs) can be used where rapid (explosive, even) production of heat and/or gases are needed but were deliberately spreading dis/misinformation on the web. Whether their explosive "abilities" were used on 9/11 or not is an ENTIRELY different argument. You claimed that it could not be used as an explosive. You are incorrect. At least please have the grace to admit when you are wrong and stop making dishonest and/or ignorant, or at best, misleading claims.
(2) you knew NT (MICs) can be used where rapid (explosive, even) production of heat and/or gases are needed but were deliberately spreading dis/misinformation on the web. Whether their explosive "abilities" were used on 9/11 or not is an ENTIRELY different argument. You claimed that it could not be used as an explosive. You are incorrect. At least please have the grace to admit when you are wrong and stop making dishonest and/or ignorant, or at best, misleading claims.
(2) you knew NT (MICs) can be used where rapid (explosive, even) production of heat and/or gases are needed but were deliberately spreading dis/misinformation on the web. Whether their explosive "abilities" were used on 9/11 or not is an ENTIRELY different argument. You claimed that it could not be used as an explosive. You are incorrect. At least please have the grace to admit when you are wrong and stop making dishonest and/or ignorant, or at best, misleading claims.
Processors are getting faster, doubling speed every 18 months. Software is getting more accessible every year. 2010 computers are 64 times as fast as 2001 computers. What do you think will happen when our kids have the ability to simulate the WTC collapses, all THREE of them? They will have to assume the WTC steel changed to wet noodles to make the collapses go all the way to ground. By then "everyone" will know 9/11 was an inside job but no one will care, like LBJ killed JFK but so what?
@Xendrius Yes m8 that was my point. The building is breaking up from the top down with nothing above it to be crushing it, this of course means something ELSE was causing it.
This kind of revisionist mentality is nothing new, conspiracy occultists have tried to alter the historical record in nearly every major 20th and 21st century event. Just like any religion, they use imagination to fill in the blanks. If you're a truther, there are a lot more blanks to fill in then for the rest of us, since ignorance and stupidity are the core attributes of anyone who believes in the laughably preposterous "inside job" conspiracy cockamamie.
It's nice to live in reality, and not the fantasy world of a deluded conspiracy occultists. I can only imagine the misery of being a truther; it probably isn't "nice." I'm hoping that truthers really aren't as batshit insane as they sound. If they really are this crazy, then they're only a few steps away from ending up in an asylum where they'll spend their days and nights in psychosis frantically eating their own feces while sobbing about imaginary government plots.
There is no science behind the 9/11 "truth" cult. It's just incredulity; the towers didn't collapse the way truthers have imagined in their minds that it should have, therefore it must have been a controlled demolition, remote controlled planes, missiles, nano-thermite, inside job, bilderberg jews, illuminati, roswell aliens, bla bla bla.
The truth is that it’s very rare for buildings with comparable structural design to WTC7 to burn unopposed for as long. The relatively small numbers of examples are not sufficient to establish any general rules as to how all steel framed high rise buildings will behave under fire.
Computers will only get faster and software more capable. Soon, simulating the collapses of 9/11 will be as common as MS Flight Simulator.
No one has published a simulation of the north tower collapse in which the undamaged lower part collapses to the ground as easily as the damaged upper part, which is what happened in reality. No one ever will. Doubt it? Do it.
No, I'm pretty sure the 9/11 "truth" cult is just as bad, if not worse, than the government. Conspiracy occultists have a laughably preposterous gov. conspiracy theory for virtually every major historical event. 9/11 "truth" is just one of many of these revisionist cults that exploit the dishonesty of the government as leverage to promote their own lies; it’s analogous to how Kevin Tredeau exploits the shenanigans of the pharmaceutical industry to promote his own “natural cures.”
Here is a prediction: no reputable group will EVER publish a simulation of either WTC Tower collapsing all the way to the ground. As computing power gets cheaper, and software more capable, more groups will be ABLE to simulate these events. Few will publish their results because they do not want to be vilified.
No it doesn't, you can see the smoke pouring out of the building around the 0:50 mark. That's a lot of fucking smoke for a "small fire." Richard Gage has tried to claim the smoke is coming from other buidlings (an obvious lie) in order to save his laughably preposterous "controlled demolition" delusion since it's clear that the smoke, if coming from WTC7, is substantial and disproves the "small fires" canard.
@IndividualParties lol do you know that large amounts of smoke is a sign of poor fires? more smoke means less fire, less smoke and more orange shows more fire, but we clearly see that the smoke wins the battle in this one!
...unless you want to claim the fire department that suffered so much that day was in on the laughably preposterous government plots that you conspiracy occult revisionists are trying to shove down everyone’s throats.
lol even this demonstration proves the impossibility of the official stories, it might have collpased a few floors before just falling sideways keeping the rest standing!
@sh9683 lol even this demonstration is taken by you as something you can support a conspiracy theory on? Well, that's not very good thinking. This video shows nothing, well it might actually show how the towers wood collapse if they were 2 meters high, and made of wood blocks.. lol.
@Anto0044 your saying that fire and damage was the reason for collapse, but anyone with a brain nows that is not the case or even possible. the damage was not to all structures, but only to not even half the wtc7 the fires where barely going, even at there hottest points, the way it fell was mind boggling (well at least for those who have one lol) unless it was a CD
Lol, the firefighters made it very clear that they were overwhelmed by the prospect of saving WTC7 from the fires. They concluded that wtc7 would collapse due to the fires and damage so Daniel Nigro ordered for an evacuation to clear a collapse zone so firefighters would not die in the collapse. They wouldn’t have done this if the fires were “barely going,” and if the building was uncompromised as the 9/11 “truth” cult claims...
@IndividualParties i know thats what the firefighters who where in the report says, but what about the numerous others who said otherwise? firefighter did not know the towers would have collapsed they where told to say it!
"firefighter did not know the towers would have collapsed they where told to say it!"'
You just made that up, nice try. Daniel Nigro is very clear, he made the decision to evacuate a collapse zone and accurately predicted the collapse. I know it doesn't fit too well the 9/11 "truth" cult mythology, but that's what happend. The fire dept. would not have delayed rescue operations for hours to clear a collapse zone if the building was uncompromised and there were only "small fires."
@IndividualParties so why did the firefighters not evacuate Windsor? that was one heck of a fire! lot worse then wtc 7 or the twins (even combined), ok wow one firefighter Nigro said it was going to collapse, lol not very hard for him to be threatened or paid off to say that! government (has done it many times) threatened him of loosing his job if not more if he did not say that! besides there are numerous firefighter and civilian accounts of explosions (basement)
"one firefighter Nigro said it was going to collapse..not very hard for him to be threatened or paid off to say that "
Right, in order to defend your 9/11 "truth" cult mythology you have to accuse people of imaginary corruptions. I don't even think the leaders of your cult believe Nigro was complicit in anything. He wasn't the only firefighter worried about the buidling either, he was just the one that ordered the evacuation. Firefighters predicted the collapse, get over it.
@IndividualParties cult? lol the only myth is that of which terrorists did it, i watched the video where he said that but there was explosions right before he evacuated and said that! its not because of the fires its not because it was going to collapse because of fire but rather because of the explosions that they said it was going to collapse
Daniel Nigro ordered the evacuation because of the fires. It’s funny you claim that they evacuated because they heard the CD explosives, since Nigro made that order 3 HOURS before the collapse. It’s a little strange that the CD "explosions” occurred at least 3 HOURS before the building actually collapsed. OOPS!!! Sorry, nice try though.
Firefigthers predicted the collpase, get over it and get out of the cult.
@IndividualParties maybe you haven't seen any videos of wtc7? because if you did you would realize that the fires where manageable, and that firefighters have fought some much worse fire then this!
The fires were not manageable; if the fires had been manageable then the firefighters would have managed them instead of delaying important rescue operations for hours by evacuating a collapse zone. Your claim that they evacuated due to explosions, presumably related to this laughably preposterous "controlled demolition" nonsense, fails miserably as I explained in my last comment.
The firefighters predicted the collapse, get over it and get out of the "truth" cult.
i can give you thousands of instances where firefighter dealt with much worse then wtc7 and they did not evacuate! they stayed and fought the fires! despite explosions and extreme heat!
so don't tell me the NYFD evacuated because of those small fires! unless NYFD are truly wimps and sissies!
buildings like wt7 never has collapsed in the manner wtc7 due to fires, not before not after! it is not possible!
"buildings like wt7 never has collapsed.... due to fires, not before not after! it is not possible! "
Of course, if a building "like WTC7" had collapsed due to fires prior to 9/11, then that would have to be a gov. superduper high-tech nano-thermite controlled demolition because it would have been the first time that it had happened. If it hasn't happened before, it is "not possible," and must be part of some sort of bizarre government plot. I love conspiracy occult "logic."
@IndividualParties <<< its because of morons like you that the real perps are 'getting' away. that makes you an accessory to murder after the fact.
btw marieaura46, nice simulation, i wish blender could do something like this with tensile strength built it, but it cant (yet). keep up the good work.
Physics do not allow for 9/11 to have happened the way the commission says it happened.
chaseco28 11 hours ago
again - its not about the floors- the columns themselves are constructed to carry 5 times their own weight - the volume of the total weight of the floors is far below the carry strength of the columns - and in total could not out-weight, or out-mass the mean total necessary to pulverize the beams into small sections = smaller than their construction size. The point is not the floors and all noodle models and talk about the floors is a distraction from physics and construction specifications.
RichartMedia 1 day ago
I have a 'pyrolytic' electric oven that cremates anything left inside by raising the internal temperature to an excess of 600c.the process takes 90 minutes.The heating elements are made of Iron and the oven is mild steel pressed.I have had it for 7 years now with not so much as ripple in it's casing from the heat.Don't tell me that steel girder can be weakened in the open-air at this temperature because you will simply be talking crap.Black smoke = 'vitiation' = low temp fire.
stratocaster539 4 days ago
@stratocaster539
It is not transferable. The elements behave completely differently depending on size. The process takes 90 minutes so it doesn't weaken. Heating rapidly and cooling rapidly would break it, the grain boundaries remain large and the metal remains strong when it heats and cools slowly. Black smoke says nothing about temperature, only that there isn't enough oxygen. For hydrocarbons in atmospheric conditions there never is, they have to be burned in a furnace to achieve a clean burn
Weirdo10o4 3 days ago
@Weirdo10o4 The 90 minutes is simply to save energy and ensure that the process is complete. Pyrolytic action is used because it is safe to run well beyond the physical tolerances of the oven in case of malfunction in a domestic situation.Black smoke is a sign of vitiation which is 'incomplete' combustion an inherent characteristic of which is ever decreasing temperature.you are correct about furnace temps - that is exactly what would soften steel.well done!
stratocaster539 3 days ago
@stratocaster539
Did I say there was pure oxygen? Hydrocarbons burn at 3,000C in pure oxygen, at a maximum of 1,000C in atmospheric conditions. NASA thermal imaging showed peaks of 1050K at the World Trade Center site. Hydrocarbons don't EVER burn clean in atmospheric conditions, they always form soot. It is not an indication of their temperature.
Heat treatment is done so that grain boundaries grow. Rapid heating and cooling leads to small grain boundaries and subsequently weaker metal.
Weirdo10o4 2 days ago
@stratocaster539
Furthermore: High rise fires have continue far longer than what the World Trade Center Towers burned for. The World Trade Center had a record amount of fuel and oxygen, so there's absolutely no way they would start dying out in an hour and a half. The exterior walls bowed inwards by up to 1.4 meters, ''55, which means the trusses between the walls and core had to have bowed by three meters. Floor connection failures can be seen from images of the towers.
Weirdo10o4 2 days ago
@Weirdo10o4 'record amount of oxygen' -what the hell does that mean?Most of the fuel was ejected and burnt on impact. Fires are dynamic by nature and move as combustible material is exhausted.Couple this with steel conductivity constantly carrying heat away from the fire plus patently obvious vitiating fire and the case for high temps is dead - done- put to bed. Any more assumptions? The 'bowing' has been debunked -move on!
stratocaster539 1 day ago
dont forget most buildings that tall are specked to take on planes and they wouldn't leave ANYTHING out
MrSesshomeru 6 days ago
Did you realize temp and heat are two very diff things especially since it was oxy starved hence the smoke and and jetfuel doesnt produce enough heat to melt steel
MrSesshomeru 6 days ago
It was the Jewish reptilian Illuminati that made the twin towers fall, they did it with invisible planes, demolition teams operating in the 4th dimension so no one would see them planting the invisible charges, any other explanation is just a crazy conspiracy theory.
123backinyerface 1 week ago
the central column structure is stated to have been built to carry 3x its own weight - the outer framework designed to carry 2x its own weight. Yet everyone is focussed on the flooring, which is simply suspended from the skeleton of the steel frames; flooring did not support the central frames nor outer frames. In order for the floors to move would require 1 the floors pancake and the frames stand or 2 all the frames are cut synchronously removing their load capability- the spaghetti model fails
RichartMedia 1 week ago
you didnt even show the end result, you cut it off, thanks for playing you stupid asshat.
xinecallaw 2 weeks ago
Yeah, this would work....if the roof had been carved out of solid Lead and the steel support columns suddenly turned into balsa wood.
westy636R 2 weeks ago
@westy636R
Do you know of a simulation that shows how the buildings fell as the OS claims? This one isn't perfect but I've yet to see a proper simulation that allows the (lighter construction, damaged) top 15 floors to crush the (stronger, intact) lower 80 or so without additional energy input. It's claimed that the destructive power of objects of large mass can be "counter-intuitive". That's true, but "counter-intuitive" doesn't mean "inexplicable" - there's a reason for the observation.
ThePeage 2 weeks ago
@westy636R
This is a wonderful animation /watch?v=xYJ-SrvBxV4&feature=related
but it isn't clear if the animation is done to be consistant with Newton's laws or if it is just an animation. Either way, while beautifully done, it shows the base of the buildings being blown out in order to initiate the collapses - i.e. additional energy. The above video at least tries to show what should have happened to the South Tower once the top began to lean as observed on the day.
ThePeage 2 weeks ago
@westy636R Do you realize that jet fuel burns to extremely high temperatures? This simulation is very possible.
SuperCrackhead5 1 week ago
@SuperCrackhead5 But nearly all the fuel ignited outside of the buildings. You may have missed those enormous fireballs that went up straight after impact.
westy636R 1 week ago
@SuperCrackhead5 Kerosene burns at a max of 600 deg c. that's not hot enough.
stratocaster539 4 days ago
@stratocaster539
Office fires burn at up to 800-1000.
Weirdo10o4 4 days ago
@Weirdo10o4 800-1000 what? Not Centigrade, not possible.
stratocaster539 4 days ago
@stratocaster539
Based on what. Hydrocarbons burn at 3,000C in pure oxygen S-P staring from ambient temperature, in atmospheric conditions the reaction has to heat four molecules of nitrogen in addition to itself. NASA thermal imaging of the site showed peaks of 1050K in the days after 9/11.
Weirdo10o4 3 days ago
@Weirdo10o4 There was no 'pure oxygen', and what you are referring to is an example of a controlled flame by using pressurised gases.Both these thing have no relevance here.
stratocaster539 3 days ago
Continued: jet crashes always melt the aluminum-titanium alloy of the plane, despite burning thick and black. That is an indication of above 660C temperatures. NIST fire tests showed peaks of 1,000C. Not to mention other skyscrapers that have collapsed partially or been weakened significantly by fire. Even three years before 9/11, in an article by an FDNY Chief, firemen were told not to assume steel structures couldn't collapse. Trusses are the most dangerous type of construction inflamed
Weirdo10o4 2 days ago
@Weirdo10o4 Nist's test were conducted with 'controlled flames' and still had no effect. Any way, where are the peer - review papers to support NIST's findings? There are none - quite damning after 10 years.So someone told the FDNY not to make assumptions, based on what exactly? Another peer-reviewed study? NO.The truss failure would inevitably follow the destruction of the core - which could only be achieved through a systematic controlled demolition.Critical thinking and research.
stratocaster539 1 day ago
@Weirdo10o4 I think you will find that with observation that the shell of a plane does not 'melt'. It will fracture with impact and portions will 'spit' and explode due to the draft effect caused by air being drawn through the fuselage creating a draft chimney.Black smoke occurs through vitiation after fire temps have died down or the draft chimney effect ceases.
stratocaster539 1 day ago
@IndividualParties
Are you a creationist? I ask because you seem to think that "NIST says it. I believe it. That settles it." = evidence and that finding gaps or flaws with an opposing hypothesis makes your own correct by default. If you want to claim the red chips are something other than NT then you need to provide evidence to show what they ARE. But then, that would require further research and you are against that for some reason. Perhaps you are afraid of the results?
ThePeage 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
ThePeage 2 weeks ago
@IndividualParties
"Gage is your cult guru" = Bare assertion (I had never heard of Gage until after I questioned the OS and he is no guru - get over it.)
"There wasn't any thermite or controlled demolitions on 911." = Bare assertion, denial
"No, it's called REALITY" ... no, it is called circular reasoning and it is a logical fallacy.
Claiming something without evidence is a bare assertion. Claiming that even if evidence exists, you won't believe it, is denial. That's what creationists do.
ThePeage 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThePeage
"I had never heard of Gage until after I questioned the OS..."
No, before you questioned the OS, the cult teaches you to accept the CD delusion.
"and he is no guru ..."
He is a guru for the 9/11 "truth" cult.
"Are you a creationist?"
No, I don't do cults. But saying the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition is about as batshit insane as saying dinosaurs roamed the earth a few thousands years ago.
IndividualParties 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
IndividualParties 2 weeks ago
Why did the shitty simulation stop there?
SHOW ME HOW THE FOUNDATION COLLAPSED INTO NOTHING
SHOW ME HOW THE SUPPORTS ALL FAILED AND WERE CUT OFF AT GROUND LEVEL
Ohh wait, you cant. because the entire collapse is bullshit.
seismic readings people
firemen witnessing bombs.
this was demolitions, not gravity and fires.
FnkDctr 3 weeks ago
This model stops collapsing at about 2/3 of the hight of the building.
Perhaps you should adjust the strength of the frame and bolts you should make them weaker to model a FULL collapse.
Also, in the real tower collapse we see that the top section accelerates way faster compared to this.
Tautoulogic 3 weeks ago
Nice inside job America.
IDFEIRoy 3 weeks ago
some people on YT got the crabs - so much swearing for such a little a movie flick
RichartMedia 3 weeks ago
Go to all the effort to make that and show 6 seconds of the simulation... Its just as bad as there WTC 7 sim lol
11kungfu11 3 weeks ago
WTC FRAUD SIMULATION:
Leslie Raphael, Serendipity.li
Inigo37 3 weeks ago
2 buildings destroyed, 2 countires invaded.
WTC 7 was for Iran ;)
comali2212 3 weeks ago
@comali2212 wow a truther that can do basic counting. Other than that you are a retard.
12weasel100 3 weeks ago
@12weasel100 And u're a weasel and you know it! Lol
comali2212 3 weeks ago
@comali2212 yeah thanks for the shit little response it had absolutely no facts to support any of the shit you spew. That is just sad and pathetic you retard.
12weasel100 3 weeks ago
@12weasel100 It's ur fucking name moron, weasel! Lol
comali2212 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@comali2212 yeah thanks for the shit little response it had absolutely no facts to support any of the shit you spew. That is just sad and pathetic you retard.
12weasel100 3 weeks ago
Right Idea, wrong tower. Tower 1 fell like that. Tower two fell ontop of itself. :)
ecstudios1 4 weeks ago
@ecstudios1
WTC2 (south tower) was the first to collapse, it was still "WTC2". The North Tower (WTC1) fell second even though it was hit by the first plane. Tower One (North Tower) collapsed straight down as you say.
ThePeage 3 weeks ago
complete waste of Newtons laws otherwise eh? - no smaller part has enough mass or enertia to destroy the larger part in free fall - equal and oppostite reactions remember - the top should have just rolled off the top and fell to the street leaving the larger resisiting force ( the tower itself ) intact - talk to your physics prof to see if he would agree with Newton or not
RichartMedia 4 weeks ago 20
@RichartMedia if that is what your physics prof taught you then your phsyics prof is a dumb fuck and does not understand even basic engineering. Since you fucking idiots lie so much my guess is your physics prof wouldn't support any of your shit and you are just making up more lies. You dumb fuck
12weasel100 3 weeks ago
To you folks saying this was impossible without preset bombs or whatever: What about the connections? the larger bottom part wasn't one, monolithic piece, even if designed to be in static load situations. It was made up of individual floors connected with specific load requirements, not designed to withstand a pancake collapse. Once the mass on top failed and presented this shock load to the floors below, connections failed and the steel may as well have been balsa wood.
Fireman27852 2 weeks ago
@Fireman27852 You may ask yourself, if you jump from a ramp into a sea, do you expect your body accelerating with the same free fall acceleration down to the bottom of the sea or would you expect a deceleration due to the water resistance?
Now apply that to WTC, the larger part presents a huge resistance to the upper block withstanding gravity. Would you expect a slowing down or a acceleration trough the larger block? In the case of WTC 1,2,3 we witnessed an acceleration. 3rd grade physics!
LoyolaIgnatius 2 weeks ago
@LoyolaIgnatius search: 9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed. You guys use the 9 seconds assumption from who knows where.
Fireman27852 2 weeks ago
@Fireman27852 "from who knows where" NIST admitted free fall speed in WTC 7 for 2.5 secconds. David Chandler a physisist measured a the downward acceleration in the WTC 1.2 with a simple tracker program. So your argument falls flat.
LoyolaIgnatius 2 weeks ago
@LoyolaIgnatius Does that physisist claim the 9 second collapse time that you guys seem to stick to?
Fireman27852 2 weeks ago
@Fireman27852 You can't really see how long exactly it took WTC 1, 2 to collapse completely due to dust in the lower part, but you can pretty much exactly calculate the acceleration of the upper block from the colapse initiation, which was free fall "speed". The debunkers always use that argument that it took longer than 9 secconds so = no free fall speed, even though you can measure free fall acceleration right at the start of the collapse, which contradicts every law of physics.
LoyolaIgnatius 1 week ago
@RichartMedia Newtons law did apply actually, each floor was crushed individually.
BigLikeTheSun 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RichartMedia But what if the smaller part weighed 500,000 tonnes and fell 9 feet onto a larger structure attached with mere 4 inch bolts that was filled with air? Would it REALLY stay intact with all that energy released on it?
MazJax 4 days ago
@RichartMedia
It's a question of energy dissipation. The resisting force is not proportional to the size of the object, but the construction itself. With a tower like the Empire State Building(rigid frame), what you said would be largely true, but with the Trade Centers 70% empty floors (void of columns), it's much more complicated. The floors connections didn't have the strength to support the 50,000 tonnes that fell.
Weirdo10o4 1 day ago
So why did you stop it when the roof was falling down the side?
psikeyhackr 1 month ago
There's you're proof WTC was made from Jenga pieces...
eujeeves 1 month ago 24
@eujeeves its demonstrates proven scientific principles on a smaller scale...every force has an equal and opposite reaction..so a smaller block falling onto a larger block...the smaller block will crush itself simultaniously with the lower block equal to the same mass...so a falling 15 stories can only crush 15 stories maximum....15 stories crushing 85 stories however is impossible...inside job!
studmalexy 3 weeks ago
@studmalexy the smaller top portion evaporated before it hit the grown = having no forces ontop of it to crush it down - it simply disasembled into powder
RichartMedia 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eujeeves But richard gage thinks the WTC was a cardboard box.
MazJax 4 days ago
The buildings feel at freefall speed, it didn't come tumbling down. DERP
AustinS2508 1 month ago
@AustinS2508 They didn't fall at freefall speed. Watch any video & time it.
shananagans5 1 month ago
@shananagans5 You don't time it from top to bottom to find out free fall speed. Freefall speed is actually about acceleration. Alot of truthers say it never fell at freefall speed, they done the rest but the dust flying out the side was ahead at freefall speed. I think that video was done by david chandler. If the top fell off the side as in this sim, the weght would reduce on building and it collapse uneven.
benjyboba 1 month ago
@benjyboba I can't even understand what you are trying to say. Try using complete sentences.
shananagans5 1 month ago
they didn't tell u that the wtc 2 will be hit by japanese pilot fighters
akuzaru 1 month ago
the roof fell off the building in the simulation, in real life it went down all together.
anil2 1 month ago
@anil2 Thats what it should of done, follow to path of least resistance not fall straight through the path of greatest resistance
ANDREWOFPR2 1 month ago
@ANDREWOFPR2 inside job then ;)
anil2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anil2 its demonstrates proven scientific principles on a smaller scale...every force has an equal and opposite reaction..so a smaller block falling onto a larger block...the smaller block will crush itself simultaniously with the lower block equal to the same mass...so a falling 15 stories can only crush 15 stories maximum....15 stories crushing 85 stories however is impossible...inside job!
studmalexy 3 weeks ago
@anil2
That is the point - if it had been a natural collapse it would have fallen as shown in this simulation because the top was already falling asymmetrically. Unless other forces came into play, even allowing for the inner core to arrest the continued fall - and this simulation shows that well - it could not have righted itself as we saw "in real life".
Very good simulation. Well done.
ThePeage 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
ThePeage 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
ranieri7x 1 month ago
(desole pour mon français)
congratulations pour la simulation. ça semblant réaliste, mais en fait je pense que encore ce n'est pas possible pour le étage superieur se tomber comme ça, avec le structure inferieure sans offrent pas de resistance. imagine que la base est trop plus fort et lourd que les étages superieures.
ranieri7x 1 month ago
where is the end of the video? also anyone know where i can kind a real 'accurate!' simulation of the towers? youtube is full of shit!
korayek 1 month ago
Comment removed
korayek 1 month ago
mossad not muslims did 9/11/01
thrifftyjonurban 1 month ago
@thrifftyjonurban are u sure, or did your mossad uncle tell u that? or was it bush that convinced you?
korayek 1 month ago
Comment removed
Wakethefuckup67 2 months ago
@rainstormseattle Shut the fuck retard, do you even know what 3dsmax is? I'll give you a hint. It's not a fucking physics simulation software.
idontfkinknow1234 2 months ago
@idontfkinknow1234 It's not, but PhysX is.
JARMOPOWER 2 months ago
@JARMOPOWER Shut the fuck up retard.PhysX is for games and animations not for real world accurate simulation.
idontfkinknow1234 2 months ago
@idontfkinknow1234 Haha, we weren't talking about realism but physics programs in general :) You should cool down a bit. Have you ever used one? PhysX is pretty damn nice for home use.
JARMOPOWER 2 months ago
@idontfkinknow1234 Shut the hell up, PhysX is more accurate than the real world.
Mogzyx 2 months ago
lol. The video doesn't show the whole collapse because only half the building collapses. Also these are just blocks placed on top of each other with nothing to hold them together.
idontfkinknow1234 2 months ago
@idontfkinknow1234 your exactly right, couldn't agree more
Ac1DGoD 2 months ago
a couple of questions, 3 months after the attack there was molten steel still being dug up, what causes steel to melt 3 months after the towers fell? why so many people have died who helped clean up ground zero and there's a big clue there folks "ground zero" check out the nasa thermal photos
jonahlasvegas 2 months ago
As I've said before, the buildings simply didn't collapse in the way truthers have imagined in their minds that it should have. I think this is due primarily to the fact that the buildings are incomprehensibly massive, thus containing a great deal of energy-- and high energy systems tend to behave in a counter-intuitive manner. The enormous mass translates to enormous momentum with even the slightest acceleration.
IndividualParties 2 months ago
@IndividualParties please tell me youre not serious...."truther"? youre a government shill probably part of a bullhorn program...you wont get your new world order and you wont get my guns...
Sh33pd0g0800 2 months ago
@Sh33pd0g0800
Actually, I'm against gun-control i.e. pro-constitution. But there is no such thing as a "new world order," in the context of conspiracy occult mythology, and the "truthers" call themselves truthers," and their movement is known as the "truth" movement, I call it the "truth" cult.
And it is true, I am part of a mass deception program organized and sponsored by the [This portion of the comment has been removed by the United States government].
IndividualParties 2 months ago
@Sh33pd0g0800
you seriously believe in the Iluminati and Shadow people?
you play too many video games!
jaguar4u2012 2 months ago
I don't get what they argue with the demoliton thing. They say it came down at free fall? What does that mean?
HateSpeechPatrol 2 months ago
@HateSpeechPatrol
1) only WTC7 experienced approximate g-acceleration for roughly 2 seconds during it's collapse.
2) It doesn't mean anything. The idea the free fall=demolition, has no coherent scientific basis. All they're saying is that accelerating portions of the skyscraper should have experienced more resistance from the lower portion. It's a physically useless objection because they cannot provide a valid quantitative assessment of the amount of resistance that should have occured.
IndividualParties 2 months ago
Ok, it looks like you were referring to the Harrit et al. paper. The "conclusions" reached by Harrit et al. are false as I said. No thermite --nor any evidence proving thermite--was found. Even if it had been found, it still wouldn't be very compelling evidence that it was actually used in a series of controlled demolitions on 9/11 for one simple reason: no controlled demoltions took place in NYC on 9/11.
IndividualParties 2 months ago
@IndividualParties
If you use fallacious arguments (logically or simply dishonest) then you won't be taken seriously. E.g. You said that even if it had been found, it would not be compelling evidence that it (NT) was actually used in a series of CDs on 9/11 "for one simple reason: no CD took place in NYC on 9/11". That is circular reasoning. That you don't recognise it when you use it yourself, might explain why you don't recognise this form of fallacious reasoning when NIST uses it too.
ThePeage 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThePeage
Gage is your cult guru bro, get over it;. Whatever the case, there wasn't any thermite or controlled demolitions on 911.
"That is circular reasoning."
No it's called REALITY;
1) There wasn't any fucking thermite on 9/11
2) Even if there were, there certainly weren't any fucking controlled demolitions on 9/11 like the "truth" cult has been trying to shove down our throats for the last decade.
IndividualParties 2 weeks ago
"In 2009, Hoffman wrote three essays[4] to accompany a scientific paper written by Danish chemist Niels H. Harrit...The paper by Harrit et al., concludes that chips consisting of unreacted and partially reacted super-thermite are present in the samples of the dust. Hoffman's essays were written to help explain the findings of the paper to the layperson and to examine a hypothetical scenario involving the Harrit et al. paper's findings."
wikipedia (jim hoffman)
IndividualParties 2 months ago
"Let's forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless. "
It also doesn't send beams off flying through the air--another observation truthers point to as evidence for their laughably preposterous controlled demolition delusion. It's always amused me that truthers actually believe the evil gov. used eplosives that powerful to cut the columns.
IndividualParties 2 months ago
"for idiots like you to believe the molten iron is aluminum, and that the molten pools of steel don't exist. Obviously they got away with both."
The truth cult needs idiots like you to believe that aluminum was molten iron and that molten pools of steel exists. When's the next edition of loose change coming out? YOu guys need some new arguments.
oh....the 9/11 truth cult; still crazy after all these years.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
IndividualParties 3 months ago
" this is my last post to you"
Run for the hills!!
IndividualParties 3 months ago
Where do you cult fanatics think the energy to launch these "steel girders weighing tons" at "65 mph laterally" landing "five hundred feet away," came from? The only plausible source for the energy is mechanical, i.e. gravitional potential from the building being converted to KE in mechanical ejections. If the energy came from explosives it would require far more explosive force than is necessary to simply cut the columns as in a CD. Your CD delusion is preposterous and doesn't fit.
IndividualParties 3 months ago
What's funny is that the cult leaders also contradicts himself.
“The explosives had to be so intense such as to hurl these beams at 65 mph laterally, landing five hundred feet away."
-Richard Gage
So first the perps used nano-thermite technology to "cut the beams," in some exotic form of thermite controlled demolition as to not make noise and "give away the project." But then he points to reports of explosions and video of laterally ejected debri as evidence? LOL
IndividualParties 3 months ago
*Likelihood
excuse the typos.
IndividualParties 3 months ago
" EXPLODING towers than WTC7, some of them hot directly impaled by tons of steel, some building almost got cut in half, they did not collapse, and did not catch fire."
LOL, the towers did not explode, and I like your analysis. Is there an inverse square law for collapse mechanics? Let me gues: "The likley hood of a collapse of one building due to another is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the epicenter of the collapsing building."
IndividualParties 3 months ago
@IndividualParties Yes exploding, loud initial explosion, pyroclastic clouds formed for each "floor", some detonations skipping floors entirely, steel girders weighing tons shop up and to the sides imaping themselves in other buildings a block away. Steel heated up and bent without cracks, materials fused together in from ther thermite reaction, pools of molten metal found, debris pile burning with white smoke for 3 months.
Each and every single characteristic only applies to explosives.
Xendrius 3 months ago
@Xendrius
LOL, I've seen footage of all the collapses, there are no explosions. Your 9/11 "truth" cult gurus are even aware of this, and try to explain it away by claiming the towers were demolished with nano-thermite.
"If you wanted the building to come down, and blame it on fire, which is not explosive in nature, you would use a different type of charge, an incendiary to cut the beams. You would NOT use explosives which would give away your project."
-Richard Gage
IndividualParties 3 months ago
@IndividualParties You are dumb as dirt, this is my last post to you, RDX, c4, and all other conventional explosives leave a chemical tag so that if it is used by criminals, to be able to track it where it was bought, thermite leaves no such tag, they are hoping for idiots like you to believe the molten iron is aluminum, and that the molten pools of steel don't exist. Obviously they got away with both.
You are the proof for why they can do anything, and still get away.
Xendrius 3 months ago
@Xendrius
LOL, thermite is not an explosive you dumb fuck, and there was no thermite on 9/11, LOL XD.
IndividualParties 3 months ago
@IndividualParties Idiot, don't talk on things you have no clue about, thermite as any other explosive is composed of energy releasing material, composing the material different ways and adding other materials you can design it to chain react quickly or slow, explosive or incendiary. Thermite residue was not only found in the dust samples, the molten iron from it was pouring out 40 seconds before demolition.
And this was proven in a peer reviewed paper aswell as using microscopes you poor fool.
Xendrius 3 months ago
@Xendrius That "molten iron" was molten aluminum from the planes. The small traces of thermite were in the paint. And thermite is not an explosive.
CODMarioWarfare 3 months ago
@CODMarioWarfare No it was not, learn some basic observation.
Xendrius 2 months ago
@Xendrius It actually was - this was proved by scientists in Colorado in 2009, that the evidence of "thermite" being in the dust was true, but very little has been proved NOT to have brought down the towers. Let's forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless. The argument that there was thermite and explosives seems to be rationalization of this dilemma.
2Trueforyouu 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2Trueforyouu
"It actually was - this was proved by scientists in Colorado in 2009, that the evidence of "thermite" being in the dust was true."
Are you talking about Niels H. Harrit et. al? I can't recall when that was published, I thought it was before 2009, either way, their conclusions were nonsense.
IndividualParties 2 months ago
@Xendrius Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it, then switch to explosives? Let's also give ourselves selective amnesia and pretend thermite can burn sideways to melt vertical columns. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work. While there are relatively large canisters which can burn small holes sideways, I have yet to see this elusive steel cutting technique used to cut a vertical column...
2Trueforyouu 2 months ago
@Xendrius The last thing is that this thermite charge didn't go off during the impact and decided to go off later. Yes, thermite needs a very hot source or primary explosive to go off but this primary explosive didn't go off either. (Enter sound of explosives right? Wrong, the sounds were described as happening at the time of collapse. From what I've seen of thermite, it needs longer than microseconds to work on thick steel.)
2Trueforyouu 2 months ago
@Xendrius
eh, you might be able to produce an explosive with certian varities, but generally thermite is not an explosive, it's a cutting agent. Thermite does not "explode," silly.
"If you wanted the building to come down, and blame it on fire, which is not explosive in nature, you would use a different type of charge, an incendiary to cut the beams. You would not use explosves which would give away your project."
-Richard Gage
IndividualParties 2 months ago
@IndividualParties Does not matter if it does not come under the "explosives" catergory, what it does is cut through steel with less noise, according to the official theory normal random fires throughout the upper section weakened the beams. Jetfuel fire does not even come close to Thermite in heat, let alone Thermate ,sealed in specially designed boxes attached to the core columns it would do wonders as far as a cymetrical progressive cutting of the core columns is concerned,
Xendrius 2 months ago
@Xendrius
Right, it would have cut the steel. It wouldn’t have exploded causing enormous steel beams to be ejected laterally, nor would it have resulted in reports of “explosions,” both of which are cited as evidence for the controlled demolition delusion. Basically the "truth" cult uses thermite to explain away the lack of noise, but then they point to “reports of explosions” and “lateral ejections due to explosives” as evidence...an explosive contradiction.
IndividualParties 2 months ago
@IndividualParties
Google: energetic composites united states patent 5266132 1993
"A composition of this invention is termed a metastable interstitial composite (MIC). MICs are a new class of energetic materials which provide much more flexibility in their use than unimolecular energetic materials. MICs will be useful in EXPLOSIVES APPLICATIONS and in applications where a source of gas or heat is needed." (my caps)
ThePeage 3 weeks ago
@ThePeage
"If you wanted the building to come down, and blame it on fire, which is not explosive in nature, you would use a different type of charge, an INCENDIARY to CUT the beams. YOU WOULD NOT USE EXPLOSIVES which would give away your project." (my caps)
-Richard Gage - high priest in the 9/11 "truth" cult.
IndividualParties 3 weeks ago
@IndividualParties
(2) you knew NT (MICs) can be used where rapid (explosive, even) production of heat and/or gases are needed but were deliberately spreading dis/misinformation on the web. Whether their explosive "abilities" were used on 9/11 or not is an ENTIRELY different argument. You claimed that it could not be used as an explosive. You are incorrect. At least please have the grace to admit when you are wrong and stop making dishonest and/or ignorant claims.
ThePeage 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IndividualParties
(2) you knew NT (MICs) can be used where rapid (explosive, even) production of heat and/or gases are needed but were deliberately spreading dis/misinformation on the web. Whether their explosive "abilities" were used on 9/11 or not is an ENTIRELY different argument. You claimed that it could not be used as an explosive. You are incorrect. At least please have the grace to admit when you are wrong and stop making dishonest and/or ignorant, or at best, misleading claims.
ThePeage 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IndividualParties
(2) you knew NT (MICs) can be used where rapid (explosive, even) production of heat and/or gases are needed but were deliberately spreading dis/misinformation on the web. Whether their explosive "abilities" were used on 9/11 or not is an ENTIRELY different argument. You claimed that it could not be used as an explosive. You are incorrect. At least please have the grace to admit when you are wrong and stop making dishonest and/or ignorant, or at best, misleading claims.
ThePeage 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IndividualParties
(2) you knew NT (MICs) can be used where rapid (explosive, even) production of heat and/or gases are needed but were deliberately spreading dis/misinformation on the web. Whether their explosive "abilities" were used on 9/11 or not is an ENTIRELY different argument. You claimed that it could not be used as an explosive. You are incorrect. At least please have the grace to admit when you are wrong and stop making dishonest and/or ignorant, or at best, misleading claims.
ThePeage 2 weeks ago
Processors are getting faster, doubling speed every 18 months. Software is getting more accessible every year. 2010 computers are 64 times as fast as 2001 computers. What do you think will happen when our kids have the ability to simulate the WTC collapses, all THREE of them? They will have to assume the WTC steel changed to wet noodles to make the collapses go all the way to ground. By then "everyone" will know 9/11 was an inside job but no one will care, like LBJ killed JFK but so what?
Skeptic121 3 months ago
Bush and Blair found guilty of war crimes
watch?v=xkdfGtGwYBI
watch?v=pZxa0-IXl_U
To all the 9/11 debunkers....telling you that "I told you so" isnt enough....
This trail also involves the pre planning of 9/11, look it up
DarkDragon187II 3 months ago
Comment removed
acali24 3 months ago
Not a simulation not accurate at all.
Mikester1200 3 months ago
Good vid! Clearly shows how WTC2 came apart from the top down.
galaxything 3 months ago
@galaxything It shows nothing, 60% of the building still standing, you think magic took down the other 60%?
Xendrius 3 months ago
@Xendrius Yes m8 that was my point. The building is breaking up from the top down with nothing above it to be crushing it, this of course means something ELSE was causing it.
galaxything 3 months ago
LOL
galaxything 3 months ago
This kind of revisionist mentality is nothing new, conspiracy occultists have tried to alter the historical record in nearly every major 20th and 21st century event. Just like any religion, they use imagination to fill in the blanks. If you're a truther, there are a lot more blanks to fill in then for the rest of us, since ignorance and stupidity are the core attributes of anyone who believes in the laughably preposterous "inside job" conspiracy cockamamie.
IndividualParties 3 months ago
@IndividualParties Must be nice to be a right-thinking American!
Skeptic121 3 months ago
@Skeptic121
It's nice to live in reality, and not the fantasy world of a deluded conspiracy occultists. I can only imagine the misery of being a truther; it probably isn't "nice." I'm hoping that truthers really aren't as batshit insane as they sound. If they really are this crazy, then they're only a few steps away from ending up in an asylum where they'll spend their days and nights in psychosis frantically eating their own feces while sobbing about imaginary government plots.
IndividualParties 3 months ago
@IndividualParties Somebody is WAY too angry about YT comments!
Skeptic121 3 months ago
"over excel the facts and waterdown science."
There is no science behind the 9/11 "truth" cult. It's just incredulity; the towers didn't collapse the way truthers have imagined in their minds that it should have, therefore it must have been a controlled demolition, remote controlled planes, missiles, nano-thermite, inside job, bilderberg jews, illuminati, roswell aliens, bla bla bla.
IndividualParties 3 months ago
The truth is that it’s very rare for buildings with comparable structural design to WTC7 to burn unopposed for as long. The relatively small numbers of examples are not sufficient to establish any general rules as to how all steel framed high rise buildings will behave under fire.
IndividualParties 3 months ago
Computers will only get faster and software more capable. Soon, simulating the collapses of 9/11 will be as common as MS Flight Simulator.
No one has published a simulation of the north tower collapse in which the undamaged lower part collapses to the ground as easily as the damaged upper part, which is what happened in reality. No one ever will. Doubt it? Do it.
Skeptic121 3 months ago
“finding 7 of the 19 hijackers still alive???"
The hijackers are not alive, this is just another 9/11 “truth” cult myth that’s been refuted again and again.
IndividualParties 3 months ago
lol @individualparties. the only ones promoting lies and evil is our own government!
sh9683 3 months ago
@sh9683
No, I'm pretty sure the 9/11 "truth" cult is just as bad, if not worse, than the government. Conspiracy occultists have a laughably preposterous gov. conspiracy theory for virtually every major historical event. 9/11 "truth" is just one of many of these revisionist cults that exploit the dishonesty of the government as leverage to promote their own lies; it’s analogous to how Kevin Tredeau exploits the shenanigans of the pharmaceutical industry to promote his own “natural cures.”
IndividualParties 3 months ago
Here is a prediction: no reputable group will EVER publish a simulation of either WTC Tower collapsing all the way to the ground. As computing power gets cheaper, and software more capable, more groups will be ABLE to simulate these events. Few will publish their results because they do not want to be vilified.
Skeptic121 3 months ago
"videos prove the fire to be weak"
No it doesn't, you can see the smoke pouring out of the building around the 0:50 mark. That's a lot of fucking smoke for a "small fire." Richard Gage has tried to claim the smoke is coming from other buidlings (an obvious lie) in order to save his laughably preposterous "controlled demolition" delusion since it's clear that the smoke, if coming from WTC7, is substantial and disproves the "small fires" canard.
watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
IndividualParties 3 months ago
@IndividualParties lol do you know that large amounts of smoke is a sign of poor fires? more smoke means less fire, less smoke and more orange shows more fire, but we clearly see that the smoke wins the battle in this one!
sh9683 3 months ago
...unless you want to claim the fire department that suffered so much that day was in on the laughably preposterous government plots that you conspiracy occult revisionists are trying to shove down everyone’s throats.
IndividualParties 3 months ago
lol even this demonstration proves the impossibility of the official stories, it might have collpased a few floors before just falling sideways keeping the rest standing!
sh9683 3 months ago
@sh9683 lol even this demonstration is taken by you as something you can support a conspiracy theory on? Well, that's not very good thinking. This video shows nothing, well it might actually show how the towers wood collapse if they were 2 meters high, and made of wood blocks.. lol.
Anto0044 3 months ago
@Anto0044 you don't think for yourself do you? what your saying is only possible so long as all structures are taken at the same time
sh9683 3 months ago
@sh9683 I do think alot. What am I saying that is only possible as long as all structures are taken at the same time?
Anto0044 3 months ago
@Anto0044 your saying that fire and damage was the reason for collapse, but anyone with a brain nows that is not the case or even possible. the damage was not to all structures, but only to not even half the wtc7 the fires where barely going, even at there hottest points, the way it fell was mind boggling (well at least for those who have one lol) unless it was a CD
sh9683 3 months ago
@sh9683
“half the wtc7 the fires where barely going,”
Lol, the firefighters made it very clear that they were overwhelmed by the prospect of saving WTC7 from the fires. They concluded that wtc7 would collapse due to the fires and damage so Daniel Nigro ordered for an evacuation to clear a collapse zone so firefighters would not die in the collapse. They wouldn’t have done this if the fires were “barely going,” and if the building was uncompromised as the 9/11 “truth” cult claims...
IndividualParties 3 months ago
@IndividualParties i know thats what the firefighters who where in the report says, but what about the numerous others who said otherwise? firefighter did not know the towers would have collapsed they where told to say it!
videos prove the fire to be weak
sh9683 3 months ago
@sh9683
"firefighter did not know the towers would have collapsed they where told to say it!"'
You just made that up, nice try. Daniel Nigro is very clear, he made the decision to evacuate a collapse zone and accurately predicted the collapse. I know it doesn't fit too well the 9/11 "truth" cult mythology, but that's what happend. The fire dept. would not have delayed rescue operations for hours to clear a collapse zone if the building was uncompromised and there were only "small fires."
IndividualParties 3 months ago
@IndividualParties so why did the firefighters not evacuate Windsor? that was one heck of a fire! lot worse then wtc 7 or the twins (even combined), ok wow one firefighter Nigro said it was going to collapse, lol not very hard for him to be threatened or paid off to say that! government (has done it many times) threatened him of loosing his job if not more if he did not say that! besides there are numerous firefighter and civilian accounts of explosions (basement)
sh9683 3 months ago
@sh9683
"one firefighter Nigro said it was going to collapse..not very hard for him to be threatened or paid off to say that "
Right, in order to defend your 9/11 "truth" cult mythology you have to accuse people of imaginary corruptions. I don't even think the leaders of your cult believe Nigro was complicit in anything. He wasn't the only firefighter worried about the buidling either, he was just the one that ordered the evacuation. Firefighters predicted the collapse, get over it.
IndividualParties 3 months ago
@IndividualParties cult? lol the only myth is that of which terrorists did it, i watched the video where he said that but there was explosions right before he evacuated and said that! its not because of the fires its not because it was going to collapse because of fire but rather because of the explosions that they said it was going to collapse
sh9683 3 months ago
@sh9683
Daniel Nigro ordered the evacuation because of the fires. It’s funny you claim that they evacuated because they heard the CD explosives, since Nigro made that order 3 HOURS before the collapse. It’s a little strange that the CD "explosions” occurred at least 3 HOURS before the building actually collapsed. OOPS!!! Sorry, nice try though.
Firefigthers predicted the collpase, get over it and get out of the cult.
IndividualParties 3 months ago
@IndividualParties maybe you haven't seen any videos of wtc7? because if you did you would realize that the fires where manageable, and that firefighters have fought some much worse fire then this!
sh9683 3 months ago
@sh9683
The fires were not manageable; if the fires had been manageable then the firefighters would have managed them instead of delaying important rescue operations for hours by evacuating a collapse zone. Your claim that they evacuated due to explosions, presumably related to this laughably preposterous "controlled demolition" nonsense, fails miserably as I explained in my last comment.
The firefighters predicted the collapse, get over it and get out of the "truth" cult.
IndividualParties 3 months ago
@IndividualParties lol
i can give you thousands of instances where firefighter dealt with much worse then wtc7 and they did not evacuate! they stayed and fought the fires! despite explosions and extreme heat!
so don't tell me the NYFD evacuated because of those small fires! unless NYFD are truly wimps and sissies!
buildings like wt7 never has collapsed in the manner wtc7 due to fires, not before not after! it is not possible!
sh9683 3 months ago
@sh9683
"buildings like wt7 never has collapsed.... due to fires, not before not after! it is not possible! "
Of course, if a building "like WTC7" had collapsed due to fires prior to 9/11, then that would have to be a gov. superduper high-tech nano-thermite controlled demolition because it would have been the first time that it had happened. If it hasn't happened before, it is "not possible," and must be part of some sort of bizarre government plot. I love conspiracy occult "logic."
IndividualParties 3 months ago
@IndividualParties <<< its because of morons like you that the real perps are 'getting' away. that makes you an accessory to murder after the fact.
btw marieaura46, nice simulation, i wish blender could do something like this with tensile strength built it, but it cant (yet). keep up the good work.
vengencefrom1979 3 months ago