Did the 9/11 truth movement really die?

Post Reply New Topic

Very nice. NOW will you answer my question concerning previous False Flag incidents by the U. S. to perpetuate war????

Otherwise you must be considered just a casual "arguer" without serious intent.

If you want to poise questions you'd like answered you must answer questions in turn. OK Walrus?

And you may know buildings fall down but give me ONE incident where a building has suffered instant collapse from such, and you'll be unable to do so. But for people who already have their minds made up there is no such thing as proof or fact that threatens to disrupt their presently held "beliefs.

I believe your precious beliefs have nothing to do with the physical reality of the buildings demise.

I will accept that the US might well have committing false flag attacks. I see no evidence to suggest that 9/11 was one and plenty to suggest it wasn't.

Buildings falling down instantly with minimal stress: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... us-6885760

And with fire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA

I will accept that the US might well have committing false flag attacks. I see no evidence to suggest that 9/11 was one and plenty to suggest it wasn't.

Buildings falling down instantly with minimal stress: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... us-6885760

And with fire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA

That second video is also a steel-framed building.

I'm not an engineer, though some of the people in the report I posted above are. Are you?

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory.[3] Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."[80]

other than hit by scattering debris and
having some small fire unrelated to burning jet fuel, I've never heard any reasonable explanation.

The buckling failure of Column 79 between Floor 5 and Floor 14 was the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7. This resulted from thermal expansion and failures of connections, beams, and girders in the adjacent floor systems.
? The connection, beam, and girder failures in the floor systems, and the resulting structural responses, occurred primarily at temperatures below approximately 400°C (750 ºF), well below the temperatures at which structural steel loses significant strength and stiffness.
? Thermal expansion was particularly significant in causing the connection, beam, and girder failures, since the floor beams had long spans on the north and east sides (approximately 15 m, 50 ft).

o Heating of the long beams resulted in proportionately large thermal elongation relative to the other components of the floor system, in effect, compressing the beams along their length. This led to distortion of the beams and breaking of the connections of the beams to the floor slabs. Furthermore, the simple shear connections used in the typical floor framing were not able to resist these axial compressive forces that developed as the floor framing was heated.

o At Column 79, heating and expansion of the floor beams in the northeast corner caused the loss of connection between the column and the key girder. Additional factors that Chapter 4 NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation 54 contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint and (2) the one-sided framing of the east floor beams that allowed the beams to push
laterally on the girders, due to thermal expansion of the beams.

o The fires thermally weakened Floors 8 to 14. As Floor 13 fell onto the floor below, a cascade of floor failures continued until the damage reached the massive Floor 5 slab, leaving Column 79 without lateral support for nine floors. The long unsupported length of Column 79 led to its buckling failure.
? Blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. NIST concluded that blast events could not have occurred, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event. Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile if unobstructed by surrounding buildings (such as along Greenwich Street and West Broadway). This sound level is comparable to a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
The sound from such a blast in an urban setting would have been reflected and channeled down streets with minimum attenuation. However, the soundtracks from videos being recorded at the time of the collapse did not contain any sound as intense as would have accompanied such a blast.

Hi again, Walrus.

In a debate you can cherry-pick all of the articles supporting your
contention (as I or anyone can) and this will obviously not make
you a winner. And no discourse will happen.

If you can use your own brain and life experiences you might be
able to find something new to discuss in a friendly manner.

You specifically ask me about my experience in the matter and
afterward immediately try to interject your unsupported expert's
statement to try to refute my previous answer concerning my
experience (which YOU asked me for). This is not conducive to
intelligent discourse.

If you can use your own brain and life experiences you might be
able to find something new to discuss in a friendly manner.

I do not think it is fair to say that I was cherry-picking. I posted a well supported article, written by highly-qualified experts, with contributions from many more experts. It is not cherry-picking to go to the authoritative source. If you would like to post a similarly authoritative document then I would be happy to read any points you raise. If you would like to pick holes in the explanation offered by the report above, I will be happy to read them and will probably have little response. I do not know anything about construction engineering so I am reliant on the expertise of others.

I do not feel like I have appealled to authority over your head or anything. You have made some quite specific points, I have countered them. You said buildings did not fall down except in explosive demolitions. I would some examples to the contrary. You said steel-framed buildings did not fall down in instantly without explosives. I found another example to the contrary (note that was you were making firm claims, I only needed to provide single examples to show that you were wrong). You said there were no reasonable explanations, I posted a reasonable explanation.

At no point have you acknowledged that you were wrong about anything and this is at least the second time you have just tried to shut down the discussion, so I think it is a bit rich of you to accuse me of being unwilling to debate or do my research.

You were the one who brought up experience...

I did not aim to refute your statement on your experience, I aimed to supply the authoritative explanation you asked for. That is why I quoted that.

The expert opinion provided is by no means unsupported...

Again, I would suggest that my answering of your points with facts is more conductive to intelligent discourse than your behaviour in this thread.

- the building was on fire
- metals thermally expand
- the building fell down

Therefore, with my current knowledge it seems wholly plausible that the thermal expansion of the steel in the building, caused by the heat of the fires, itself caused the building to collapse.