9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed...

[GuyPinestra]

Sure, look up a few posts there's your video....

No Ollie, the video that actually explains "how the buildings were basically sucked in up to 50 inches"...

I'd like to see that and the explanation of how that measurement was made. Surely one of you 'debunkers' has a link to something that you consider so important, right?

OK I'll school you again........

At about 6 minute mark on this video, though you can learn from much more of it......

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmIjDfpTeMc]Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 1 of 7 - Free fall and how the towers collapsed - YouTube[/ame]

Thank you for that. Now can you explain how those few collapsing floors managed to make it all the way to the ground in 15 seconds? Or how they managed to expel multi-ton sections of the building several hundred feet LATERALLY?

 

[SFC Ollie]

No Ollie, the video that actually explains "how the buildings were basically sucked in up to 50 inches"...

I'd like to see that and the explanation of how that measurement was made. Surely one of you 'debunkers' has a link to something that you consider so important, right?

OK I'll school you again........

At about 6 minute mark on this video, though you can learn from much more of it......

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmIjDfpTeMc]Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 1 of 7 - Free fall and how the towers collapsed - YouTube[/ame]

Thank you for that. Now can you explain how those few collapsing floors managed to make it all the way to the ground in 15 seconds? Or how they managed to expel multi-ton sections of the building several hundred feet LATERALLY?

Nope I can't do that. Never pretended I could. And you don't believe the majority of the experts who have so what can I say......

 

[Mr. Jones]

9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed - YouTube

NIST admits WTC 7 experienced FF. The towers fell through the path of most resistance, explain that.
According to your video FF would be 9.22 seconds. The 9-11 commission states they fell in 10 secs. You people state the 9-1 commission is right. So which is it?
The towers have been estimated to have descended anywhere from 12-15 seconds. They should have according to proper calculations taken around 55 seconds. What removed the resistance that NIST assured us would be present?
It is you that believes in pseudoscience that can't be substantiated. Not even in your videos lol!

911 commissions is not a technical report. The fact is the CT claims of free fall are all fail. Even when you claim that NIST admits freefall for WTC 7 you lie. They admit that the facade reached freefall for just over 2 seconds. The facade is not the building....Only a small part of it. Now go ahead and tell us why most truther videos cut out the first 8 to 9 seconds of the collapse of WTC7......

But...but I thought you all said the 9-11 commission report was correct on the major points....surely the destruction of the buildings that were attacked is considered a major point no?
Look brickhead....It's no use trying to argue about FF at the towers, I have already long ago noticed that it was not..However even 10-22 seconds for such robust, massive steel buildings, that had much of the top parts of them ejected away, or turned into dust, and therefore was not even part of the mass pushing down on the lower parts....IS STILL WAAAY TOO FAST, FOR A KEROSENE FIRE TO HAVE CAUSED.
Calculations that take into account the mass of the building, dictate at least....at least 55 seconds.
And with building 7... Are you seriously not thinking that all 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories had to be taken out in order for it to come down at ff speed?
Why would such a highly regarded and prestigious agency like NIST leave out something that a lowly simpleton high school physics teacher made them have to admit to and reverse??
Why would NIST say the shear studs that they mentioned were in abundance in 2004,al of a sudden are gone from their 2008 report?

You people will argue that alot was going on inside WTC 7 between the end of the collapse of the penthouse and the beginning of the collapse of the main building. They have provided no evidence for that argument. Indeed, if there had been significant movement inside the building after the collapse of the penthouse, this should have resulted in some movement or deformation of the building visible from outside.
The penthouse collapsing can be observed and considering what was attached to it, not surprising. After all it is said to have been attached to a line of columns on the east side that were taken out, and the collapse with FF ensued.
Taking out the support structure is usually required in a CD. Actually a CD better explains the characteristics observed, and does not require the all the BS lies and mental gymnastics,or having to lie about and declare "a new phenomena!!!!" just being discovered called thermal expansion, and in order to make even a teeny tiny bit believable they had to remove the shear studs from the building...

The only evidence NIST provides to support their theory is in the form of a computer model. While it could possibly be argued that the model does show some buckling occurring over eight stories, it most certainly does not show a period of free-fall. So NIST’s theory has absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for the fact of free-fall. In other words the NIST theory cannot explain key empirical data.
They could of course allow the data to be revealed so other engineers,physicists, and construction project chiefs could build their new buildings in much safer ways and provide closure for this debate once and for all...but no they refuse to do this, and it's no wonder they are scared to, they have much to hide.
So because the NIST model cannot be verified, it is meant to be taken on faith. The NIST model, then, is faith-based, not science-based.
Since NIST’s theory does not explain fundamental facts of the WTC 7 incident and other important facts are so far no able to be replicated, we can categorically state that NIST’s theory is in no way scientific. At best, it could be referred to as faith-based pseudo-science. Since the NIST theory is in no way scientific, competent conscientious scientists must reject it in favor of a science-based theory.

Besides... If the whole damned building relied so much on just one ******* column...how many CD devises do you think it would have taken top cause its total, global collapse?

See the truth needs no covering up and hiding, but lies? Well they are always kept covered up.

 

[Mr. Jones]

OK I'll school you again........

At about 6 minute mark on this video, though you can learn from much more of it......

Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 1 of 7 - Free fall and how the towers collapsed - YouTube

Thank you for that. Now can you explain how those few collapsing floors managed to make it all the way to the ground in 15 seconds? Or how they managed to expel multi-ton sections of the building several hundred feet LATERALLY?

Nope I can't do that. Never pretended I could. And you don't believe the majority of the experts who have so what can I say......

Im pretty sure not many of us could either Ollie...But given what is known about fire, steel the NIST failed testing, the fact that wtc 7 penthouse was attached to a row of internal columns including the ones that NIST says supported it, but had to be simultaneously taken out in order for the building to achieve the 100 foot FF.....do you still think they got it right??

I mean you call them the experts, and admit they could be wrong....they obviously proved that they did by having a high school teacher point out their "mistake"....

 

[Mr. Jones]

Yeah he links to a guy who believes that the two towers were brought down 2 different ways, and that WTC7 was a conventional demolition.

Same guy claims there was partial unreacted thermite particles found.

I never heard of thermite that only partially reacted, Once it's lit, it's gone, in seconds......

And of course we all know that there is no audio of demolition explosions.....

You miss the video I posted with the firemen on the payphone and the explosions in the background? It's in this thread...

Or this one of the firefighters telling how the lobby exploded?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1zED8dy63w&feature=player_embedded]9/11 Firefighters Reveal Bombs Destroyed WTC lobby - YouTube[/ame]

Or this one from CBS reporting the explosions?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rIvm0GDbCQ]CBS Report On 9/11: Ground Level Explosion Caused WTC To Collapse - YouTube[/ame]

Or Michael Hess, who worked for the city in WTC 7...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64]Michael Hess, WTC7 explosion witness - YouTube[/ame]

There were hundreds of secondary explosions, as you would expect in an office fire. Ever hear a battery explode? Or a can of spray paint? hair spray? Or any of a thousand different things that would have been in those buildings, for all we know that was a car gas tank exploding while the fireman was on the phone.

Now what was the timeline for Mr Hess? What time was the explosion that he thought trapped him? Obviously it didn't as he's still here, and the guy that was with him tells a whole different timeline. I would find Hess's timeline but i can't get through the 3 million truther posts to actually find the facts.... At least I don't feel like hunting it up tonight...

How about we just say **** of that shit, and have someone simply replicate the computer simulation for 7?...They might save some lives if they educate engineers about how "dangerous" this type of building construction can be due to the ever present thermal expansion!
.How about they explain why the shear studs were removed from their report, that would have prevented any thermal expansion?
Why hasn't thermal expansion caused any other less fortified steel buildings to globally collapse?
How come you believe in shit you don't even try to understand especially when it involves the nation you swore to protect, and the wars that the most traumatic event in your lifetime has caused??

Look at these massive marvels being built....And you people act like these steel behemoths can be exploded, pulverized, and "collapsed" in 10 to 20 seconds....each??
By ******* kerosene???

 

[SFC Ollie]

I have listened to the arguments from all sides.

I have made what I believe to be the correct decision.

You may keep believing in your conspiracy all you want, yet you still cannot make your theory explain how those buildings sucked in like that.

Also you can't give us the time line for Mr. Hess.

Nor can you explain why there was no audio of demolition charges for building 7.

And so many other things....

But then I admit there are things i can't explain either, but then I admit I'm not an engineer and do not pretend to understand the physics. But I accept what the majority of those people tell me instead of the minority.

 

[SAYIT]

9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed - YouTube

NIST admits WTC 7 experienced FF. The towers fell through the path of most resistance, explain that.
According to your video FF would be 9.22 seconds. The 9-11 commission states they fell in 10 secs. You people state the 9-1 commission is right. So which is it?
The towers have been estimated to have descended anywhere from 12-15 seconds. They should have according to proper calculations taken around 55 seconds. What removed the resistance that NIST assured us would be present?
It is you that believes in pseudoscience that can't be substantiated. Not even in your videos lol!

you might wanna try that again since you're wrong AND i'm about to make you look like a bigger asshole.
south tower 15.28 sec no free fall..
north tower 22.02 sec no free fall...
got a stop watch? you can time it yourself.
but you won't you're far to busy rationalizing your bullshit.
seems math is not your strong suite

Nor is reality but she can whoop up a foil hat at free-fall speed.

 

[SAYIT]

9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed - YouTube

NIST admits WTC 7 experienced FF. The towers fell through the path of most resistance, explain that.
According to your video FF would be 9.22 seconds. The 9-11 commission states they fell in 10 secs. You people state the 9-1 commission is right. So which is it?
The towers have been estimated to have descended anywhere from 12-15 seconds. They should have according to proper calculations taken around 55 seconds. What removed the resistance that NIST assured us would be present?
It is you that believes in pseudoscience that can't be substantiated. Not even in your videos lol!

911 commissions is not a technical report. The fact is the CT claims of free fall are all fail. Even when you claim that NIST admits freefall for WTC 7 you lie. They admit that the facade reached freefall for just over 2 seconds. The facade is not the building....Only a small part of it. Now go ahead and tell us why most truther videos cut out the first 8 to 9 seconds of the collapse of WTC7......

Lemme guess: because the cut out vid destroys their loony tunes CTs faster than a speeding bullet?

 

[Mr. Jones]

I have listened to the arguments from all sides.

I have made what I believe to be the correct decision.

You may have heard them but you still admit you don't understand what the arguments are about..or why there even are arguments and objections.
You're entitled to have an opinion just like the rest of us, but remember, we at least engaged with you and posted and linked information that reinforces our skepticism. We can't control the fact that you either don't understand it or refuse to try.

You may keep believing in your conspiracy all you want, yet you still cannot make your theory explain how those buildings sucked in like that.

You have to look at the totality of the collapses, and not just focus on one small detail. All 3 buildings had the characteristics of a CD. The bowing of one of them is interesting, and is said to have been the result of the intense heat from fire. The question still remains...how did it get so hot? NISTS own testing on the trusses, that are thought to have been what caused this bowing of the perimeter, were failures, even though they used much hotter temps, on an untreated piece of truss mockup steel..They admitted they used temps to the most extreme...They used shotgun blasts to simulate a plane crash, that failed, all in all, their own testing discounts many phases of their theory.

Also you can't give us the time line for Mr. Hess.

What about the timeline? The 9-11 commission got at least 3 timelines from the Pentagon, and they still say they don't know what really happened, but you go on believing them?
I believe Barry Jennings, because like most of the witnesses, they had nothing to gain and everything to lose by telling their version of what happened to them. Hess changed his story, and Jennings is dead like so many other witnesses and whistleblowers have died...

Nor can you explain why there was no audio of demolition charges for building 7.

There was, but some are saying that some of the videos that were released were edited muting the sound. There has been proof that other means of cutting through the steel may have been used that wouldn't have produced any high decibel sounds of explosions. Regardless, nitpicking at certain things and cherry picking, does not take away or diminish the fact that 7 had many CD characteristics, and that the "new phenomena" of thermal expansion is a ludicrous theory, that NIST came to only after removing the shear studs from the equation in 2008.
NIST theory is based on faith, and not actual scientific methodology.

And so many other things....

Yes so many other things that are odd, deceitful, unscientific, ignored and hidden from being replicated by others.

But then I admit there are things i can't explain either, but then I admit I'm not an engineer and do not pretend to understand the physics.

If you don't understand it then how can you believe and go around parroting the NIST theory? It is your faith in the US governments agencies and the people within it that move you to believe in something you know nothing about. Your attitude is what is counted on to solidify their narrative, and it proves that Americans will believe anything that comes from "official sources".
Have you looked into watching the new released movie called Compliance? It is a true story of the lengths people will go to when they think they are dealing with an "official" source....on the telephone!
It is a prime example of Americans fear, and gullibility.

But I accept what the majority of those people tell me instead of the minority.

If you suspected the herd was heading towards a cliff, would you still join them? This feeling of needing to be part of the majority, undermines individualism, and actually hurts our nation. With the way human mentality and emotion has been used in the past, and still used today, it is no wonder the people are easily led in whichever direction that is needed...Mass brainwashing tactics are evident everywhere, from product advertising to political pundits on the MSM circuits. The individual is ostracized and ridiculed for not "going with the flow" and labels (names) are thrown at them like has been done to so many throughout history.
The facts remain regarding the way those buildings came exploding, and crashing down
and the way that those who were counted on to examine analyze and explain what actually happened, were pigeon holed into providing a less then scientific and physically impossible scenario, and a series of never before happened in history events that would be laughable if not for the real seriousness and life and death consequences they dealt with then, and still do today.

 

[daws101]

NIST admits WTC 7 experienced FF. The towers fell through the path of most resistance, explain that.
According to your video FF would be 9.22 seconds. The 9-11 commission states they fell in 10 secs. You people state the 9-1 commission is right. So which is it?
The towers have been estimated to have descended anywhere from 12-15 seconds. They should have according to proper calculations taken around 55 seconds. What removed the resistance that NIST assured us would be present?
It is you that believes in pseudoscience that can't be substantiated. Not even in your videos lol!

you might wanna try that again since you're wrong AND i'm about to make you look like a bigger asshole.
south tower 15.28 sec no free fall..
north tower 22.02 sec no free fall...
got a stop watch? you can time it yourself.
but you won't you're far to busy rationalizing your bullshit.
seems math is not your strong suite

Ok like I said they have been estimated at various collapses, but you of course don't post a link to again substantiate your claims.....so....Why does the holy grail of 9-11, the 9-11 commission panel state they fell in about 10 seconds? Or do you admit that this is wrong on their part nowadays?
BTW, 15-22 secs, is still way to fast, for it to be physically possible asswipe, wanna try that again?

it's no estimate shit head.... I posted the clip no other verification is needed it was shot as it happened.

here's the math towers (both) 417meteres or (1,368 ')
417 meters =0.5 gt^2
=9.22 SECONDS
AS TO The 911 commission they got many small things wrong as it was a rush job.
none of their mistakes are evidence of a cover up or governmental conspiracy.
please present a test or the math that proves that the collapse time are TOO FAST TO BE PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE.
NO TWOOFER CONJECTURE PLEASE.

 

[paulitician]

you might wanna try that again since you're wrong AND i'm about to make you look like a bigger asshole.
south tower 15.28 sec no free fall..
north tower 22.02 sec no free fall...
got a stop watch? you can time it yourself.
but you won't you're far to busy rationalizing your bullshit.
seems math is not your strong suite

Ok like I said they have been estimated at various collapses, but you of course don't post a link to again substantiate your claims.....so....Why does the holy grail of 9-11, the 9-11 commission panel state they fell in about 10 seconds? Or do you admit that this is wrong on their part nowadays?
BTW, 15-22 secs, is still way to fast, for it to be physically possible asswipe, wanna try that again?

it's no estimate shit head.... I posted the clip no other verification is needed it was shot as it happened.

Oh calm down there dawgshit/SAYIT/Candyass/del. They have special meds for you Sock Troll assholes. Give em a try.

 

[daws101]

ok like i said they have been estimated at various collapses, but you of course don't post a link to again substantiate your claims.....so....why does the holy grail of 9-11, the 9-11 commission panel state they fell in about 10 seconds? Or do you admit that this is wrong on their part nowadays?
Btw, 15-22 secs, is still way to fast, for it to be physically possible asswipe, wanna try that again?

it's no estimate shit head.... I posted the clip no other verification is needed it was shot as it happened.

oh calm down there dawgshit/sayit/candyass/del. They have special meds for you sock troll assholes. Give em a try.

hey paulie if you have nothing to add other then calling ever one goose steppers, then shut the **** up!
Also posts all of what I said, you cherry picking limp phallus.

 

[Mr. Jones]

you might wanna try that again since you're wrong AND i'm about to make you look like a bigger asshole.
south tower 15.28 sec no free fall..
north tower 22.02 sec no free fall...
got a stop watch? you can time it yourself.
but you won't you're far to busy rationalizing your bullshit.
seems math is not your strong suite

Ok like I said they have been estimated at various collapses, but you of course don't post a link to again substantiate your claims.....so....Why does the holy grail of 9-11, the 9-11 commission panel state they fell in about 10 seconds? Or do you admit that this is wrong on their part nowadays?
BTW, 15-22 secs, is still way to fast, for it to be physically possible asswipe, wanna try that again?

it's no estimate shit head.... I posted the clip no other verification is needed it was shot as it happened.

It IS an estimation you ignorant ******* tool! The camera was not on the building the whole time for starters. Besides you ignore the point...10,15, 20 seconds is still too fast for such steel behemoths to come down in. Where is the resistance NIST assured us would be present? These were no
ordinary" collapses, as it is obvious that the mass that was NOT damaged by fire, and NOT damaged by plane impacts and had LARGER, MORE ROBUST STEEL COLUMNS AND BEAMS would have provided RESISTANCE on a much larger scale and caused the collapse front to experience RESISTANCE.

The top half of the tower, is said to have dropped onto this massive, stronger lower part...
There was NO discernible "jolt" or interruption of acceleration of the roofline...
You fail to recognize these glaring oddities.

Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou, with whose September 13, 2001 back-of-the-envelope theory (with subsequent revisions and additions) NIST largely agrees, have never hesitated to say that the upper block fell. [8] Bazant has likewise been frank about the need for severe impact as the upper and lower structures met: he believes the impact may have been powerful enough to have been recorded by seismometers. [9] In his view, collapse initiation of the lower structure required “one powerful jolt.”[10] Of course, if there was a powerful jolt to the lower structure there must also have been a powerful jolt to the upper falling structure, in accord with Newton’s Third Law.”

Somethings to consider when pondering a collapse said to have been caused by fire gravity-
Exterior framework sections weighing 4 tons were ejected up to 600 feet laterally. Gravity cannot do this.
Most of the debris was ejected outside the building and did not contribute to the collapse as is required by the Bazant hypothesis.


http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt4.pdf

 

[daws101]

Ok like I said they have been estimated at various collapses, but you of course don't post a link to again substantiate your claims.....so....Why does the holy grail of 9-11, the 9-11 commission panel state they fell in about 10 seconds? Or do you admit that this is wrong on their part nowadays?
BTW, 15-22 secs, is still way to fast, for it to be physically possible asswipe, wanna try that again?

it's no estimate shit head.... I posted the clip no other verification is needed it was shot as it happened.

It IS an estimation you ignorant ******* tool! The camera was not on the building the whole time for starters. Besides you ignore the point...10,15, 20 seconds is still too fast for such steel behemoths to come down in. Where is the resistance NIST assured us would be present? These were no
ordinary" collapses, as it is obvious that the mass that was NOT damaged by fire, and NOT damaged by plane impacts and had LARGER, MORE ROBUST STEEL COLUMNS AND BEAMS would have provided RESISTANCE on a much larger scale and caused the collapse front to experience RESISTANCE.

The top half of the tower, is said to have dropped onto this massive, stronger lower part...
There was NO discernible "jolt" or interruption of acceleration of the roofline...
You fail to recognize these glaring oddities.

Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou, with whose September 13, 2001 back-of-the-envelope theory (with subsequent revisions and additions) NIST largely agrees, have never hesitated to say that the upper block fell. [8] Bazant has likewise been frank about the need for severe impact as the upper and lower structures met: he believes the impact may have been powerful enough to have been recorded by seismometers. [9] In his view, collapse initiation of the lower structure required “one powerful jolt.”[10] Of course, if there was a powerful jolt to the lower structure there must also have been a powerful jolt to the upper falling structure, in accord with Newton’s Third Law.”

Somethings to consider when pondering a collapse said to have been caused by fire gravity-
Exterior framework sections weighing 4 tons were ejected up to 600 feet laterally. Gravity cannot do this.
Most of the debris was ejected outside the building and did not contribute to the collapse as is required by the Bazant hypothesis.


http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt4.pdf

isaid no twoofer conjecture .
the camera did not have to be in the tower to be accurate besides shit head if it had and been recovered it most likely would a shown evidence of a longer collapse time. not free fall
as to the powerful jolt to the upper part it was the planes not explosives or thermite.
there is no rule in science or nature that says that the jolts had to be simultaneous or nearly so.
your twoofer conjecture proves this..
also shit head, what you are alluding to and failing to prove by your ignorant and obvious line about gravity is that something other than kinetic energy and massive air pressure changes pushed the framing and other debris several hundred yards away from the collapse .
you have no evidence to corroborate this just specious conjecture.
game, set, match!

btw: the Bazant hypothesis. is just that .
where are the test results to prove the hypothesis is fact not a steaming pile.
oh that's right! you have none.

 

[Mr. Jones]

it's no estimate shit head.... I posted the clip no other verification is needed it was shot as it happened.

It IS an estimation you ignorant ******* tool! The camera was not on the building the whole time for starters. Besides you ignore the point...10,15, 20 seconds is still too fast for such steel behemoths to come down in. Where is the resistance NIST assured us would be present? These were no
ordinary" collapses, as it is obvious that the mass that was NOT damaged by fire, and NOT damaged by plane impacts and had LARGER, MORE ROBUST STEEL COLUMNS AND BEAMS would have provided RESISTANCE on a much larger scale and caused the collapse front to experience RESISTANCE.

The top half of the tower, is said to have dropped onto this massive, stronger lower part...
There was NO discernible "jolt" or interruption of acceleration of the roofline...
You fail to recognize these glaring oddities.

Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou, with whose September 13, 2001 back-of-the-envelope theory (with subsequent revisions and additions) NIST largely agrees, have never hesitated to say that the upper block fell. [8] Bazant has likewise been frank about the need for severe impact as the upper and lower structures met: he believes the impact may have been powerful enough to have been recorded by seismometers. [9] In his view, collapse initiation of the lower structure required “one powerful jolt.”[10] Of course, if there was a powerful jolt to the lower structure there must also have been a powerful jolt to the upper falling structure, in accord with Newton’s Third Law.”

Somethings to consider when pondering a collapse said to have been caused by fire gravity-
Exterior framework sections weighing 4 tons were ejected up to 600 feet laterally. Gravity cannot do this.
Most of the debris was ejected outside the building and did not contribute to the collapse as is required by the Bazant hypothesis.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt4.pdf[/quote=daws101;6822231]isaid no twoofer conjecture .

Hey asshole this has been reviewed by others in the pertinent fields of study, and they had no problem or dismissed it away simply because of who wrote it...ignoring, or dismissing calculations and theories is the best you can do to answer the information, then you you're a coward LOL!

the camera did not have to be in the tower to be accurate besides shit head if it had and been recovered it most likely would a shown evidence of a longer collapse time. not free fall

Where did I say that it had to be "in" the tower you lying POS?
I said ON, as in pointing to it...as in camera, focused ON IT...You dumb MFKer you.

And why can't you understand I am not claiming the FF of the towers?I'll explain the point I'm making again, because you are too stupid to understand it. The towers experienced very little resistance when it "collapsed" The linked and reviewed paper with the calculations, show this. It alludes that given the mass of the building, the lower parts of them, that were not damaged by fire, or plane impact would have provided enough resistance to
momentarily halt the collapse front while the lower structure resisted the smaller falling
upper structure..

as to the powerful jolt to the upper part it was the planes not explosives or thermite.
there is no rule in science or nature that says that the jolts had to be simultaneous or nearly so.

Wow! This proves what a ******* idiot you are...for real! You have no ******* idea what is being put forth here do you? Let me see, you say "as to the powerful jolt" as if one occurred? You ******* dipshit!! We are talking about a missing jolt, to the lower part you mental ******* midget! OMG... Don't you read??

your twoofer conjecture proves this..

Conjecture is having a position that is unproven, and the NIST conjecture is a prime example. You supply no details of why the NIST conjecture and theory is accurate. We supply reviewed papers with analysis that shows how wrong NIST is. I mention and link to a paper that mentions missing jolts, and you talk about the planes???? Whose impacts occurred waaaay before anything that is being discussed in the linked paper and study??? Wow man....just wow...
YOU truly fit your own "shithead" ad hominem.. Now you actually agree with what you are originally contesting!!??

also shit head, what you are alluding to and failing to prove by your ignorant and obvious line about gravity is that something other than kinetic energy and massive air pressure changes pushed the framing and other debris several hundred yards away from the collapse .
you have no evidence to corroborate this just specious conjecture.
game, set, match!

This paper shows that something did. What you are supposed to be to substantiating, and failing miserably at, is that fire removed the buildings resistance. NIST has not proved this, and all they have is conjecture. You have not even attempted to prove this, and think the "powerful jolt" that they are talking about...is from the planes!!!!???

btw: the Bazant hypothesis. is just that .
where are the test results to prove the hypothesis is fact not a steaming pile.
oh that's right! you have none.

What a ******* douche bag idiot!!!!The Bazant theory is what NIST AGREED with you ******* moron!
That's right asshole The NIST Bazant theory!!!! You stupid ass SB!
I gave you a link that does exactly what you you are calling it....proves that the Bazant/NIST thoery is "a steaming pile"!!

So NOW you surely admit AND you agree that the Bazant/NIST theory is flawed, as is shown by the link I posted entitled....Drum roll please.....
THE MISSING JOLT-A SIMPLE REFUTATION OF THE NIST-BAZANT COLLAPSE HYPOTHESIS


This last remark of yours is proof positive that you are an idiot who doesn't even know a thing about what he is talking about!!!!
How can anyone like you, who is such a staunch advocate of the OCT, and NIST not even know this fact about the Bazant-NIST collapse theory????
As a mater of fact now you seemed to have switched sides?!!! LOL!! Good to know that you think the Bazant NIST theory is nothing but a "steaming pile"!!!

Man I'm laughing so hard my eyes are watering!!! LOL!!

You once again prove what a worthless idiot you are, and prove again for all to see that you do not bother to read anything that is posted, and because you don't bother to read anything and try to understand it...It caught up with you asshole, and you exposed yourself as the stupid uninformed ignorant troll that you are!!!! HA HA, you deserved it you stupid *****...I even highlighted the fact regarding the association of Bazant and NIST in red in my ORIGINAL post...that you replied to....!!!

 

[SFC Ollie]

The sudden release of the pent up energy of the bowing beams (Remember those, the ones you can't explain?) could easily have ejected those beams....... Of course I know this will be rejected as I can't do the math and most of the CT folks refuse to accept what can be plainly seen....

 

[GuyPinestra]

The sudden release of the pent up energy of the bowing beams (Remember those, the ones you can't explain?) could easily have ejected those beams....... Of course I know this will be rejected as I can't do the math and most of the CT folks refuse to accept what can be plainly seen....

I thought those bowing beams were pulling the walls INWARD, Ollie...

 

[Mr. Jones]

The sudden release of the pent up energy of the bowing beams (Remember those, the ones you can't explain?) could easily have ejected those beams....... Of course I know this will be rejected as I can't do the math and most of the CT folks refuse to accept what can be plainly seen....

One of the only things that NIST actually came up with that wasn't a part of the Bazant and Xhou theory,was it's claim that the sagging of the floor trusses pulled the outer columns inward and this started the buckling of the columns.
They tried to validate this theory by putting floor trusses to furnace tests that were run by Underwriters Labs..it was a failure as the NIST testing showed that the trusses would not have sagged and deformed enough to have had this effect at all.
They actually over exageratted the sagging a lot just to make it fir this theory/guess.

This particular bowing, and what you keep harping on about was easily disproved by
simply looking at the videos. The videos show that the antenna on the roof dropped before even the edges of the roof did, and the antennae were held up by the core
columns.
What this signifies is that the core columns failed before the wall columns did. It also suggests that the hat truss, that connected the core to the wall columns, was severed very quickly at the beginning of the collapse, something that "fire" certainly could not have done.

Looking at the movement of the roof of WTC 1 it shows that it started its downward acceleration apparently with no slow movement, no slow sagging characteristics as one would expect to see if the steel were being slowly damaged and approaching its failure point by fire.
When you say "easily" have ejected those beams..You don't seem to understand that those "beams" were actually outer perimeter columns that weighed 100's of tons and were ejected laterally for great distances. Fire damages steel slowly, it takes time. Not all the building was damaged. The lower portions were constructed of larger, thicker components, that physically should have provided enough resistance to cause significantly longer duration times of collapse and not a mere few seconds short of actual FF.

The crushing effect of the top, according to the NIST/Bazant theory, is said to have easily overcame the more robust and undamaged sturdy lower parts, without so much as having any resistance to overcome.
Physicists have taken the videos of the tower, specifically the top damaged parts and analyzed it and applied measurements, and calculations, that show it essentially did not hesitate AS IT WAS COMING DOWN THROUGH THE UNDAMAGED BUILDING, and instead showed a constant acceleration that was measured.
FF of the towers was said to have to be 417meteres or (1,368 ')
417 meters =0.5 gt^2
=9.22 SECONDS
and we have estimates that range from 10 seconds in the 9-11 commission report, to 10 -15 secs. in other estimates. This is said to not be physically possible as the upper block, had parts of it that were turning into dust, and parts were flying off of it AWAY from being part of the crushing down upper mass.
The upper part had to overcome the initial resistive forces of the lower. This would have been visibly noticeable. It was not.

NIST did not bother to explain what happened to the WTC after so called collapse initiation. They simply state collapse was inevitable without even providing any scientific data to back up this assertion...And you people side with an unproven guess that has no data??
Another interesting tidbit about the NIST/Bazant theory is that it was written 1-2 days AFTER the "collapses". This is a suspiciously fast time to gather your evidence, do your calculations, and come up with a thesis. There are many things that have been shown wrong about this theory that NIST attached itself to provided in the link I posted and that Dawgshit made a fool of himself over LOL!

 

[Mr. Jones]

The sudden release of the pent up energy of the bowing beams (Remember those, the ones you can't explain?) could easily have ejected those beams....... Of course I know this will be rejected as I can't do the math and most of the CT folks refuse to accept what can be plainly seen....

I thought those bowing beams were pulling the walls INWARD, Ollie...

Good catch Guy, I missed that in my over exuberance to squash him and Dawgshit...

 

[SFC Ollie]

The sudden release of the pent up energy of the bowing beams (Remember those, the ones you can't explain?) could easily have ejected those beams....... Of course I know this will be rejected as I can't do the math and most of the CT folks refuse to accept what can be plainly seen....

I thought those bowing beams were pulling the walls INWARD, Ollie...

They did. and then they broke loose.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and all that stuff, ever flip a paperclip? Probably not.....