[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

A lot of evidence and experts explaining that evidence. I was trying to google an image of this ball of reshaped steel which is or was slated to be on display in some kind of 9/11 memorial and this came up from AI results:

AI is incredibly biased against the demolition hypothesis btw. This ball was described as the result of molten steel and as containing one of the few intact artifacts from the collapse, a stapler sticking out of this metal clump. I don't want to make any sweeping statements on this, but very few artifacts were recovered. Like all the chairs and filing cabinets and desks and computers and conference tables - there was like nothing of that remaining. Don't take that as an invitation to post a pic of something that escapade the wrath of hell to which these buildings were subjected and call me a liar. I think anyone who studies this has to reconcile the fact that a shockingly small amount of items in the buildings were ever identified and I've never heard any official explanation for this.

Experts have said it was molten steel pouring out of the south tower. Video of that is easy to find. There is other video, harder to find, showing metal being hoisted out of ground zero glowing and dripping. There are dozens of ground zero workers who say there was molten steel everywhere. These guys might not be chemists or material scientists but, if we are to be honest, they know their stuff enough to know what is steel and can identify molten steel - a lot of them can. And no you can't dismiss them because they are tradesmen - they aren't idiots just because they weren't into school as young men and they work with these materials their whole lives some of them.

As referenced in the AI quote, even FEMA came out with evidence of the presence of molten steel. I've linked to that in the other thread. You can pretend it doesn't exist if you want to I don't care.

Who is saying 17.5 s?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

What evidence? WHAT EVIDENCE.

"Experts." Any that have said that have done so with NO EVIDENCE.

Video OF PEOPLE SAYING IT? LOLOLOL

Not interested in molten metal, you claimed molten steel.

Molten metal or molten steel? If it was steel, how did they determine it was steel?

And HOW DID THEY DETERMINE THIS?

I didn't dismiss anyone, you've produced ZERO of them to even consider.

Couldn't give two shts about an AI quote. Also learn to read, that says molten metal not molten steel, you illiterate jackwad.

Anyone with a full video of the collapse and a stopwatch.

For the record, this "fire can't bring down skyscrapers" crap is just silly. Fire has caused the collapse of several skyscrapers.

St. Petersburg, 2002 - 8/3 Dvinskaya street, a 9-story apartment block, suffers a gas explosion causing it to catch fire and collapse, killing four and injuring at least 11 others.

Madrid, 2004 - Windsor Tower, a 32-story building, suffers a fire on the 21st floor, causing a partial collapse of the steel structure, which essentially melted away.
(note that on this one, the part that had a steel core like the WTC buildings did completely collapsed while the part that had a concrete core did not).

Tehran, 2017 - The iconic 17-story Plasco Building catches fire towards its top floors and totally collapses, killing 21 people inside and injuring 250 others.

Sao Paulo, 2018 - Wilton paes de Almeida, a 26-story historic skyscraper, catches fire towards its base. The fire spreads along the facade, causing the building to collapse 90 minutes later, killing 9 people and injuring 40.

This narrative that fires can't bring down tall buildings is just straight nonsense that someone told him and he just believes.

Deuces, you seem to be struggling to gain traction here, to put it mildly. Perhaps I could give you some reasons why, not that I imagine you are one for taking criticism on board.

Firstly, your argumentation style is terrible. You constantly bring up several claims simultaneously, you make unsubstantiated claims all the time and then when pressed for evidence you dissemble and deflect, you claim evidence exists but are unable to present it, you fail to adequately address valid criticisms of your claims and reasoning, and a plethora of other basic mistakes which most 11 year olds probably wouldn't make when trying to present a case or debate a point. You also transparently lie all the time about what you have said or what others have said.

Secondly, your writing style is terrible. You bloviate, go off on tangents, use bombastic language, use a thousand words where ten will suffice, and often fail to address the question asked. Your signal to noise ratio is virtually non-existent and as a result any meritorious claims you might have are drowned out in rivers of verbal diarrhea.

Thirdly, your personality is terrible. You are arrogant, obnoxious, and condescending in the extreme; suffice to say, none of these traits serve to endear you to your interlocutors.

Hope this helps.

Wow. That nanothermite is really doing the rounds. 😮

I like how we're all asking for evidence of molten steel specifically, and Dunces thinks we're too dumb to notice that he keeps alluding to evidence of molten metal but just calling it "steel". Dunces, do you think all metals are steel?

Maybe the whole thing was planned in 1966 before the buildings were even put up, and the supposed fireproof coating on the girders was actually supernanothermite all along, and it was detonated on 9/11 when the buildings were zapped from orbit by the space lasers after the fake hologram airliners hit. Ever think of that? Huh?

Admittedly 35 years is a long time in the planning, but maybe the lizard people don't experience time the same way that we do.

You might be unsurprised to learn that there are theories out there put forth seriously that are remarkably similar to that.

If I make a flat earth thread, would you pop in so can we talk more about horizon lines?

I think you should care enough to know the difference between metal and steel if you're going to spend years worth of posting on the subject.

But can we ditch the 911 stupidity and talk about the things you do care about?

NIST final report states 5.4 s for WTC7. Consistent with near free-fall. WTC 1 and 2 average 10 s (NIST data and seismic data) again consistent with near free-fall.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

[QUOTE=1&onlybillyshears;59224002]

NIST final report states 5.4 s for WTC7. Consistent with near free-fall. WTC 1 and 2 average 10 s (NIST data and seismic data) again consistent with near free-fall.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

What does this mean?

No, it most certainly does not. And anyone with eyes can see the WTC7 takes way longer than that.

The collapse clearly begins at about 2 seconds in this video and lasts to the end of it (be aware that you can't see most of the building because the bottom half is obscured by other buildings) and the portion that is visible still takes until 0:15 of the video to drop below the visibility line.

5.4 is hysterically inaccurate

You can watch this video to see how the collapse progressed from its initiation signaled by the dropping of the east penthouse at about :02 of the previous video:

There is no scenario where this can be called anything near 5 seconds.

Incidentally, you can watch at 6:07 of the video above to see things in freefall moving downwards at a MUCH faster rate than the building is collapsing. That alone demonstrates the building is collapsing much more slowly than freefall acceleration would indicate.

The "freefall therefore controlled demolition" argument is false from the very premise. And that completely ignores that it wouldn't follow even if the premise were true.

These are the official times for the collapse of each building. Slightly longer than predicted free-fall.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

They are not.

Apparently a truther website lied to you and you never bothered to verify it.

It took approximately 3 seconds to find the source of the lie:

Note that this is the time the full roofline took to drop 18 stories (WTC 7 was 47 stories). This wasn't even at the initiation of the collapse. And this part alone was calculated at 40% longer than freefall.

5.4 s is the near free-fall time for 18 floors of wtc7.
Wtc 1 and 2 average about 10 s each. That's 110 floors, practical free-fall.

Do you agree with these facts?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Since I'm the one that corrected you on this when you said it was the total collapse time, yes I agree with 5.4s for the roofline to fall 18 floors (a distance of 242 ft.). No, it is not near freefall, it is 40% longer. The entire collapse, which initiated with the collapse of the east penthouse, lasted FAR longer than 40% longer than free-fall (17.5 seconds).

Source? I don't remember the timings for the twin towers, but I do remember they were significantly longer than a free-falling object would've been (which should be obvious by watching free-falling objects go faster than the collapse in the videos)

Not without verification, no. I don't just trust you. You've already shown you don't verify the things you claim.

A cursory timing indicates MUCH longer than 10 seconds for WTC 1.

For instance, here is the collapse initiation at 0:03 seconds:

And here is 10 seconds later. The top of the collapse is still even with WTC 7's roofline, which is 47 stories from the ground, as we know.

The top of the collapse seems to reach the ground somewhere around 19-21 seconds in. Here is 20 seconds. Unclear if the top has reached the ground yet or not.

Going by this footage I would say the bare minimum collapse time is 16 seconds.

9/11 commission report pg 305.

South tower collapse in 10 s, they say.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

OK, WTC 1 is the north tower and I've demonstrated that it was at least 16 seconds. That doesn't look like an official declaration, just a description, so I wouldn't take it as gospel, but sure, let's look at WTC 2 now.

I will accept 16 s even though this contradicts the official report.

Fact one: wtc1 collapsed in 16 s.

Ready to progress?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk