If you are dumb, evil, ignorant, crazy enough to believe the USGOCT, you believe in miracles![W:461]

camlok said:

As always, no evidence for what are obviously racist lies.

Click to expand...

Did the Arabs have valid Visa's?

Thoreau72 said:

No Sunshine, what you offer are not facts at all.

Click to expand...

I assume you are talking to me. Can't tell since you don't quote anybody.

But I made two claims and that is it. The first one is that mild steel reaches its solidus at 1130°C and that we have been melting steel with fire for centuries.

So you don't believe those two things are fact?

They are government propaganda talking points, 16 years old now, and you are unable to prove a single one.

Click to expand...

so you believe that the history of smelting steel is government propaganda?

One could say all those claims and talking points you just regurgitated have been DEBUNKED.

Click to expand...

I only made two claims and they are factual to claim they were debunked would it mean that entire Industries are in on this conspiracy as well as the laws of physics.

Thoreau72 said:

You don't know fact from fiction

Click to expand...

so you're telling me that it's fiction that mild Steel reaches its eutectic phase at 1130°C? And it's also fiction that we've been melting steel with fire for centuries?

And I'm supposed to believe that I don't know fact from fiction?

and that sort of dullness is found in just about every post you make on this subject matter.

Click to expand...

Are you sure that's found in every single post that ever says that your conspiracy theory is just that.

camlok said:

You lie by omission by not addressing the scientific evidence of nanothermite found in WTC dust.

Click to expand...

No nanothermite was found, read the Jones paper found in vanity journal, pay to publish, no proper peer review. The paper shows no proof for nanothermite. The fake conclusion paper show their samples don't match nanothermite heat energy, how did they get less energy? The DSC does not match. Fake conclusion paper fools few. The big problem, you, Jones, and all of 9/11 truth have no evidence for thermite damage to any WTC steel.

nanothermite is a lie, no evidence of thermite damage on WTC steel - debunked again

camlok said:

You lie by omission by not addressing the scientific evidence of Eager and Musso on WTC temperatures.

Click to expand...

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
Eager and Musso say no CD, you debunked CD and nanothermite again. Do you realize using reality based sources found in fraud papers from 9/11 truth, debunk the 9/11 truth papers? No.

The Role of Metallurgy in the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Towers Collapse --- stuff which debunks... don't reference people who debunk your fantasy...

You failed to study Eagar and Musso, they warn against using baseless speculation like you do to form ideas, like your fantasy CD, nanothermite claims.

Eagar and Musso say it was fire, and debunk your CD claims. There is no evidence for CD.

camlok said:

You lie by omission by not addressing the scientific evidence of NIST on WTC temperatures.

Click to expand...

Source this claim, it makes no sense. NIST explains the heat energy from the office fires were equal to 2,700 tons of TNT up to collapse time. You can't produce one piece of WTC damaged by nanothermite.

camlok said:

You lie by omission by pretending that your newly discovered word of the day has some importance to the molten/vaporized WTC steel.

Click to expand...

There was no vaporized steel on 9/11. You offer zero evidence.

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-8452/403_apc.pdf corroded in fire, not vaporized. Go talk to a chemical engineer not in 9/11 truth for help on this topic. Big clue: nanothermite does not vaporize steel. We use thermite to weld train tracks together, if thermite vaporized steel, it could not be used to fuse tracks together, they would be vaporized. Did you try to look up anything beside crazy 9/11 truth claims. What temp does steel melt at? If you could vaporize some steel, now much nanothermite does it take; another fact you can't answer.

camlok said:

You lie by omission by not addressing the scientific evidence presented for the molten molybdenum and the vaporized lead.

Click to expand...

Where is your source for molten molybdenum and vaporized lead? RJ Lee said all the stuff he found is normal in fire at the WTC, and his data was collected after clean up at the WTC.

Go ahead, show the sources for this, and then explain why we can't find moly in the WTC due to light bulbs, and moly lubricants? Go ahead, explain what this means for the fantasy of CD. You failed to say how the moly was vaporized, or just melted? You failed to realize some things like rock wool would show levels of lead, and account for your vaporized lead. Show me some molten moly, and explain how it is evidence for your claims of CD/nanothermite.

What is the temperature of thermite burning? And moly melting?

What vaporized the molybdenum? What is the boiling point of molybdenum? BTW, nanothermite can't do it. You can't answer another question.

Now what, you can't explain how moly was vaporized, you can't explain what it means, and you failed to source any of your claims with valid evidence.

Please look up the boiling point of moly, it is a cool fact. Do you know what moly was used for? no

Sunzi said:

. . .

Click to expand...

Sunzi: So, the building starts to fall, and you make a claim with no sources, nothing.

Sadling: If you're talking about the accelerating speed of collapse, I provided a clear video to prove my claim.

Sunzi: Not surprised things on earth accelerate when falling.

Sadling: Sure, when there's no stationary structure of equal composition in its way resisting its fall.

Sunzi: gravity alone accounts for the speed and acceleration of collapse.

Sadling: Except when a mass of equal composition is in the path of the falling mass. That's the part you're in denial about.

Sunzi: The antenna is not perpendicular or in the z-plane when falling, it is tilting; thus your fake numbers don't add up.

Sadling: The fact that it is tilting toward the end of its drop doesn't take away from the fact that the upper block is accelerating through the mass below it. I count five seconds for the antenna to drop 360 feet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo

Sunzi: This is not evidence for anything but fire caused the collapse, and proof of gravity.

Sadling: I don't know where you come up with this stuff. There is no doubt in my mind that you understand that when one mass impacts another mass of equal composition, the mass in motion is slowed down. But that's not what we see in the video. We see the upper block passing through the lower block without even a jolt. And it does so before the antenna begins to tilt. The only way that can happen is if everything below it was falling at the same speed at the same time, which it wasn't. And you think that the tilting of the antenna toward the end of its drop somehow explains how the upper block passed through the lower stationary structure. Okay. Now I know your position.

Sadling said:

Sunzi: So, the building starts to fall, and you make a claim with no sources, nothing.

Sadling: If you're talking about the accelerating speed of collapse, I provided a clear video to prove my claim.

Sunzi: Not surprised things on earth accelerate when falling.

Sadling: Sure, when there's no stationary structure of equal composition in its way resisting its fall.

Sunzi: gravity alone accounts for the speed and acceleration of collapse.

Sadling: Except when a mass of equal composition is in the path of the falling mass. That's the part you're in denial about.

Sunzi: The antenna is not perpendicular or in the z-plane when falling, it is tilting; thus your fake numbers don't add up.

Sadling: The fact that it is tilting toward the end of its drop doesn't take away from the fact that the upper block is accelerating through the mass below it. I count five seconds for the antenna to drop 360 feet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo

Sunzi: This is not evidence for anything but fire caused the collapse, and proof of gravity.

Sadling: I don't know where you come up with this stuff. There is no doubt in my mind that you understand that when one mass impacts another mass of equal composition, the mass in motion is slowed down. But that's not what we see in the video. We see the upper block passing through the lower block without even a jolt. And it does so before the antenna begins to tilt. The only way that can happen is if everything below it was falling at the same speed at the same time, which it wasn't. And you think that the tilting of the antenna toward the end of its drop somehow explains how the upper block passed through the lower stationary structure. Okay. Now I know your position.

Click to expand...

You mention jolt, and can't describe how long a jolt will last as the upper mass destroys the next floor; how long does it take for the velocity of the impact mass on the next floor take to reach the velocity of impact? Did you even think to do the work to see why you don't have a jolt? The fact is the speed and time of collapse confirm it was a gravity collapse, and the below g acceleration average is the proof. Physics.

You offer opinion when you need geometry, math and physics.

You watch a video, claim to measure distance, but provided no facts and evidence to support your claim. How do you know it was 360 feet? Do you have the original video?
Where is your analysis, you got hearsay, your opinion, no calculations, no details. What is the distance for each pixel?

What speed and acceleration should a the building fall at? As expect, no answer.

What you post, is not evidence for your claims. Where is the explosive, why no damage to WTC steel by thermite.

The upper mass does not pass through lower floors, it makes them fail nearly instantly. The lower floor can't stop the upper mass. A fact you and 9/11 truth ignore.

A floor in the WTC fails above 29,000,000 pounds, and you ignore that fact, and the fact the upper floors are more than 29,000,000 pounds. Do the math.

CLAX1911 said:

so you're telling me that it's fiction that mild Steel reaches its eutectic phase at 1130°C? And it's also fiction that we've been melting steel with fire for centuries?

And I'm supposed to believe that I don't know fact from fiction?


Are you sure that's found in every single post that ever says that your conspiracy theory is just that.

Click to expand...

It's funny seeing him talk about fiction.He believes in the magic mini-nuke nonsense.

zyzygy said:

It's funny seeing him talk about fiction.He believes in the magic mini-nuke nonsense.

Click to expand...

Real leprechaun thermite he got magical mini nukes you got Illuminati brain waves Martian ray guns Bigfoot farts, and Loch Ness Monster mind control.

I suppose if we're going to suggest all things are possible that these things could be possible but extremely remote.

Occam's razor says that the most likely thing to happen is likely what happened.

Something about steel is first it's an alloy and it reaches what's known as a eutectic phase at which it is partially melted. If you were to hit it with a hammer at this point you wouldn't be forging it it would simply splatter. Alloys in the process of heating have a eutectic phase if they are not similar ingrain structure or melting temperature.

Iron aluminum gold Elemental metals that are not allies go from a solid phase to a liquid phase in an instant there is no eutectic phase.

So to say that it has to be a certain temperature to completely melt an alloy like Steel, Particularly bringing it out of the eutectic phase into a liquid, is not understanding the thermal process of melting Steel.

I'm sorry to ramble about it I am learning a lot right now and it is fascinating to me.

I know you don't need convincing.

Here is something.

Sunzi said:

The upper mass does not pass through lower floors, it makes them fail nearly instantly. The lower floor can't stop the upper mass.

Click to expand...

Sure, Sunzi. When a certain sized mass hits another mass of the same composition but much bigger, the smaller mass will bust right through it as if the larger mass wasn't there. Sure.

To further point out the recklessness of your thinking, you talk about the floors collapsing without any regard for the core structure when the core structure was designed to hold up the floors. Your theory supposes that that the floors were what was holding up the core structure. Your theory also is identical to the "pancake theory." Is that what you're pushing here? Because you know, the pancake theory has been debunked.

So once again you repeat your failure to take into account the resistance capacity of the structure below the impact zone. In your mind, the lower structure is a cause that has no effect. Now how reasonable is that?

Re: Here is something.

Sadling said:

Sure, Sunzi. When a certain sized mass hits another mass of the same composition but much bigger, the smaller mass will bust right through it as if the larger mass wasn't there. Sure.

To further point out the recklessness of your thinking, you talk about the floors collapsing without any regard for the core structure when the core structure was designed to hold up the floors. Your theory supposes that that the floors were what was holding up the core structure. Your theory also is identical to the "pancake theory." Is that what you're pushing here? Because you know, the pancake theory has been debunked.

So once again you repeat your failure to take into account the resistance capacity of the structure below the impact zone. In your mind, the lower structure is a cause that has no effect. Now how reasonable is that?

Click to expand...

The next lower floor of the WTC is not larger than the upper mass it is much smaller.

You missed it, the floors in the WTC towers do not hold up anything but themselves. The floor below fails, the first floor hit by the upper mass fails almost instantly, and because the collapse is chaotic, your missing jolt is averaged out. If you studied the collapse you would see deviations in the acceleration and velocity as each floor is hit.

You can't define the velocity change as each floor is destroyed, but the average velocity of collapse, is due to each floor failing, and slowing the collapse.

The floors below the initial collapse zone are not bigger than the mass coming down. The collapse after initiation is driven by floors failing because they are overloaded.

Once again, a floor only holds up itself, the core and the shell hold up 110 floors, the floors hold up themselves. Look at the WTC plans. The connections of each floor are to the core and shell, nothing else. This is why once started, the collapse continues, because each floor fails above 29,000,000 pounds. Each floor might be equal to 2,500,000 pounds, loaded plus the weight of the floor itself. The WTC was extremely strong as a system of floors, core, and shell. The collapse caused the floor below the initiation to fail, and then the next; we can see the overwhelming mass rip apart the shell, and the core can't stand if the shell is disconnected from it.

If you don't understand the facts, get help from a non-911 truth engineer.


The floor connections to the core fail, you could calculate by connection the kips per connection, and see the floor failed, no matter how much the core and shell can hold, the floor connections failed. You are ignoring facts. For over 16 years.

This is simple math, math 9/11 truth refuses to do, to keep a fantasy of CD. 19 terrorists did 9/11, a fact figured out by Flight 93 passengers first, and rational people right after. Math - what 9/11 truth refuses to do. Take the connections to the shell and core of a typical WTC floor, and you will see the truth of why the collapse continues; math, a first grade concept.

Imagine, in minutes Flight 93 passengers figured out 9/11. The pilots were killed in the cockpit of Flight 93, screaming on ATC freq. Flight 93 Passengers talked to people on seat back phones, and in minutes figured out the hijacking was fake, and they took action. Whereas, you know for sure, you are positive 9/11 was an inside job, and you have done nothing, and you don't what to study the floors of the WTC to see they fail when the upper section falls down, one by one. Can you add up the connection, how much each holds, and see the floor fails due to overwhelming mass, floor by floor.

Re: Here is something.

Sunzi said:

The next lower floor of the WTC is not larger than the upper mass it is much smaller.

You missed it, the floors in the WTC towers do not hold up anything but themselves. The floor below fails, the first floor hit by the upper mass fails almost instantly, and because the collapse is chaotic, your missing jolt is averaged out. If you studied the collapse you would see deviations in the acceleration and velocity as each floor is hit.

Click to expand...

And once again here you go talking about the floors pancaking when the pancake theory has been debunked by even NIST.

". . . jolt is averaged out"? What in hell does that mean. Watch the video. There's no jolt--averaged out or otherwise. I think you need to do some serious research into the core structure to find out just how silly your speculation is. Even NIST didn't attempt to explain what was observed; they described things up to the point of collapse, and then don't explain a damn thing about the collapse, which is kind of strange since that's what they said their report would do. You should send them your pancake theory. And then you'd learn the hard way that it's not relevant anymore.

Now for the fourth or fifth time, stop trying to push the idea that the intact core structure below the impact zone was a cause without an effect. It makes you look like you believe in magic.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And just so everyone can judge for themselves, they can look at the video from the 1:12 mark and see what you refer to as a "jolt averaged out."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo

Re: Here is something.

Sadling said:

And once again here you go talking about the floors pancaking when the pancake theory has been debunked by even NIST.

". . . jolt is averaged out"? What in hell does that mean. Watch the video. There's no jolt--averaged out or otherwise. I think you need to do some serious research into the core structure to find out just how silly your speculation is. Even NIST didn't attempt to explain what was observed; they described things up to the point of collapse, and then don't explain a damn thing about the collapse, which is kind of strange since that's what they said their report would do. You should send them your pancake theory. And then you'd learn the hard way that it's not relevant anymore.

Now for the fourth or fifth time, stop trying to push the idea that the intact core structure below the impact zone was a cause without an effect. It makes you look like you believe in magic.

Click to expand...

The initial collapse was not pancaking, NIST clearly explains this concept of why the collapse continued. It is super ironic you use NIST to support stuff you failed to calculate or study. Irony. You debunk yourself, using NIST to attack my claim is silly, since NIST is the source of the data. Guess you failed to read NIST, guess 10,000 pages are too much to read; and might destroy the fantasy of CD.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation You did not read the faqs, which you can't debunk.

oops, NIST says the floor fails due to be overloaded.

Why is this not pancaking collapse. Because the initiation is not due to floor failure, the propagation of collapse is due to floor failure. Did you study NIST? No.

For the nth time, the core and shell hold up floors; the floors fail when too much mass is placed on them. If you place carefully more than 29,000,000 pounds on a WTC floor, it fails. If the mass is moving, only 5 floors of mass is required to make a lower floor fail, almost instantly.

Can you add up the connections for a floor, even NIST could, why can't you?

Re: Here is something.

Sunzi said:

The initial collapse was not pancaking, NIST clearly explains this concept of why the collapse continued.

oops, NIST says the floor fails due to be overloaded.

Click to expand...

NIST says:

". . . floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers."

So, according to NIST, the floors sagged and pulled the perimeter columns inward, which led to collapse. I know that that probably satisfies you, but that's not very detailed if you ask me. But anyway, you're now of the opinion that the floor connections were not strong enough to keep the floors from disconnecting from the core and perimeter columns and falling, but were also strong enough to drag the core down with it. That's a contradictory position. How do you intend to adjust your thinking to resolve that conflict?

Re: Here is something.

Sadling said:

NIST says:

". . . floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers."

So, according to NIST, the floors sagged and pulled the perimeter columns inward, which led to collapse. I know that that probably satisfies you, but that's not very detailed if you ask me. But anyway, you're now of the opinion that the floor connections were not strong enough to keep the floors from disconnecting from the core and perimeter columns and falling, but were also strong enough to drag the core down with it. That's a contradictory position. How do you intend to adjust your thinking to resolve that conflict?

Click to expand...

Yes, the truss connection to the shell could pull in the shell, and there is evidence. But the floors connections to the core were destoryed, and the floors fail, without the shell for lateral support the core was subject to the caotice collapse mass damaging the core, and the same mass was ripping up the shell in large sections. The collapse due to gravity was equal to more than 100 2,000 pound bombs, which you ignore.

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/05/09/6McAllister.pdf
oops, evidence, which is ignored

And studies to support the claim. It is engineering, aka science.
https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstr...d=2E11EE7EACAC8A045D769A7B73482629?sequence=1

Did you watch the videos, the core was still standing after the floors were gone.

Yes, you figured out how the WTC began to collapse, then the collapse continued because the floor failed after initiation. This is clear, and you can see this happened. And No Steel was damaged by explosives or thermite. Are you the mini-nuke fantasy?

The core can't stand without the shell connected to it by the floors. Do you understand the structure of the WTC, no because you don't understand why the floors failed after collapse initiation. The shell was the lateral support for the WTC. You can look it up.

It is like you don't know anything about the structure of the WTC.
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101043
You failed to do more than make up lies about 9/11, and failed to study the WTC tower to understand your claims are bogus.

Re: Here is something.

Sadling said:

NIST says:

". . . floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers."

So, according to NIST, the floors sagged and pulled the perimeter columns inward, which led to collapse. I know that that probably satisfies you, but that's not very detailed if you ask me. But anyway, you're now of the opinion that the floor connections were not strong enough to keep the floors from disconnecting from the core and perimeter columns and falling, but were also strong enough to drag the core down with it. That's a contradictory position. How do you intend to adjust your thinking to resolve that conflict?

Click to expand...

Have you ever read a detailed controlled demolition explanation? If so, would you provide a link to it.

imo, NIST has done a more detailed description of the building failure than any other author proposing a controlled demolition explanation. It seems reasonable for NIST to describe a probable scenario rather than absolutes. No one knows for sure the extent of the internal damage done by the crash/impact and resulting fires.

camlok said:

Post #556 shows that you are lying. I wrote,

Originally Posted by camlok
Exactly, so what. Stuff falling on a building cannot induce free fall. There is only one thing known to mankind that can cause free fall in a steel framed high rise and that is controlled demolition. Case closed, james.

We were discussing WTC7. To which you replied,

jamesrage: Its called nearly 200 ton plane slamming into the building between 500 to 600 miles an hour and those stuff landing on surrounding buildings.

Click to expand...

Debris from a sky scrapper collapsing due to a nearly 200 ton plane slamming into the building between 500 to 600 miles an hour.

camlok said:

Now that is clearly USGOCT conspiracy loon crap. Are you suggesting that we take your uninformed posts about the plane strikes as evidence that is better, more informed, more knowledgeable than the original designers of the twin towers?



A little hint. Simply repeating something over and over and over doesn't help to make it true. That is not how evidence works.

Click to expand...

Birther-tard Truffer-tard nonsense is not evidence.Posting truffer-tard nonsense over and over again is not evidence.

Many planes have hit buildings that WERE NOT specifically designed for such an event and they are still standing.

Click to expand...

Then post the videos of those sky scrappers that are still standing today after having a nearly 200 ton plane slam into at 500 to 500 miles an hour.

Click to expand...

camlok said:

Still trolling I see.

Why are you ignoring the US proprietary nanothermite that was found in WTC dust?

Why are you ignoring the by products of that US proprietary nanothermite that was found in WTC dust?

Why are you ignoring the molten/vaporized WTC structural steel that came from WTCs 1, 2 & 7 that was caused by the US proprietary nanothermite when the three towers were blown up?

Click to expand...

The claims of birther-tards truffer-tards of there being proprietary nanothermite at the scene is not evidence that there actually was any there. There was no theremite dust found.