The OP is misleading you. You don't need to reach melting temperature to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
What floors were on fire? Those explosives can be placed at the bottom by the support beams or in the basement. Where there is no fire. I don't know what happened for sure but that's just common sense
How do you demo a building while its on fire? Im no conspiracy person, but watch how that thing falls. It intentionally implodes on itself like a controlled demo. You cant just point a demolition gun at the building and make it fall perfectly like that. These buildings are not constructed with backup demolition systems in them.
That's why WTC7 is the smoking gun. They would have had to have had the explosives already placed in the building, there's no way around this fact. Once you understand that, all the other dominoes can fall. I recommend watching Part II from the documentary Zeitgeist, titled All The World's A Stage.
Israel planted the explosives they purchased from Saudi Arabia in order to attack the enemies of Saudi Arabia for mooney
That's what the entire war was for, nothing else
Also we dump old bombs on civilians to lower their population numbers in a controller manner, well also getting rid of old shit that would've cost more to destroy, so it was literally cheaper to waste them on civilians
The "implosion" is explained by the fire modeling and by other cases of steel buildings collapsing. Such fires are an uncommon event but in the last few decades there were several examples.
The fire burns uncontrollably through the interior, with the fire suppression system out of water due to the main being cut off from prior events. In a few hours the fire resistant materials expire and the temperature of the beams and columns reaches a point where they start to distort - as they distort the bolts start failing from the unbalanced loads, and entire sections drop.
The interior collapses first, as seen from the fuil WTC-7 video, and after the interior collapses (with the roof structure visible falling through), a few seconds later the outer envelope, now unsupported, starts sheering off and collapsing upon itself.
The OP is misleading you. You can run up a furnace to very high temperatures just by having a hole that air rushes through (with a fan, or wind). You don't need to reach 2700 to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
Not only is the steel weakened by fire (hence fire protection), fire warps structures such as trusses. First they expand and push out against walls, then they sag down. Trusses rely heavily on the geometry to carry loads. It's a cost effective, but sensitive structure.
I mean, it’s seems like a much more obvious interpretation of “pull it”—when talking to the fire chief in charge of the operation to fight the fire—to PULL THE EFFORT/OPERATION AIMING TO STOP THE FIRE.
Or was he telling the fire chief to detonate demolition charges?!
Ok so, if they pulled the firefighters why did the building collapse. Jones points out clearly that no modern steel skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire even when fully engulfed for days on end.
Fire can't collapse steel beam skyscrapers it has never happened before or since...
Madrid windsor tower fire. Every steel framed floor collapsed completely. The remains you see on the photos is precisely the concrete core and lower concrete framed floors; the steel framed floors collapsed even with a concrete core.
Even single story steel constructions regularly fail in fire. In particularly trusses. The WTC buildings were built around the concept of an inner core and an outer "skin" of beams with long trusses suspending floors inbetween. This is outright terrible for fire safety and very few buildings were ever built like that.
In demolitions context pulling a building means precisely one thing and that is attaching long wires to a building and pulling it over with bulldozers.
How retarded do you have to be, to not only pretend the evil firefighters blew up the building, but that the ringleader thought it would be a good idea to openly admit to it on television?
FYI you sound like Ilhan Omar when you post this shit. Defending terrorists.
Pulling a building never meant using explosives. It literally means to pull it over. Bulldozers and chains or wires. It makes zero sense in this context.
That wasn't anyone's point here you misinterpreted someone.
What everyone is saying is that the explosives had to be rigged in advance. The video clearly shows a building collapse at free fall speeds as a whole unit.
If it were brought down by fire (which has never happened before or since with steel skyscrapers) it would not be in perfect unison.
One part would have burned before the rest of the building. It wouldn't all come down at once like that.
Derp the Reptillian Jews planted explosives to bring it down Derp and they went on TV to admit they did it Derp Because Islam is the religion of peace and it must have been the evil firefighters who did it Derp
"That wasn't anyone's point"
It's the title of the post. You terrorist apologists are seriously retarded. The title of the post claims he went on TV to admit he blew up the building. Are you actually clinically retarded? Have you been tested?
Oh wow someone who religiously repeats the MSM story calling me a retard. I'm so hurt.
You still are failling reading comprehension holy shit man.
Goat fuckers didn't comeup with this plan.
How come they did it once then never again? Was it the security state you proudly defend as it strips your rights? Did they forget how to pull this off?
The Jew Reptilians did it to frame the religion of peace, and then they admitted they did it on TV just because they thought that would be funny and nobody would notice. And if you're smart enough to not take that delusional goofy nonsense seriously, it's because you just believe everything the government says.
You don't need to compare this to Omar, when you can compare it to the "Q".
Their most recent propaganda and misdirection campaign failed, so now they want to revert to old demolished theories to further discredit this movement.
NIST explanation back in 2009, it was further corraborated by other fires in other countries that produced similar results. Uncontrolled fires in steel structure buildings are very rare, but since 9/11 there were several others.
It's a futile effort unfortunately. These types of conspiracy theorists are in it for the escapist fantasy. It's religion for them. You can't use logic to debunk faith based delusion.
Most of these people aren't even aware that the building was damaged by flaming wreckage and debris crushing one side of the building in. They make an effort to avoid facts and reality, in order to protect the silly shit they want to believe.
"And we made the decision to pull"... and magically, what normally takes weeks or even months of planning and preparation was done with the snap of their fingers.... and demolitions appeared in place with a blink of the eye and the building, which never had a plane hit it and in which the fires had already been brought under control, fell at free fall speed into its own, tidy little footprint...
And you wonder why? Look up what was housed in Building 7.
Pulling a building means pulling it over with wires. No building was ever "pulled" with an implosion. There's only one context that makes sense, to pull the plug/pull out the fire fighters and just let it burn.
The OP is misleading you. You don't need to reach melting temperature to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
The OP is misleading you. You don't need to reach melting temperature to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
Pulling a building refers to literally attaching wires to it and draging it down with a bulldozer and is obscure demolitions lingo. It is obvious that he meant pull out the fire fighters.
Sorry - this is nonsense. I was in a SOF unit before and after 9/11. We sent breachers up there to help clear the debris. They are explosive experts. These are my brothers who I trust a great deal. Trust me, this was radical Islam, not some conspiracy. Having worked in the gov't for nearly 24 years, I will also tell you that nobody in the a US government, especially the Intel Community, can keep a secret for very long. That's why we now know that they are coming after conservatives despite their obvious attempts at secrecy.
The OP is misleading you. You don't need to reach melting temperature to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
One of the main idiocies of the 9/11 truth "movement" is the idea that a building would be strong enough to do anything but "fall into its foot print". It's not a log; it relies on steel beams being straight and restrained in place and the load being predominately straight in the direction of gravity with just some wind loads. If you lean a building like that over 10 degrees, it collapses. You see that e.g. on the WTC1 and 2 collapses, where the outer beams are warped by trusses expanding and contracting in the fire and when it eventually fails on one side, it does start to rotate; after a little bit of rotation it can no longer hold and the top pieces just pancakes down into the building.
"And it fell into it's own footprint" so much that debris sprayed across a city block, causing a ten story tall massive gouge in WTC7.
The OP is misleading you. You can run up a furnace to very high temperatures just by having a hole that air rushes through (with a fan, or wind). You don't need to reach 2700 to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
The OP is misleading you. You don't need to reach melting temperature to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
I'm talking purely from a perspective of emergency preparation. I would have the ability to rapidly bring down buildings in a controlled fashion in my toolkit.
It's not something people often like to think about. It's counter intuitive but for example captains of warships will have contingencies to scuttle their ships in certain scenarios. Sometimes a pet has to be put down.
When you balance all the risks there are situations where you might want to bring down the buildings or a building in a controlled fashion in a chaotic situation rather than an uncontrolled collapse.
This is compounded by that some system design will have the buildings collapse in a controlled fashion as well.
The issue here isn't if it happened or not but that it might not be as unusual as people might assume. Nor does it strictly mean the whole thing was a hoax.
There would be other reasons they might want to suppress certain information. If it was something that happened with inside help orchestrating the whole thing is unnecessary when all you need to do is let your guard down which has plausible deniability.
An insider may have also known about the building's tolerances and designs. It may be a matter of national security that many buildings are designed to not take as much damage as possible and to keep standing but have a system almost like fuses where if they are sufficiently damaged they are designed to "degrade elegantly".
You always have to go back to basics. If they might have brought some of them down then why?
Yes. You had 2 jets crash into buildings, stripping the support structure of its heat resistant coating, after which the pools of jet fuel burned, heating the underlying metal until it softened enough to no longer be able to bear the weight of the structure (far below the full melting point and replicated multiple times now) causing the collapse. These things did so much damage to the adjacent building 7 that it also collapsed.
Have you ever actually done research into the reports that thoroughly debunk nonsense like this video?
I have and I've read your theory front to back. I'm not even disputing you. Regardless what you think caused it or what you think of the conspiracy theorists, what do you think about what Larry Silverstein said in that video? How do you address that? Is it a deep fake, clever edit, taken out of context, etc.
See point 1. Not even a misstatement. He simply meant to withdraw the firefighters and watch the building collapse from the structural and fire damage.
Madrid windsor hotell fire. Every single floor that was steel framed collapsed. Left is only concrete core and lower concrete framed floors. This was a much stronger construction than WTC with it's large floors suspended between an inner core and outer "skin" on massive amounts of trusses that are nutorious for failing in a fire.
Why even bother to have fire protection on steel in your world?
That building was engulfed on every single floor from the videos I see of it. Maybe the bottom few weren't but, building 7 wasn't anywhere close to burning like that.
Pulling a building in demolitions lingo means pulling it down with wires. Did you see an army of bulldozers pulling WTC7 over with wires somehow attached by helicopters to WTC7?
"To pull" in every day language can mean pulling out/pulling the plug.
What do you think he meant? Obscure and impractical demolitions lingo or ordinary every day language?
Honest question, how does a jet strip a coating? How then would that one section where the jet fuel was burning then soften the steel so many floors below that the building would collapse like an implosion? I would think that much like the videos of which you speak it would cause the building to lean and topple like a melting candlestick instead of spontaneously implode right into it's own footprint. Just some honest curiosity. I don't know one way or the other but I have a brain and logic and I've never understood this.
How do you think a jet slamming into I-beams covered in basically spray foam would strip that coating off? Seems self explanatory.
Further, you had that specific floor fail, which allowed the weight of the entire rest of the upper portion of the building to drop a full story, smashing into the the floor two stories below, causing a cascading failure as that massive upper weight dropped and slammed into each consecutive floor going down, made easier since the floors were basically a large hollow tube with a central pillar of elevators, with the floors stacked like pancakes on a stick inside a tube. Once one floor failed and the entire upper portion of the building fell and slammed into the lower one, it just pancaked as it fell, basically into the opening of the tube below, which in turn damaged the buildings around it, etc.
From the NIST study;
Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where 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. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
I appreciate the reply. I'll read into all that. I've always been very open minded about the whole thing. I just want to know the facts. A lot of Americans were extinguished that day.
I was at the WTC a few months before it happened, in March of 2001. I have pictures of my friends and I in the towers and in front of building 7. I had another friend that was in the towers when the attack happened and barely made it out alive, and who went on TV afterward to promote tolerance (he was a Pakistani Muslim himself.)
I actually somewhat believed the 9/11 conspiracies myself for a bit after watching movies like Zeitgeist and seeing a lot of conspiracy theorist videos etc. But when I actually started doing more serious research the whole thing just fell apart, just like the claims that the moon landings never happen. They can sound convincing if you're only hearing one side of the story, but as soon as you do any serious research into more credible sources, the theories just completely fall apart and the actual facts make much more obvious sense.
As I side note, I went back to NY in March of 2002 and it was miserable. The smell was in the air, the city was quiet, etc... I didn't go down to that end of town and have never been back to NY since.
NIST video of WTC 7 is also useful, since "truthers" keep clinging to the edited video they have of the collapse (where they often edit out the initial sequence where the roof is seen disappearing first, just like in other steel structure fires since)
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
They don't have to melt, they just have to weaken below capacity, warping sagging, and putting loads on connection points that they are not designed to take.
Have you taken any courses in Structural Engineering?
Consider "Simplified Mechanics and Strength of Materials" by James Ambrose.
The OP is misleading you. You can run up a furnace to very high temperatures just by having a hole that air rushes through (with a fan, or wind). You don't need to reach 2700 to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
A average office fire reaches 900 degrees C at the ceiling (where the fire sensitive trusses are). 600 degrees C is enough to cut the strength of structural steel in half.
There's a reason everyone since ever building tall steel framed buildings spends an inordinate amount of consideration on sprinkler systems and fire protection.
The OP is misleading you. You don't need to reach melting temperature to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
What is the burning temperature of jet A fuel at standard atmospheric oxygen levels?
Ok, now what is the re-crystallization temperature point of structural steel? (I will even leave out any 'heat resistant coatings' bs)
Finally, if you can describe how glowing red hot steel beams were pulled from the ground (a non-oxygen rich environment) months after claimed jet-A fuel fire, then we can start having an engineering discussion on how 4digit celsius temperatures might have been reached.
The i-beams were supposed to be coated with a spray on asbestos coating but this was only used on lower floors and replaced with some other foam stuff half-way through construction. There are pictures and testimony from before 9/11 that whatever spray on stuff they were using on higher floors was barely holding onto the i-beams as is without a ~50 tonne aircraft hitting it at 3/4 the speed of sound.
Steel expands when heated and contracts when cooled. It loses much of its strength when hot. The WTC1 and 2 buildings used an inner core of vertical I-beams and an outer "hull" of vertical i-beams. The floors were suspended between those with trusses. Trusses are notorious for failing in fires. They expand when heated, pushing on whatever they are attached to, then they sag down and warp. As they are cooled, the contract and pull on whatever they are attached to.
Buildings are design to bear a large vertical load from gravity and much smaller wind forces trying to tug the building laterally in different directions. They are not designed to withstand large impacts or off-axis forces.
You can look at what happens when WTC1 and 2 collapses. they were both filmed from many angles. The outer columns bow very significantly shortly before collapse. The floors and their trusses that keep them straight are mostly missing or collapsed. When it collapses, the top section starts to rotate, but after 5-10 degrees or so, the other side of the building cannot hold and the top section of the building just smashes all the way down.
Put your foot on the floor and put a bowling ball balanced on your foot. No problem right? Now imagine dropping a bowling ball from 1 story onto your foot. Why do you end up in the doctors office in the latter care and not the former? The bowling ball fell for ~500 ms and picked up a speed of ~5 m/s. As it impacts your foot, your foot can only flex a couple of cm before bones start breaking. Being very generous your foot will decelerate the ball fully in less than 10 ms. The force it takes to do that is >50 times as large because it has to achieve the same thing in <1/50th the time. Why would WTC be built with a safety factor of 50, so that a floor could withstand having 20 floors above it fall 1 floor onto the floors below it? It had a safety factor of a few at most and it even that assumes beams are straight.
Having WTC fall like a log would require it to have extremely excessive strength against bending forces. Actual WTC would buckle and fail after single-digit degrees of tilt. After it does, how does it fall? In which direction is gravity acting?
The rubble smouldered for weeks. It is not correct to say there was no oxygen in the rubble pile. It is also very well insulated. See e.g. the centralia mine fire; which has been burning since the 1960's. Why is this coal seam slowly burning with not obvious air inlet and no way to put it out?
I'll post this for you too - since you are just repeating from the 'official report' - I am trying to get you to actually think about it.
The official election results from 2020 show biden winning the electoral college. Not just winning, getting more votes than any president before him.... think about that, really think about that.
Now, this rare never before seen jet fuel soaked tower failure has occurred twice in the same day on two buildings. (However, the hijackers 'jet fuel soaked passport' is found undamaged on the sidewalk.)
Now building 7 falls in the exact same manner as planes that damaged fire suppression system and "asbestos cover steel beams" of the world trade towers- please explain how these rare never before seen circumstances made building 7 fall in the exact same way!?
(Also, I don't need any middle school physics bowling ball analogies clumsily trying to explain kinetic energy and impulse force, way undershooting your audience here bud.)
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
CLEAR CUT!?! You are copy and pasting from the 'official report' - I am trying to get you to actually think about it.
The official election results from 2020 show biden winning the electoral college. Not just winning, getting more votes than any president before him.... think about that, really think about that.
OK, so we are onto both towers fell perfectly onto their footprint due to "burning rugs, curtains, furniture and paper" (according to you and the .gov).
Now, this rare never before seen jet fuel soaked tower failure has occurred twice in the same day on two buildings. (However, the hijackers 'jet fuel soaked passport' is found undamaged on the sidewalk.)
Now building 7 falls in the exact same manner as planes that damaged fire suppression system and "asbestos cover steel beams" of the world trade towers- please explain how these rare never before seen circumstances made building 7 fall in the exact same way!?
It's in the report. You have two identical buildings hit by two identical jets, the only difference being floor height, and as such hold up different amounts of time after the impacts (about an hour for one, and an hour and a half for the other), but both fall, and both fall at different speeds in direct correlation to the amount of weight above the impact point when the failure begins. These two impacts each do severe damage to building 7 and start internal fires, which unlike buildings 1 and 2, burned for over 7 hours before its collapse due to the combination of structural damage and fire damage.
Yes, it's pretty clear cut if you actually take the time to read the reports. They did extensive testing to see if claims about explosives were even plausible, etc. They did their due diligence.
This report says "The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building."
You don't need to reach melting temperature to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
Here is the NIST story about WTC7: https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc
Myles Power made a video about WTC7: https://youtu.be/7PpsCCTMP8w
I don't endorse him on other topics, but this particular video is good.
EDIT: You can see how a furnace is built on the Primitive Technology channel. It requires insulation, a source of air, and combustible material - all things the rubble contained. NYC is riddled with tunnels, so the air supply is not a problem. The building provided both insulation and material to burn.
The OP is misleading you. You can run up a furnace to very high temperatures just by having a hole that air rushes through (with a fan, or wind). You don't need to reach 2700 to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
WTC 7 The building's design emphasizes safety, with a reinforced concrete core, wider stairways, and thicker fireproofing on steel columns. meaning if fire caused the collapse the sides would have fallen off first also the fire would have been visible. edit: it obvious to anyone that knows basic building materials and a little construction that WTC 7 was pulled on purpose. the reason we know not. if it was fire how did they get charges in place? maybe they where already in place who knows. that's why its a debated topic.
For real this get old. Have people even seen the amount of preparation it takes to control demo a building like that? It would probably take at least two years just to strip and prep the building. Drilling and wiring of the charges to break apart support points. Literally miles of wiring and a huge amount of explosives. It's just not possible to do that in a building that is being used everyday without someone noticing something is going on.
Not only that. But there is also the complete lack of deafening explosions. This is what a large building implosion sounds like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U
Pulling a building also does not mean imploding a building with explosives. It means literally attaching wires to it and pulling it over with bulldozers.
The OP is misleading everyone. You don't need to reach melting temperature to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
This thread is an effort to derail from real issues and turn the movement away from election fraud and the real conspiracy as outlined in the TIme article.
Double indemnity clause for terrorism. What a coinkydink.
The OP is misleading you. You don't need to reach melting temperature to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
Here is the NIST story about WTC7: https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc
Myles Power made a video about WTC7: https://youtu.be/7PpsCCTMP8w
I don't endorse him on other topics, but this particular video is good.
No, I know enough about physics, demolition, gravity, and crime to recognize what happened. I'll believe my lying eyes, thank you.
Stein.
you are a true word smith good sir.
holy fuck i wish i could sticky amazing replies haha
I before E except 4 da juice.
There are 3 things that are certain in life. Stein, Berg, and Early life section.
Its amazing how perfectly WTC7 fell directly into its own footprint.
Because it was demoed as a fire stop.
While it was on fire, all the demolition people ran in and set the explosives really quickly to then demolish a lightly burned structure.
Sounds plausible 🤡
What floors were on fire? Those explosives can be placed at the bottom by the support beams or in the basement. Where there is no fire. I don't know what happened for sure but that's just common sense
How do you demo a building while its on fire? Im no conspiracy person, but watch how that thing falls. It intentionally implodes on itself like a controlled demo. You cant just point a demolition gun at the building and make it fall perfectly like that. These buildings are not constructed with backup demolition systems in them.
That's why WTC7 is the smoking gun. They would have had to have had the explosives already placed in the building, there's no way around this fact. Once you understand that, all the other dominoes can fall. I recommend watching Part II from the documentary Zeitgeist, titled All The World's A Stage.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwbMo7D8z9w
Israel planted the explosives they purchased from Saudi Arabia in order to attack the enemies of Saudi Arabia for mooney
That's what the entire war was for, nothing else
Also we dump old bombs on civilians to lower their population numbers in a controller manner, well also getting rid of old shit that would've cost more to destroy, so it was literally cheaper to waste them on civilians
The "implosion" is explained by the fire modeling and by other cases of steel buildings collapsing. Such fires are an uncommon event but in the last few decades there were several examples.
The fire burns uncontrollably through the interior, with the fire suppression system out of water due to the main being cut off from prior events. In a few hours the fire resistant materials expire and the temperature of the beams and columns reaches a point where they start to distort - as they distort the bolts start failing from the unbalanced loads, and entire sections drop.
The interior collapses first, as seen from the fuil WTC-7 video, and after the interior collapses (with the roof structure visible falling through), a few seconds later the outer envelope, now unsupported, starts sheering off and collapsing upon itself.
Here is the NIST story about WTC7: https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc
Myles Power made a video about WTC7: https://youtu.be/7PpsCCTMP8w
I don't endorse him on other topics, but this particular video is good.
The OP is misleading you. You can run up a furnace to very high temperatures just by having a hole that air rushes through (with a fan, or wind). You don't need to reach 2700 to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
Here is the NIST story about WTC7: https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc
Myles Power made a video about WTC7: https://youtu.be/7PpsCCTMP8w
I don't endorse him on other topics, but this particular video is good.
Not only is the steel weakened by fire (hence fire protection), fire warps structures such as trusses. First they expand and push out against walls, then they sag down. Trusses rely heavily on the geometry to carry loads. It's a cost effective, but sensitive structure.
So stay away from buildings owned by Larry Silverstein.
I mean, it’s seems like a much more obvious interpretation of “pull it”—when talking to the fire chief in charge of the operation to fight the fire—to PULL THE EFFORT/OPERATION AIMING TO STOP THE FIRE.
Or was he telling the fire chief to detonate demolition charges?!
<facepalm> So stupid.
Ok so, if they pulled the firefighters why did the building collapse. Jones points out clearly that no modern steel skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire even when fully engulfed for days on end.
Fire can't collapse steel beam skyscrapers it has never happened before or since...
Madrid windsor tower fire. Every steel framed floor collapsed completely. The remains you see on the photos is precisely the concrete core and lower concrete framed floors; the steel framed floors collapsed even with a concrete core.
Even single story steel constructions regularly fail in fire. In particularly trusses. The WTC buildings were built around the concept of an inner core and an outer "skin" of beams with long trusses suspending floors inbetween. This is outright terrible for fire safety and very few buildings were ever built like that.
Here is the NIST story about WTC7: https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc
Myles Power made a video about WTC7: https://youtu.be/7PpsCCTMP8w
I don't endorse him on other topics, but this particular video is good.
I'll check it out when I get the chance.
yep, in this context "the decision was made to pull it" only means 1 thing -demolish with explosives.
In demolitions context pulling a building means precisely one thing and that is attaching long wires to a building and pulling it over with bulldozers.
How retarded do you have to be, to not only pretend the evil firefighters blew up the building, but that the ringleader thought it would be a good idea to openly admit to it on television?
FYI you sound like Ilhan Omar when you post this shit. Defending terrorists.
Pulling a building never meant using explosives. It literally means to pull it over. Bulldozers and chains or wires. It makes zero sense in this context.
It meant pulling the firefighters out of a lost cause building to help with the two collapsed skyscrapers.
Keep spouting those lines programmed into you sheep
Notice you Ilhan Omar terrorist defenders can never respond to anything with substance or reason?
You think the firefighters blew it up and then bragged about it on television, that makes you a retard. Sorry.
Your programming isn't letting you think clearly.
That wasn't anyone's point here you misinterpreted someone.
What everyone is saying is that the explosives had to be rigged in advance. The video clearly shows a building collapse at free fall speeds as a whole unit.
If it were brought down by fire (which has never happened before or since with steel skyscrapers) it would not be in perfect unison.
One part would have burned before the rest of the building. It wouldn't all come down at once like that.
Derp the Reptillian Jews planted explosives to bring it down Derp and they went on TV to admit they did it Derp Because Islam is the religion of peace and it must have been the evil firefighters who did it Derp
"That wasn't anyone's point"
It's the title of the post. You terrorist apologists are seriously retarded. The title of the post claims he went on TV to admit he blew up the building. Are you actually clinically retarded? Have you been tested?
Oh wow someone who religiously repeats the MSM story calling me a retard. I'm so hurt.
You still are failling reading comprehension holy shit man.
Goat fuckers didn't comeup with this plan.
How come they did it once then never again? Was it the security state you proudly defend as it strips your rights? Did they forget how to pull this off?
Burn in hell glowfaggot
I know buddy, I know.
The Jew Reptilians did it to frame the religion of peace, and then they admitted they did it on TV just because they thought that would be funny and nobody would notice. And if you're smart enough to not take that delusional goofy nonsense seriously, it's because you just believe everything the government says.
Derp.
Wow still just making shit up no one believes to denegrate others. Go back to reddit you tankie
https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc
You don't need to compare this to Omar, when you can compare it to the "Q".
Their most recent propaganda and misdirection campaign failed, so now they want to revert to old demolished theories to further discredit this movement.
NIST explanation back in 2009, it was further corraborated by other fires in other countries that produced similar results. Uncontrolled fires in steel structure buildings are very rare, but since 9/11 there were several others.
https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc
Some people did some things...
But yeah, most other examples of fires didn't also involve two collapsing skyscrapers that firefighters needed to deal with.
Not that it matters. A person would have to be clinically retarded to believe they went on TV and bragged about blowing the building up.
We actually have a good record of fires -
Steel outer floors + Concrete Stair Tower = Outer Floors Collapse, Tower Remains
Steel outer floors + steel structure = entire thing collapses just like WTC.
Steel inner structure + facade with some structural integrity = same picture as WTC7.
If I was challenged, I would be able to produce the photos and videos. It was quite awhile since I had to debate the topic. I need to make a database.
It's a futile effort unfortunately. These types of conspiracy theorists are in it for the escapist fantasy. It's religion for them. You can't use logic to debunk faith based delusion.
Most of these people aren't even aware that the building was damaged by flaming wreckage and debris crushing one side of the building in. They make an effort to avoid facts and reality, in order to protect the silly shit they want to believe.
"And we made the decision to pull"... and magically, what normally takes weeks or even months of planning and preparation was done with the snap of their fingers.... and demolitions appeared in place with a blink of the eye and the building, which never had a plane hit it and in which the fires had already been brought under control, fell at free fall speed into its own, tidy little footprint...
And you wonder why? Look up what was housed in Building 7.
I don't get it. So the CIA, etc. was there. So what? What are you implying?
Wouldn't want you to get your hands dirty and pick up a shovel or anything.
Pulling a building means pulling it over with wires. No building was ever "pulled" with an implosion. There's only one context that makes sense, to pull the plug/pull out the fire fighters and just let it burn.
The OP is misleading you. You don't need to reach melting temperature to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
Here is the NIST story about WTC7: https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc
Myles Power made a video about WTC7: https://youtu.be/7PpsCCTMP8w
I don't endorse him on other topics, but this particular video is good.
Guess this site is the new /pol/ where the shills outnumber the actual users lol. What a shit show this comment section is.
And you can hear pedophile Kevin Spacey (3:04) on the narration of lies for PBS special. It's all related.
The OP is misleading you. You don't need to reach melting temperature to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
Here is the NIST story about WTC7: https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc
Myles Power made a video about WTC7: https://youtu.be/7PpsCCTMP8w
I don't endorse him on other topics, but this particular video is good.
Silverstein you say?
Hmmmmmmm
Stein.
Where Did The Towers Go?
Welp. Guess I'm a 9/11 truther now.
So, was Guliani in on it too? But now we trust him? This is getting too much for me. What's going on?
https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc
Pulling a building refers to literally attaching wires to it and draging it down with a bulldozer and is obscure demolitions lingo. It is obvious that he meant pull out the fire fighters.
Does anyone have a link to the full Alex Jones report?
https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc
Sorry - this is nonsense. I was in a SOF unit before and after 9/11. We sent breachers up there to help clear the debris. They are explosive experts. These are my brothers who I trust a great deal. Trust me, this was radical Islam, not some conspiracy. Having worked in the gov't for nearly 24 years, I will also tell you that nobody in the a US government, especially the Intel Community, can keep a secret for very long. That's why we now know that they are coming after conservatives despite their obvious attempts at secrecy.
Very interesting... don't think I've seen this one b4.... <3 MAGA2021
The OP is misleading you. You don't need to reach melting temperature to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
Here is the NIST story about WTC7: https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc
Myles Power made a video about WTC7: https://youtu.be/7PpsCCTMP8w
I don't endorse him on other topics, but this particular video is good.
Thanks fren! Don't no much bout building 7 very interested in finding out tho <3 MAGA2021
One of the main idiocies of the 9/11 truth "movement" is the idea that a building would be strong enough to do anything but "fall into its foot print". It's not a log; it relies on steel beams being straight and restrained in place and the load being predominately straight in the direction of gravity with just some wind loads. If you lean a building like that over 10 degrees, it collapses. You see that e.g. on the WTC1 and 2 collapses, where the outer beams are warped by trusses expanding and contracting in the fire and when it eventually fails on one side, it does start to rotate; after a little bit of rotation it can no longer hold and the top pieces just pancakes down into the building.
"And it fell into it's own footprint" so much that debris sprayed across a city block, causing a ten story tall massive gouge in WTC7.
Are you seriously claiming that 9/11 was a controlled demolition? Get the fuck out of here retard, deport
The OP is misleading you. You can run up a furnace to very high temperatures just by having a hole that air rushes through (with a fan, or wind). You don't need to reach 2700 to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
Here is the NIST story about WTC7: https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc
Myles Power made a video about WTC7: https://youtu.be/7PpsCCTMP8w
I don't endorse him on other topics, but this particular video is good.
I would be very surprised if they didn't bring down some or all of the buildings.
It would be part of contingency planning.
The OP is misleading you. You don't need to reach melting temperature to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
Here is the NIST story about WTC7: https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc
Myles Power made a video about WTC7: https://youtu.be/7PpsCCTMP8w
I don't endorse him on other topics, but this particular video is good.
I'm talking purely from a perspective of emergency preparation. I would have the ability to rapidly bring down buildings in a controlled fashion in my toolkit.
It's not something people often like to think about. It's counter intuitive but for example captains of warships will have contingencies to scuttle their ships in certain scenarios. Sometimes a pet has to be put down.
When you balance all the risks there are situations where you might want to bring down the buildings or a building in a controlled fashion in a chaotic situation rather than an uncontrolled collapse.
This is compounded by that some system design will have the buildings collapse in a controlled fashion as well. The issue here isn't if it happened or not but that it might not be as unusual as people might assume. Nor does it strictly mean the whole thing was a hoax.
There would be other reasons they might want to suppress certain information. If it was something that happened with inside help orchestrating the whole thing is unnecessary when all you need to do is let your guard down which has plausible deniability.
An insider may have also known about the building's tolerances and designs. It may be a matter of national security that many buildings are designed to not take as much damage as possible and to keep standing but have a system almost like fuses where if they are sufficiently damaged they are designed to "degrade elegantly".
You always have to go back to basics. If they might have brought some of them down then why?
Not this dumb shit again...
Just curious, did you watch the video and have an answer?
Yes. You had 2 jets crash into buildings, stripping the support structure of its heat resistant coating, after which the pools of jet fuel burned, heating the underlying metal until it softened enough to no longer be able to bear the weight of the structure (far below the full melting point and replicated multiple times now) causing the collapse. These things did so much damage to the adjacent building 7 that it also collapsed.
Have you ever actually done research into the reports that thoroughly debunk nonsense like this video?
I have and I've read your theory front to back. I'm not even disputing you. Regardless what you think caused it or what you think of the conspiracy theorists, what do you think about what Larry Silverstein said in that video? How do you address that? Is it a deep fake, clever edit, taken out of context, etc.
https://investingadvicewatchdog.com/911-lies.html
See point 1. Not even a misstatement. He simply meant to withdraw the firefighters and watch the building collapse from the structural and fire damage.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2p3li7
Makes sense. Thanks.
But no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire even when engulfed. The fires weren't even engulfing the building. There's no way that's possible
Madrid windsor hotell fire. Every single floor that was steel framed collapsed. Left is only concrete core and lower concrete framed floors. This was a much stronger construction than WTC with it's large floors suspended between an inner core and outer "skin" on massive amounts of trusses that are nutorious for failing in a fire.
Why even bother to have fire protection on steel in your world?
https://www.google.com/search?q=madrid+windsor+tower+fire&oq=madrid+windsor+tow&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i22i30l2.5587j0j7&client=ms-android-tmus-us-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:75ddc508,vid:SSybd_kLctE,st:0
That building was engulfed on every single floor from the videos I see of it. Maybe the bottom few weren't but, building 7 wasn't anywhere close to burning like that.
Pulling a building in demolitions lingo means pulling it down with wires. Did you see an army of bulldozers pulling WTC7 over with wires somehow attached by helicopters to WTC7?
"To pull" in every day language can mean pulling out/pulling the plug.
What do you think he meant? Obscure and impractical demolitions lingo or ordinary every day language?
Honest question, how does a jet strip a coating? How then would that one section where the jet fuel was burning then soften the steel so many floors below that the building would collapse like an implosion? I would think that much like the videos of which you speak it would cause the building to lean and topple like a melting candlestick instead of spontaneously implode right into it's own footprint. Just some honest curiosity. I don't know one way or the other but I have a brain and logic and I've never understood this.
How do you think a jet slamming into I-beams covered in basically spray foam would strip that coating off? Seems self explanatory.
Further, you had that specific floor fail, which allowed the weight of the entire rest of the upper portion of the building to drop a full story, smashing into the the floor two stories below, causing a cascading failure as that massive upper weight dropped and slammed into each consecutive floor going down, made easier since the floors were basically a large hollow tube with a central pillar of elevators, with the floors stacked like pancakes on a stick inside a tube. Once one floor failed and the entire upper portion of the building fell and slammed into the lower one, it just pancaked as it fell, basically into the opening of the tube below, which in turn damaged the buildings around it, etc.
From the NIST study;
https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation
See point 6.
Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzInIjD6nKw
I appreciate the reply. I'll read into all that. I've always been very open minded about the whole thing. I just want to know the facts. A lot of Americans were extinguished that day.
I was at the WTC a few months before it happened, in March of 2001. I have pictures of my friends and I in the towers and in front of building 7. I had another friend that was in the towers when the attack happened and barely made it out alive, and who went on TV afterward to promote tolerance (he was a Pakistani Muslim himself.)
I actually somewhat believed the 9/11 conspiracies myself for a bit after watching movies like Zeitgeist and seeing a lot of conspiracy theorist videos etc. But when I actually started doing more serious research the whole thing just fell apart, just like the claims that the moon landings never happen. They can sound convincing if you're only hearing one side of the story, but as soon as you do any serious research into more credible sources, the theories just completely fall apart and the actual facts make much more obvious sense.
As I side note, I went back to NY in March of 2002 and it was miserable. The smell was in the air, the city was quiet, etc... I didn't go down to that end of town and have never been back to NY since.
NIST video of WTC 7 is also useful, since "truthers" keep clinging to the edited video they have of the collapse (where they often edit out the initial sequence where the roof is seen disappearing first, just like in other steel structure fires since)
Here is the NIST story about WTC7: https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc
Myles Power made a video about WTC7: https://youtu.be/7PpsCCTMP8w
you're a special kind of down syndrome if you think 400 degree jet fuel in open air is gonna impact steel fucking beams
And for those for whom reading is too hard...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA
https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc
They don't have to melt, they just have to weaken below capacity, warping sagging, and putting loads on connection points that they are not designed to take.
Have you taken any courses in Structural Engineering?
Consider "Simplified Mechanics and Strength of Materials" by James Ambrose.
jet fuel in open air burns at like 400 degrees, nowhere near 2700 degrees lol
in thrust it burns at 900 by force from air pressure, because of a chemical reaction specifically designed for that
there was no way that ever could've been a factor
there was absolutely that one extremely flammable metal dust that was implemented in the buildings
Thanks for the info. All of it seems beyond suspect to me
The OP is misleading you. You can run up a furnace to very high temperatures just by having a hole that air rushes through (with a fan, or wind). You don't need to reach 2700 to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
Here is the NIST story about WTC7: https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc
Myles Power made a video about WTC7: https://youtu.be/7PpsCCTMP8w
I don't endorse him on other topics, but this particular video is good.
A average office fire reaches 900 degrees C at the ceiling (where the fire sensitive trusses are). 600 degrees C is enough to cut the strength of structural steel in half.
There's a reason everyone since ever building tall steel framed buildings spends an inordinate amount of consideration on sprinkler systems and fire protection.
The OP is misleading you. You don't need to reach melting temperature to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
Here is the NIST story about WTC7: https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc
Myles Power made a video about WTC7: https://youtu.be/7PpsCCTMP8w
I don't endorse him on other topics, but this particular video is good.
What is the burning temperature of jet A fuel at standard atmospheric oxygen levels?
Ok, now what is the re-crystallization temperature point of structural steel? (I will even leave out any 'heat resistant coatings' bs)
Finally, if you can describe how glowing red hot steel beams were pulled from the ground (a non-oxygen rich environment) months after claimed jet-A fuel fire, then we can start having an engineering discussion on how 4digit celsius temperatures might have been reached.
The i-beams were supposed to be coated with a spray on asbestos coating but this was only used on lower floors and replaced with some other foam stuff half-way through construction. There are pictures and testimony from before 9/11 that whatever spray on stuff they were using on higher floors was barely holding onto the i-beams as is without a ~50 tonne aircraft hitting it at 3/4 the speed of sound.
Steel expands when heated and contracts when cooled. It loses much of its strength when hot. The WTC1 and 2 buildings used an inner core of vertical I-beams and an outer "hull" of vertical i-beams. The floors were suspended between those with trusses. Trusses are notorious for failing in fires. They expand when heated, pushing on whatever they are attached to, then they sag down and warp. As they are cooled, the contract and pull on whatever they are attached to.
Buildings are design to bear a large vertical load from gravity and much smaller wind forces trying to tug the building laterally in different directions. They are not designed to withstand large impacts or off-axis forces.
You can look at what happens when WTC1 and 2 collapses. they were both filmed from many angles. The outer columns bow very significantly shortly before collapse. The floors and their trusses that keep them straight are mostly missing or collapsed. When it collapses, the top section starts to rotate, but after 5-10 degrees or so, the other side of the building cannot hold and the top section of the building just smashes all the way down.
Put your foot on the floor and put a bowling ball balanced on your foot. No problem right? Now imagine dropping a bowling ball from 1 story onto your foot. Why do you end up in the doctors office in the latter care and not the former? The bowling ball fell for ~500 ms and picked up a speed of ~5 m/s. As it impacts your foot, your foot can only flex a couple of cm before bones start breaking. Being very generous your foot will decelerate the ball fully in less than 10 ms. The force it takes to do that is >50 times as large because it has to achieve the same thing in <1/50th the time. Why would WTC be built with a safety factor of 50, so that a floor could withstand having 20 floors above it fall 1 floor onto the floors below it? It had a safety factor of a few at most and it even that assumes beams are straight.
Having WTC fall like a log would require it to have extremely excessive strength against bending forces. Actual WTC would buckle and fail after single-digit degrees of tilt. After it does, how does it fall? In which direction is gravity acting?
The rubble smouldered for weeks. It is not correct to say there was no oxygen in the rubble pile. It is also very well insulated. See e.g. the centralia mine fire; which has been burning since the 1960's. Why is this coal seam slowly burning with not obvious air inlet and no way to put it out?
I'll post this for you too - since you are just repeating from the 'official report' - I am trying to get you to actually think about it.
The official election results from 2020 show biden winning the electoral college. Not just winning, getting more votes than any president before him.... think about that, really think about that.
Now, this rare never before seen jet fuel soaked tower failure has occurred twice in the same day on two buildings. (However, the hijackers 'jet fuel soaked passport' is found undamaged on the sidewalk.)
Now building 7 falls in the exact same manner as planes that damaged fire suppression system and "asbestos cover steel beams" of the world trade towers- please explain how these rare never before seen circumstances made building 7 fall in the exact same way!?
(Also, I don't need any middle school physics bowling ball analogies clumsily trying to explain kinetic energy and impulse force, way undershooting your audience here bud.)
Pretty clear cut.
CLEAR CUT!?! You are copy and pasting from the 'official report' - I am trying to get you to actually think about it.
The official election results from 2020 show biden winning the electoral college. Not just winning, getting more votes than any president before him.... think about that, really think about that.
OK, so we are onto both towers fell perfectly onto their footprint due to "burning rugs, curtains, furniture and paper" (according to you and the .gov).
Now, this rare never before seen jet fuel soaked tower failure has occurred twice in the same day on two buildings. (However, the hijackers 'jet fuel soaked passport' is found undamaged on the sidewalk.)
Now building 7 falls in the exact same manner as planes that damaged fire suppression system and "asbestos cover steel beams" of the world trade towers- please explain how these rare never before seen circumstances made building 7 fall in the exact same way!?
It's in the report. You have two identical buildings hit by two identical jets, the only difference being floor height, and as such hold up different amounts of time after the impacts (about an hour for one, and an hour and a half for the other), but both fall, and both fall at different speeds in direct correlation to the amount of weight above the impact point when the failure begins. These two impacts each do severe damage to building 7 and start internal fires, which unlike buildings 1 and 2, burned for over 7 hours before its collapse due to the combination of structural damage and fire damage.
https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
Yes, it's pretty clear cut if you actually take the time to read the reports. They did extensive testing to see if claims about explosives were even plausible, etc. They did their due diligence.
I expect you to do yours.
So this is a bot....
Answer this one question - who received more votes on December 3rd, 2020 ? Biden or Trump?
Here's a report you haven't mentioned...
https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/A-Structural-Reevaluation-of-the-Collapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf
http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
This report says "The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building."
So what good did linking reports get us!?
I really like the angles those primary support structures survived with.
You don't need to reach melting temperature to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades. Here is the NIST story about WTC7: https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc Myles Power made a video about WTC7: https://youtu.be/7PpsCCTMP8w I don't endorse him on other topics, but this particular video is good.
EDIT: You can see how a furnace is built on the Primitive Technology channel. It requires insulation, a source of air, and combustible material - all things the rubble contained. NYC is riddled with tunnels, so the air supply is not a problem. The building provided both insulation and material to burn.
I never said the words 'melting temperature' - you did.
Then why didnt the closer buildings collapse too? Why only the ones that insurance was taken out on?
https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc NIST video from WTC7.
This group of Q provocateurs needs to be countered. They are distracting from real problems.
The guy word for word admits they pulled building 7 aka they made it fall!
The OP is misleading you. You can run up a furnace to very high temperatures just by having a hole that air rushes through (with a fan, or wind). You don't need to reach 2700 to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
Here is the NIST story about WTC7: https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc
Myles Power made a video about WTC7: https://youtu.be/7PpsCCTMP8w
I don't endorse him on other topics, but this particular video is good.
You mean a single statement where he mistakenly says they pulled it?
You ignore all the evidence, the repeated investigations, etc... to side with a single erroneous statement about one of the buildings made by one guy?
You really are retarded. :(
fire's in reinforced concrete builds rarely if ever cause the building to collapse let alone in a controlled free fall. the world trade center buildings where a special case because of their height , the nature of the fire(plane fuel) and that coupled with the damage from the planes. https://i2.wp.com/theconstructor.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/rcc-structure-during-fire.jpg?resize=397%2C290&ssl=1
WTC 7 The building's design emphasizes safety, with a reinforced concrete core, wider stairways, and thicker fireproofing on steel columns. meaning if fire caused the collapse the sides would have fallen off first also the fire would have been visible. edit: it obvious to anyone that knows basic building materials and a little construction that WTC 7 was pulled on purpose. the reason we know not. if it was fire how did they get charges in place? maybe they where already in place who knows. that's why its a debated topic.
Oh man better trust the government they would never have reasons to lie to us
Totes trust the gubmint. They wouldn't lie!
Based and bluepilled lol
For real this get old. Have people even seen the amount of preparation it takes to control demo a building like that? It would probably take at least two years just to strip and prep the building. Drilling and wiring of the charges to break apart support points. Literally miles of wiring and a huge amount of explosives. It's just not possible to do that in a building that is being used everyday without someone noticing something is going on.
Not only that. But there is also the complete lack of deafening explosions. This is what a large building implosion sounds like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U
Pulling a building also does not mean imploding a building with explosives. It means literally attaching wires to it and pulling it over with bulldozers.
"deafening explosions" NOT TRUE AT ALL.
I witnessed 'a small' $800,000 explosion - it is all timed with differential equations and monitored with high speed cameras to perfection.
The small initial charge to warn people to get the fuck out was waaaaay louder than the actual high explosive charge.
TL/DR - it sounded like quiet thunder in the distance.
The OP is misleading everyone. You don't need to reach melting temperature to affect a steel structure - you can weaken the steel and produce strange unplanned loads at lower temperatures and cause failure cascades.
Here is the NIST story about WTC7: https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc
Myles Power made a video about WTC7: https://youtu.be/7PpsCCTMP8w
This thread is an effort to derail from real issues and turn the movement away from election fraud and the real conspiracy as outlined in the TIme article.