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.
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.
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?
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."
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.
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
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
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
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?
Pretty clear cut.
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.
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!
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.