15 years of deception; 9/11 reviewed

[A 7.62 Exodus]

The buildings had shrugged off that initial damage. Then, later, they just demolished themselves in the manner we saw? Right!

Yes

Does it really seem plausible to anyone that a small section at the top could demolish everything beneath it, all the way to the ground, through all that undamaged structure (certainly a path of great resistance) at nearly the speed of free-fall (very little resistance) without demolishing itself very early in the process?

You seem to have left out that in the case of world trade 2, it was more than half the building. That's not some "small section." This is why world trade 2 collapsed much sooner than world trade one, even though WT1 was hit first. More weight = quicker failing point. To answer the question though, yes. The building imploded. It happens sometimes when you put heavy things on other heavy things. See?
[video=youtube;N2TMVDYpp2Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2TMVDYpp2Q[/video]

So much dismissal. Why? What is the motivation to dismiss? Our government covers up so many things it is SOP for them to do so. How was this event different?

The only thing I believe the government covered up was the involvement of Saudi Arabia, and that's not even really a theory anymore

On more video before I go.
[video=youtube;FzF1KySHmUA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA[/video]

Why is this still a thing? Seriously. I believe in some crazy things, and would even go on as to call myself a conspiracy theorist, but 9/11 was about as cut and dry as they come. Some derka derka's from DerkaDerkastan decided to ram a few planes into pure Americana. Rant: On [Off]

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

I haven't heard anyone suggest that heat can't weaken steel, it can.

We're talking about a brief explosion of jet grade kerosene, then normal office fires applied to what amounts to massive heat sinks dispersing the heat away from any focused spot.

Fairly localized, smoldering black smoke, not a major problem according to firefighters on the scene who thought two hoses would be sufficient to extinguish.

Even if it had raged for long enough to severely weaken the steel, as we've seen in worse fires all over the world, we'd expect something other than the absolute demolition of the entire building including all those massive columns.

By suggesting that there were other means of explosives, heating elements, thermite, etc.. you are implying that the narrative is incorrect. The narrative is that the jet fuel did melt the steel. You can't say, "Oh well, the jet fuel did weaken the beams, but they didn't cause the building to collapse." Engineering has shown us otherwise

 

[ATM]

Have you ever messed with hot steel? Its yield strength plummets above 1200 degrees or so.

Yes, but I've only worked in a steel mill for 19 years. My metallurgical prowess could in no way compete with the casual yet script-perfect Harley Guy who just happened to see, comprehend, and get an immediate interview on the street for quick distribution to all the major media outlets. It's almost like he knew what the early official theory was supposed to be:

[video=youtube;-5y8PtfKA14]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5y8PtfKA14[/video]

I have a lot of respect for you ATM, and you are obviously a very bright guy. But I stand by what I said earlier: I don't trust the official narrative.

Thanks, and I don't trust it, either.

But regardless of what anyone, including the government, says, it is not a stretch in the least to say that those buildings collapsed as a direct result of the airplanes, and not some pre-planted thermite or whatever the current theory is.

The way they collapsed make it a far stretch for me to believe anything but controlled demolition. It sure seems to be the favored theory of building demolition experts around the world. I haven't heard of a single example of any demolition expert having considered using planes, jet fuel, or normal office fires to bring down fireproof steel-frame high rise structures, even now that NIST says its possible and happened three times in one day.

Think of all the money and time they'd save doing it this new and proven way. Cheap, predictable... why hasn't it revolutionized their industry? For that matter why do we even need an expert industry to bring down huge buildings anymore?

I wonder, why didn't NIST test for any of the explosives we'd all expect to find after the near perfectly executed demolition of three buildings? Why didn't they rule out that possibility just because it would have been ridiculously simple to do so as part of their investigation? Maybe they weren't tasked with an investigation at all.

It wasn't a question of a couple of floors collapsing the building, either. 20-25% of that building was above the impact. That much weight on hot (not liquid) steel is going to cause a collapse at the weak point. The momentum of a few million pounds falling takes care of the rest. And the molten steel? How much juice was in the electrical circuits going into that building? It wasn't the 200 amp 220v service on your house. You sever a few of those main cables with an airplane, and that much electricity will melt steel.

Did I mention that I'm an electrical engineer at a steel mill? Nice try, but no, I understand how electric arc furnaces are designed to melt steel. We don't just sever a few cables.

If anything, this building discussion is taking away from the larger question: who paid for all this, and why did we never find out? But no, anyone willing to question the official party line has decided to become an amateur structural engineer and chase the thermite conspiracy rabbit.

All I asked is if our government was responsible for covering up the truth. How the three buildings collapsed compared to the official analysis is a huge red flag for me. There are others.

Also, you do know that thermite exists, right? It's not like aliens are needed for its use to be plausible, just demolition crews.

I probably don't need to add this, but for some of the others following this thread: Demolition crews also exist.

 

[ATM]

Lol, explosion? Now we're getting out there. If 50-60,000 lbs of jet fuel were to actually explode, we would have seen it. But it didn't. It burned, and for a good long time. It just can't go up that fast. Set 6 lbs of gasoline on fire, and see how long it takes to go out. Jet fuel is like kerosene or diesel. It burns more slowly and hotter. And there wasn't just a little bit of it either.

I don't know what you'd call the initial fireball, I call it an explosion of ignited jet fuel. And then it was mostly gone.

Throw that 6 lbs of gasoline through a steel beam at high speed, ignite it, and then tell me how long it burned after the initial fireball.

 

[ATM]

...Why is this still a thing? Seriously...

Because you seem somehow satisfied by videos showing that heated steel can bend yet I am not.

I already knew that heated steel can bend.

What were these videos designed to accomplish and what new information should I have hoped to glean from watching them?

 

[ATM]

By suggesting that there were other means of explosives, heating elements, thermite, etc.. you are implying that the narrative is incorrect.

Yes.

The narrative is that the jet fuel did melt the steel.

No, not that I'm aware of. I believe that NIST refused to acknowledge the reports and evidence of molten pools and streams of metal and melted beams. Again, they avoided finding anything which would disprove their conclusion. Please correct me if that recently became a part of the official narrative, I know it was originally avoided and denied.

You can't say, "Oh well, the jet fuel did weaken the beams, but they didn't cause the building to collapse."

Of course I can. Even if the beams had been weakened, I wouldn't expect to see any of the buildings fail in the manner they did.

Also, exactly how much did jet fuel weaken the beams of WTC7?

Engineering has shown us otherwise

I know him. He always refuses to show his work.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It's almost like he knew what the early official theory was supposed to be:

OR, he paid attention in school.

 

[ATM]

OR, he paid attention in school.

Perhaps he remembered hearing about the other high rise steel frame buildings that had collapsed due to structural failure because the fires were just too intense.

Oh no, that had never happened before.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

OR, perhaps he paid attention in high school? Let's go with paying attention in school.

 

[ATM]

OR, perhaps he paid attention in high school? Let's go with paying attention in school.

I'd guess that Disinformation and Diversion to Manipulate Public Opinion 101 is at least a college level course.

Maybe he was in the gifted program.

 

[Streck-Fu]

Lol, explosion? Now we're getting out there. If 50-60,000 lbs of jet fuel were to actually explode, we would have seen it. But it didn't. It burned, and for a good long time. It just can't go up that fast. Set 6 lbs of gasoline on fire, and see how long it takes to go out. Jet fuel is like kerosene or diesel. It burns more slowly and hotter. And there wasn't just a little bit of it either.

I have no idea why I came back to this thread but this post is mostly correct. Fuel doesn't burn, the vapor does. And hot.
Throw a cigarette into bucket of fuel and it will extinguish the cigarette. Expose the vapor to a spark or flame and you have a fire.

IN addition to the fuel, that building was full of Alpha material that burned very hot easily heating the structure to failure.

I question how any one that believes that the buildings could not collapse could have completed a middle school education. It does not require a ME degree to understand this.

<---- 12 years of Flight Deck Firefighting certification but I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

.

 

[ATM]

I have no idea why I came back to this thread but this post is mostly correct. Fuel doesn't burn, the vapor does. And hot.
Throw a cigarette into bucket of fuel and it will extinguish the cigarette. Expose the vapor to a spark or flame and you have a fire.

IN addition to the fuel, that building was full of Alpha material that burned very hot easily heating the structure to failure.

I question how any one that believes that the buildings could not collapse could have completed a middle school education. It does not require a ME degree to understand this.

<---- 12 years of Flight Deck Firefighting certification but I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Here's a very brief primer which should answer your question and there is far more detail available if you really want to attempt to disprove any of it.

https://issuu.com/larrylandon/docs/...e_issuu?viewMode=doublePage&e=2562185/4499928

It does not require a ME degree to expose or understand that there are gaping holes in the 'official' government theory.


ETA: Do you plan to respond to post #89?

 

[ATM]

... Nevermind. I was hoping for a conversation on the people or motives behind the event... rather than 12 pages of "jet fuel" debate.

Nope. Conjecture is too easily dismissed.

I would rather be difficult to dismiss.

We can discuss other implausibilities of the official narrative, other signs of cover-up, but I'm trying to respond to half of INGO here and the great majority seems fixed on this one piece.

 

[JollyMon]

 

[ATM]

What I meant was, impossible to dismiss. Thanks for your continued viewership!

 

[Woobie]

I don't know what you'd call the initial fireball, I call it an explosion of ignited jet fuel. And then it was mostly gone.

Throw that 6 lbs of gasoline through a steel beam at high speed, ignite it, and then tell me how long it burned after the initial fireball.

Wait, so you were inside the building and witnessed the fire go out?

Nice try, but 10,000 gallons doesn't all fly out at once. There are pockets and puddles that burn for quite some time.

 

[Woobie]

Yes, but I've only worked in a steel mill for 19 years. My metallurgical prowess could in no way compete with the casual yet script-perfect Harley Guy who just happened to see, comprehend, and get an immediate interview on the street for quick distribution to all the major media outlets. It's almost like he knew what the early official theory was supposed to be:

[video=youtube;-5y8PtfKA14]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5y8PtfKA14[/video]



Thanks, and I don't trust it, either.



The way they collapsed make it a far stretch for me to believe anything but controlled demolition. It sure seems to be the favored theory of building demolition experts around the world. I haven't heard of a single example of any demolition expert having considered using planes, jet fuel, or normal office fires to bring down fireproof steel-frame high rise structures, even now that NIST says its possible and happened three times in one day.

Think of all the money and time they'd save doing it this new and proven way. Cheap, predictable... why hasn't it revolutionized their industry? For that matter why do we even need an expert industry to bring down huge buildings anymore?

I wonder, why didn't NIST test for any of the explosives we'd all expect to find after the near perfectly executed demolition of three buildings? Why didn't they rule out that possibility just because it would have been ridiculously simple to do so as part of their investigation? Maybe they weren't tasked with an investigation at all.



Did I mention that I'm an electrical engineer at a steel mill? Nice try, but no, I understand how electric arc furnaces are designed to melt steel. We don't just sever a few cables.



All I asked is if our government was responsible for covering up the truth. How the three buildings collapsed compared to the official analysis is a huge red flag for me. There are others.

Also, you do know that thermite exists, right? It's not like aliens are needed for its use to be plausible, just demolition crews.

I probably don't need to add this, but for some of the others following this thread: Demolition crews also exist.

Thermite is real? Holy crap, in that case I totally believe you.

I know you don't do things that way at the steel mill. I wasn't laying out the optimum method for melting steel. But it is impossible to deny there were electrical fires, and big ones at that. And it is not a stretch to say there was some serious arcing that took place as well.

 

[ATM]

Wait, so you were inside the building and witnessed the fire go out?

No, but the lady pictured standing in the hole where the fireball occurred confirms that it had pretty much gone out and cooled down before the demolition occurred.

Nice try, but 10,000 gallons doesn't all fly out at once. There are pockets and puddles that burn for quite some time.

Did you try throwing that gas can through a steel beam yet to see how much of it vaporized in the initial explosive fireball? Let me know how much of it pooled, how long it burned, and when it had cooled enough to safely stand in the area again. All of that happened before the building demolished itself.

 

[Woobie]

Nope. Conjecture is too easily dismissed.

I would rather be difficult to dismiss.

We can discuss other implausibilities of the official narrative, other signs of cover-up, but I'm trying to respond to half of INGO here and the great majority seems fixed on this one piece.

Its because the other theories are ridiculous. And because truthers bitterly cling to these other "explanations" that the rest of the argument that there were things covered up gets ignored.

Im sorry, but if you make a preposterous claim, I am going to view the rest of what you say a little more critically.

So you have successfully distracted those who want to talk about the real cover ups, and lost the trust of those who didn't but were willing to listen. Well done!