Pretty sure this is sarcastic, but we do know that jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams and even if it did, the entire building wouldn’t collapse in on itself. “Pancaking” is the same science as masks working.
Steel doesn’t retain its strength all the way up until melting, but steel reinforced concrete isn’t just steel.
Controlled demolition and a hefty insurance policy! Oodles of $$$$$ + a mass ritual blood sacrifice + emotionally traumatizing a population of people, how could ((they)) resist?
Rebar has very little influence on the structural integrity of a skyscraper; almost all the load bearing is done by a steel framework. And if they simply bend out of their triangular setup, you are fucked and an entire floor will just instantly get crunched.
What all you "the planes didn't really bring down the towers" crowd needs to explain is not the physics, but that if some entity has the means and the will to bring the towers down, and knew that crashing jets into them would not be enough of a statement, why wait until most, but not all, people had evacuated? If you are ruthless and want a maximum statement with max casualties, then you would set off your destructive sequence as soon as the planes hit, or soon after. If you are more humane and you just wanted to cause massive damage and disrupt trade and economic activity, but with as few collateral casualties as possible, you would have waited longer until the buildings had been cleared. The timing doesn't make sense.
What all you "the planes didn't really bring down the towers" crowd needs to explain is not the physics
Actually, this is the most important thing that needs to be explained. If the physics don't work (and are not even remotely close), nothing else about a theory of investigation matters.
You are suggesting understanding motivations and being able to read minds is more important than physics. Such thinking is detrimental to investigation. First you determine whether or not a theory is possible (like a little bit of plane fuel melting an entire buildings worth of steel and concrete LOL) then you can try to fit in the motivations.
It was never about the deaths, it was about the money. You could hear and see when they actually came down way after the planes, there were explosions all the way down.
I don’t know exactly why they waited, but it isn’t right to judge intent without knowing as that can be circumstantial, it’s right to judge the physics and the money that was tied to it.
We do know for certain that more than just a few random people knew about it. Following the money shows that it was well coordinated as far as the money is concerned.
That was never the issue, the issue was there were eyewitness accounts of "molten, running steel" that persisted for days and, IIRC was corroborated by the USGS satellite thermal imaging data up to a week later via colour matching of incandescent materials.
People mocking people saying "Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams" believe they intended to say "Jet fuel cannot weaken steel beams". It was one of the most finessed red herrings ever. No. The people saying jet fuel cannot melt steel beams are saying jet fuel cannot MELT steel beams. Molten, pooled. flowing "like lava or a foundry" steel. Not that fact it gets soft when heated.
show me the solidified puddle of steel that was craned out of the bottom of that bathtub.
...in case you weren't aware, the towers were built in a "bathtub" to keep the adjacent river out. the molten steel would have pooled at the lowest point in the tub.
when the towers collapsed the entire tub was crammed full of twisted beams, mangled rebar, wires, pipes, etc... etc...
it was smashed down into that hole in the ground so hard it took them months to dig it all out.
how did "eye witnesses" see a molten pool of metal at the bottom of that massive debris pile?
a USGS sat img isn't going to show you molten metal, it will simply show you heat.
there was heat.
show me the metal
show me the massive solidified puddle
there would have been thousands of pictures taken as they craned that out of the hole... there are zero
there was no liquid steel, never happened, prove me wrong. show me. don't show me korey and dylans little film school project claiming there were eye witnesses... show me the molten metal, show me the solidified puddle.
Remember kids, the chair and vice chair of the 911 commission report resigned, citing agencies et al were being - in their view, borderline criminally obfuscating and deceptive when questioned.
Yes, science says steel ships can be melted by fires which rage at half the melting point of such steel.
office fires
Ever see the video of railroad track being welded, they basically melt steel into a form using Thermite. Amazing how fast it works...
yes, because steel retains 100% of it's structural integrity/rigidity right up until just before the melting temp.
everyone knows that.
stays just as strong as it is at room temp, until 1 degree from the melting point... then you've got real problems on your hands.
Pretty sure this is sarcastic, but we do know that jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams and even if it did, the entire building wouldn’t collapse in on itself. “Pancaking” is the same science as masks working.
Steel doesn’t retain its strength all the way up until melting, but steel reinforced concrete isn’t just steel.
Controlled demolition and a hefty insurance policy! Oodles of $$$$$ + a mass ritual blood sacrifice + emotionally traumatizing a population of people, how could ((they)) resist?
Rebar has very little influence on the structural integrity of a skyscraper; almost all the load bearing is done by a steel framework. And if they simply bend out of their triangular setup, you are fucked and an entire floor will just instantly get crunched.
All it needs to do is weaken it.you can evaporate steel with a vacuum and propane.
If you don't think steel can burn light a match under extra fine steel wool
What all you "the planes didn't really bring down the towers" crowd needs to explain is not the physics, but that if some entity has the means and the will to bring the towers down, and knew that crashing jets into them would not be enough of a statement, why wait until most, but not all, people had evacuated? If you are ruthless and want a maximum statement with max casualties, then you would set off your destructive sequence as soon as the planes hit, or soon after. If you are more humane and you just wanted to cause massive damage and disrupt trade and economic activity, but with as few collateral casualties as possible, you would have waited longer until the buildings had been cleared. The timing doesn't make sense.
Actually, this is the most important thing that needs to be explained. If the physics don't work (and are not even remotely close), nothing else about a theory of investigation matters.
You are suggesting understanding motivations and being able to read minds is more important than physics. Such thinking is detrimental to investigation. First you determine whether or not a theory is possible (like a little bit of plane fuel melting an entire buildings worth of steel and concrete LOL) then you can try to fit in the motivations.
There was no planes! Only chopper 5, some poor compositing and Pinocchio's nose
It was never about the deaths, it was about the money. You could hear and see when they actually came down way after the planes, there were explosions all the way down.
I don’t know exactly why they waited, but it isn’t right to judge intent without knowing as that can be circumstantial, it’s right to judge the physics and the money that was tied to it.
We do know for certain that more than just a few random people knew about it. Following the money shows that it was well coordinated as far as the money is concerned.
Are you real? You're simultaneously defending the moon landings and the official 9/11 story. Dude, you're either a shill or brainwashed.
That was never the issue, the issue was there were eyewitness accounts of "molten, running steel" that persisted for days and, IIRC was corroborated by the USGS satellite thermal imaging data up to a week later via colour matching of incandescent materials.
People mocking people saying "Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams" believe they intended to say "Jet fuel cannot weaken steel beams". It was one of the most finessed red herrings ever. No. The people saying jet fuel cannot melt steel beams are saying jet fuel cannot MELT steel beams. Molten, pooled. flowing "like lava or a foundry" steel. Not that fact it gets soft when heated.
show me pictures of this "pool of molten steel"
better yet...
show me the solidified puddle of steel that was craned out of the bottom of that bathtub.
...in case you weren't aware, the towers were built in a "bathtub" to keep the adjacent river out. the molten steel would have pooled at the lowest point in the tub.
when the towers collapsed the entire tub was crammed full of twisted beams, mangled rebar, wires, pipes, etc... etc...
it was smashed down into that hole in the ground so hard it took them months to dig it all out.
how did "eye witnesses" see a molten pool of metal at the bottom of that massive debris pile?
a USGS sat img isn't going to show you molten metal, it will simply show you heat.
there was heat.
show me the metal
show me the massive solidified puddle
there would have been thousands of pictures taken as they craned that out of the hole... there are zero
there was no liquid steel, never happened, prove me wrong. show me. don't show me korey and dylans little film school project claiming there were eye witnesses... show me the molten metal, show me the solidified puddle.
i'll wait.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLjPTHMe3OI
You
type
like
a
shill
Remember kids, the chair and vice chair of the 911 commission report resigned, citing agencies et al were being - in their view, borderline criminally obfuscating and deceptive when questioned.
Steel maintains 70% of it's structural integrity even once it reaches the glowing red stage
And let’s not forget to mention “Factors of safety”.....
WWG1WGA