Yeh didn't mean to drop all that as a brag, just a "heads up" so to speak of what lines of experience I'm speaking from: it is indeed extensive.
As far as the burning fuel, look into the many independent Engineering papers submitted on that particular study: Universally agreed that the fuel + burning interior wood/paper/plastic still would not have been hot enough to melt or weaken the building that high up to create the "pancake" effect [they] pushed to the masses.
Also, look into independent papers submitted by demolition experts from around the world that gave testimony that the way the building fell into its own footprint was a 100% tell-tale sign of a controlled demo. They give one glaring and obvious side reason to consider: IF the building would have failed under all the "auspices" of the Feds, it would not have free-fallen straight down. Rather those large top sections would have failed independently of the undamaged lower and crumbled or slid off the weaker side. This would have smashed down onto other buildings creating a massive destruction perimeter. This did not happen and is the basis of why Demo experts pour meticulously over building constructions to find out how to bring it down safely.
Research, Fren, as the info is still out there. Be prepared to have a lot of the brainwashing the MSM/Feds put out sandblasted away.
One thing that could have increased the likelihood of the impact and fire bringing down the steel structure is that the elevator shafts and holes in the side of the building created a much hotter fire than skills typically be expected. The increased airflow were like air bellows that pushed the fire to be more intense and much hotter than what would typically happen.
Yeh didn't mean to drop all that as a brag, just a "heads up" so to speak of what lines of experience I'm speaking from: it is indeed extensive.
As far as the burning fuel, look into the many independent Engineering papers submitted on that particular study: Universally agreed that the fuel + burning interior wood/paper/plastic still would not have been hot enough to melt or weaken the building that high up to create the "pancake" effect [they] pushed to the masses.
Also, look into independent papers submitted by demolition experts from around the world that gave testimony that the way the building fell into its own footprint was a 100% tell-tale sign of a controlled demo. They give one glaring and obvious side reason to consider: IF the building would have failed under all the "auspices" of the Feds, it would not have free-fallen straight down. Rather those large top sections would have failed independently of the undamaged lower and crumbled or slid off the weaker side. This would have smashed down onto other buildings creating a massive destruction perimeter. This did not happen and is the basis of why Demo experts pour meticulously over building constructions to find out how to bring it down safely.
Research, Fren, as the info is still out there. Be prepared to have a lot of the brainwashing the MSM/Feds put out sandblasted away.
One thing that could have increased the likelihood of the impact and fire bringing down the steel structure is that the elevator shafts and holes in the side of the building created a much hotter fire than skills typically be expected. The increased airflow were like air bellows that pushed the fire to be more intense and much hotter than what would typically happen.