Just playing devil's advocate here with the official narrative. Wouldnt a collapsing floor from above force all of the air and debris out the side windows in the same manner an explosion would?
how does a steel framed structure collapse, say, 20-30 floors below the impact, and become weakened all the way down to the ground floor so that it follows the clear uniform pattern of ejection from air pressure all the way down?
There's only one answer to this. It wouldn't have done that. The expectation was that if (and that's a big if) it was going to fall, it would fall into its weakened side, and the top would fall over and yes it might bring a few floors with it, but the bottom would generally be intact.
It's difficult to deny the lateral ejection of material that sent things blocks away. It's difficult to deny the explosive evidence.
It's only when you find out what was on the office floors that were both hit at the towers, what agencies were operating in building 7, at what was housed in the exact point the missile, sorry Airplane, that hit the Pentagon do you start to unravel the why's.
People that tell me that the aviation fuel weakened the steel beams (beside it being built as a column within a column structure) and travelled down the elevator shafts understand nothing. Firstly none of the aircraft would have full fuel, airlines just don't fly around the world with full fuel tanks! There's enough for the planned flight duration, with extra for their planned divert and a minimum amount needed on board on landing. These aircraft were flying for over an hour, and wouldn't have left with full tanks.
Even if some of the fuel had escaped and whooshed around the indie of the building, aviation kerosene isn't particularly flammable unless compressed then ignited. The bizarre theory that it could burn long enough and hot enough to melt steel is a joke. Anyone who say's so probable shouldn't light a woodstove or a heating oil boiler for any length of time!
But it's the aviation aspect which is most telling. The official report has the aircraft travelling at speeds so far outside the envelope (VMO or Velocity Max Operating) that the airframe would have ripped itself apart before hitting the towers. To think a 757 could put out enough thrust at sea level to power the aircraft to such speed is also simply impossible, let alone a rookie pilot actually hand flying the radar plots they put out in the official reports.
And so much more. In my opinion the aircraft were took over remotely, and yes the technology was there decades before 2001 to do so. Once remotely flown, there could be nothing the aircrew could do to over-ride it, even pulling breakers or engine restarts would not have stopped it.
The official report has the aircraft travelling at speeds so far outside the envelope (VMO or Velocity Max Operating) that the airframe would have ripped itself apart before hitting the towers.
Look fren, the descending 360' turn made with the aircraft that allegedly hit the Pentagon, coming in at ground level is pretty much impossible even for pilots on heavy's with 1000's of hours, let alone someone who couldn't get clearance for solo in a Cessna! The input on the controls would have been so minimal you wouldn't be able to tell, just think it and you'd probably over control it!
"So they made that portion up for what purpose?"
Because whoever wrote it, they weren't airline pilots, and needed the radar plot to match the story, because the airframes were being flown remotely!
I could go on to the black boxes, the edited frames of the Pentagon car park barrier video we have, the cell phones apparently working on the aircraft at 32,000' the ground speeds and more.
Just playing devil's advocate here with the official narrative. Wouldnt a collapsing floor from above force all of the air and debris out the side windows in the same manner an explosion would?
Lets say that's true.
Floor 1 was built to hold up 100+ floors.
Floor 50 was built to hod up 50+ floors.
The strike was in the 8x floor range.
how does a steel framed structure collapse, say, 20-30 floors below the impact, and become weakened all the way down to the ground floor so that it follows the clear uniform pattern of ejection from air pressure all the way down?
There's only one answer to this. It wouldn't have done that. The expectation was that if (and that's a big if) it was going to fall, it would fall into its weakened side, and the top would fall over and yes it might bring a few floors with it, but the bottom would generally be intact.
It's difficult to deny the lateral ejection of material that sent things blocks away. It's difficult to deny the explosive evidence.
It's only when you find out what was on the office floors that were both hit at the towers, what agencies were operating in building 7, at what was housed in the exact point the missile, sorry Airplane, that hit the Pentagon do you start to unravel the why's.
People that tell me that the aviation fuel weakened the steel beams (beside it being built as a column within a column structure) and travelled down the elevator shafts understand nothing. Firstly none of the aircraft would have full fuel, airlines just don't fly around the world with full fuel tanks! There's enough for the planned flight duration, with extra for their planned divert and a minimum amount needed on board on landing. These aircraft were flying for over an hour, and wouldn't have left with full tanks.
Even if some of the fuel had escaped and whooshed around the indie of the building, aviation kerosene isn't particularly flammable unless compressed then ignited. The bizarre theory that it could burn long enough and hot enough to melt steel is a joke. Anyone who say's so probable shouldn't light a woodstove or a heating oil boiler for any length of time!
But it's the aviation aspect which is most telling. The official report has the aircraft travelling at speeds so far outside the envelope (VMO or Velocity Max Operating) that the airframe would have ripped itself apart before hitting the towers. To think a 757 could put out enough thrust at sea level to power the aircraft to such speed is also simply impossible, let alone a rookie pilot actually hand flying the radar plots they put out in the official reports.
And so much more. In my opinion the aircraft were took over remotely, and yes the technology was there decades before 2001 to do so. Once remotely flown, there could be nothing the aircrew could do to over-ride it, even pulling breakers or engine restarts would not have stopped it.
There's been a lot of mental gymnastics to try justify the MSM narrative. I've seen them all, they all fail.
So they made that portion up for what purpose?
Look fren, the descending 360' turn made with the aircraft that allegedly hit the Pentagon, coming in at ground level is pretty much impossible even for pilots on heavy's with 1000's of hours, let alone someone who couldn't get clearance for solo in a Cessna! The input on the controls would have been so minimal you wouldn't be able to tell, just think it and you'd probably over control it!
"So they made that portion up for what purpose?"
Because whoever wrote it, they weren't airline pilots, and needed the radar plot to match the story, because the airframes were being flown remotely!
I could go on to the black boxes, the edited frames of the Pentagon car park barrier video we have, the cell phones apparently working on the aircraft at 32,000' the ground speeds and more.
The grounds would give some form of resistance, even a minimal amount. What you see is a building falling at free fall speed, which = controlled demo
That's not what melted steel beams.