I'm curious what you think happened to cause the collapse of the tower (I wanted to hear the conclusion of someone who sounds sensible)
I guess the official story is jet fuel burning in the center core? But the ul whistleblower said that the steel was rated for a much longer time in those conditions?
I always found the (popular mechanics?) explanation plausible but will straight up concede, especially now, that I don't know.
Immediately after 9-11 you had literal fuckwits like Rosie O'Donnell espouse the theory and say "It is the first time in history fire has melted steel"
This and the sheer scale of the operation of putting shaped charges on every load bearing member on the WTC leads me to believe the "Controlled Demolition" theory was the counter propaganda by the deep state to muddy the waters, associate theorists with literal bloated bags of piss and wind (O'Donnell) and to control the narrative from both sides like they always do.
So:- The engines are massive chunks of extremely hard materials now travelling at Mach 1 with the kinetic energy of a "Dumpster full of crap dropped from space(for shits and giggles).
They are going to penetrate the building regardless of the steel as the I-Beams have large holes in them. The wings vaporize and the full fuel load in the wings is heavy liquid (like water) traveling at Mach 1. It is going to get in and start a hellacious burn./
Tensile strength of steel reaches critical failure point as temperature in the "Oven" of I-Beams and floors increases. Heat can not simply escape like the bridge in the example OP has given. Critical failure. One floor collapses on the next which is weakened too and this continues for several, weakened floors. By the time it hits unweakened floors, (if there is such a thing after this impact) the sheer weight continues collapsing floors in succession.
Also it was not neat at all, there is a fucking tremendously massive cloud of shit raining down.
As for building 7, that is a whole different story that I am not very well versed it.
I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING FOR CERTAIN ANYMORE
To me this explanation of the main towers collapse is more believable than
"they cut through the dry wall near every support in every floor in the entire building and placed shaped charges on every load bearing member on the main 2 towers without anyone noticing explosives and miles and miles of detonation cord being placed"
I still think it is. But Bin Laden was a CYA asset.
The bridge is facetious I assume, it's not the same situation.
I did watch the 9/11 whistleblowers video, one of the people featured worked for UL who originally certified the steel in the towers. The claim made there was that the certification should have prevented the weakening required for longer than the time that it took to collapse. It's worth watching, it has a lot of good info.
So at least according to that, either the steel was not matching the certification, the certification missed some aspect that allowed the failure, or something else was involved that is not part of the official story.
The idea of a controlled demolition of the towers does seem highly improbable and difficult to undertake. Although there were stories about some unusual "renovations" that had been going on that could have provided some cover for something along these lines.
One thing about the jet fuel - it seems likely to me that it would have flowed into the core and all the various shafts that connect down to lower levels? In fact I thought that was the official theory of what happened. But that would divert the fuel for the fire to other locations than the floors where the planes hit, where it appeared to begin collapsing.
I think I can get behind the idea that "I don't know anything for certain anymore"!
There was molten steel pouring out the side of one of the Towers like a water fountain. No question. Glowing bright orange, liquid steel. No amount of Kerosene can do that to steel.
There were detonation charges blasting off right beneath the crumple point as the building collapsed in on itself at the exact same speed at which controlled demolitions occur. Eyewitnesses on the ground testify to hearing bombs and seeing no planes until they were told the news said there were planes. The popular narrative says that the passport was found in the rubble for one of the supposed terrorist who flew the plane, but no plane parts were found. Huh...interesting.
One has to deny a lot of established facts to claim that only planes brought the Towers down.
So when have you ever seen molten metal poring out of the side of a building after a controlled demolition?
Shaped charges don't melt the steel for more than a fraction of a second.
I have seen video with my own eyes of planes striking directly above people's heads and them standing around chatting until they only react when the plane hits.
People cobble all these different assertions together into a shotgun blast of disparate shit and think they are proving something but it is doing nothing of the sort.
Bro, youre all over the place with your rebuttals.
So when have you ever seen molten metal poring out of the side of a building after a controlled demolition?
It was BEFORE the demolition. And it's clear as a bell. There is no denying it. A6 of T1 steel which these buildings were made of melts at 3170 deg F. Jet fuel aint gonna do that - UNLESS youre manipulating it in some sort of lab or test (which deals with your shits and giggles video link).
Notice @ 1:57 they are looking at the aftermath wreckage on the ground. What is that you see? Plane parts!
People cobble all these different assertions together into a shotgun blast of disparate shit and think they are proving something but it is doing nothing of the sort
I actually missed it was you from the other thread when I replied to this.
Hello again.
First off, I don't believe for a second what the MSM says about 9-11.
I have been down the whole "Falcon Handler" rabbit hole and have seen how it connects to Benghazi and all the rest. 9-11 will turn out to be an inside job, bet your house on it.
I also know fuck all about metalurgy, FUCK ALL, but still enough to know that steel does not have (point) at which it is weakened but an decreasing tensile strength proportional to temperature.
Read :-
Steel behaviour under elevated temperature
Like all materials, steel weakens with an increase in temperature. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300ºC and increases rapidly after 400ºC. By 550ºC steel retains about 60% of its room temperature yield strength. However, at temperatures below about 600ºC, if the steel is cooled it returns to its original strength, stiffness and ductility.
2500 degrees is the temperature at which steel begins to melt. But kerosene, when not manipulated in a lab, burns, at best, 1800 degrees.
Not enough to melt steel.
A reduction in tensile strength is all that is needed, not molten metal.
It's comments like this that made me believe the narrative.
It's comments like this that came from Rosie Odonell immediately after 9-11 (although she phrased it like a 5 year old retard)
I'm curious what you think happened to cause the collapse of the tower (I wanted to hear the conclusion of someone who sounds sensible)
I guess the official story is jet fuel burning in the center core? But the ul whistleblower said that the steel was rated for a much longer time in those conditions?
First off I have been down many other rabbit holes that cause me to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that 9-11 is an inside job.
Here is a preview for one of them, well worth a watch if you can get your hands on it.
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/featheredcocaine
I always found the (popular mechanics?) explanation plausible but will straight up concede, especially now, that I don't know.
Immediately after 9-11 you had literal fuckwits like Rosie O'Donnell espouse the theory and say "It is the first time in history fire has melted steel"
This and the sheer scale of the operation of putting shaped charges on every load bearing member on the WTC leads me to believe the "Controlled Demolition" theory was the counter propaganda by the deep state to muddy the waters, associate theorists with literal bloated bags of piss and wind (O'Donnell) and to control the narrative from both sides like they always do.
So:- The engines are massive chunks of extremely hard materials now travelling at Mach 1 with the kinetic energy of a "Dumpster full of crap dropped from space(for shits and giggles).
They are going to penetrate the building regardless of the steel as the I-Beams have large holes in them. The wings vaporize and the full fuel load in the wings is heavy liquid (like water) traveling at Mach 1. It is going to get in and start a hellacious burn./
Tensile strength of steel reaches critical failure point as temperature in the "Oven" of I-Beams and floors increases. Heat can not simply escape like the bridge in the example OP has given. Critical failure. One floor collapses on the next which is weakened too and this continues for several, weakened floors. By the time it hits unweakened floors, (if there is such a thing after this impact) the sheer weight continues collapsing floors in succession.
Also it was not neat at all, there is a fucking tremendously massive cloud of shit raining down.
As for building 7, that is a whole different story that I am not very well versed it.
I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING FOR CERTAIN ANYMORE
To me this explanation of the main towers collapse is more believable than
"they cut through the dry wall near every support in every floor in the entire building and placed shaped charges on every load bearing member on the main 2 towers without anyone noticing explosives and miles and miles of detonation cord being placed"
I still think it is. But Bin Laden was a CYA asset.
Thanks for the detailed answer!
The bridge is facetious I assume, it's not the same situation.
I did watch the 9/11 whistleblowers video, one of the people featured worked for UL who originally certified the steel in the towers. The claim made there was that the certification should have prevented the weakening required for longer than the time that it took to collapse. It's worth watching, it has a lot of good info.
https://odysee.com/@ConspiraciesFromCatholicPerpective:2/911-Whistleblowers-(FULL-DOCUMENTARY-2019):7
So at least according to that, either the steel was not matching the certification, the certification missed some aspect that allowed the failure, or something else was involved that is not part of the official story.
The idea of a controlled demolition of the towers does seem highly improbable and difficult to undertake. Although there were stories about some unusual "renovations" that had been going on that could have provided some cover for something along these lines.
One thing about the jet fuel - it seems likely to me that it would have flowed into the core and all the various shafts that connect down to lower levels? In fact I thought that was the official theory of what happened. But that would divert the fuel for the fire to other locations than the floors where the planes hit, where it appeared to begin collapsing.
I think I can get behind the idea that "I don't know anything for certain anymore"!
Appreciate the response!
There was molten steel pouring out the side of one of the Towers like a water fountain. No question. Glowing bright orange, liquid steel. No amount of Kerosene can do that to steel.
There were detonation charges blasting off right beneath the crumple point as the building collapsed in on itself at the exact same speed at which controlled demolitions occur. Eyewitnesses on the ground testify to hearing bombs and seeing no planes until they were told the news said there were planes. The popular narrative says that the passport was found in the rubble for one of the supposed terrorist who flew the plane, but no plane parts were found. Huh...interesting.
One has to deny a lot of established facts to claim that only planes brought the Towers down.
So when have you ever seen molten metal poring out of the side of a building after a controlled demolition?
Shaped charges don't melt the steel for more than a fraction of a second.
I have seen video with my own eyes of planes striking directly above people's heads and them standing around chatting until they only react when the plane hits.
People cobble all these different assertions together into a shotgun blast of disparate shit and think they are proving something but it is doing nothing of the sort.
Case in point:- No plane parts, got a video for you :- https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=F4CX-9lkRMQ
Also for shits and giggles :- The kerosene foundry
https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=viWhhb8Lop8
Bro, youre all over the place with your rebuttals.
It was BEFORE the demolition. And it's clear as a bell. There is no denying it. A6 of T1 steel which these buildings were made of melts at 3170 deg F. Jet fuel aint gonna do that - UNLESS youre manipulating it in some sort of lab or test (which deals with your shits and giggles video link).
Ive seen this video so many times because I like watching it. But I gotta better one for ya showing a different angle of that same F4 test: https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=U4wDqSnBJ-k
Notice @ 1:57 they are looking at the aftermath wreckage on the ground. What is that you see? Plane parts!
Projection.
Here is the Documentary I referenced:-
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/featheredcocaine
"Feathered Cocaine" - The Falcon Handler who knew where Bin Laden was.
I actually missed it was you from the other thread when I replied to this.
Hello again.
First off, I don't believe for a second what the MSM says about 9-11.
I have been down the whole "Falcon Handler" rabbit hole and have seen how it connects to Benghazi and all the rest. 9-11 will turn out to be an inside job, bet your house on it.
I also know fuck all about metalurgy, FUCK ALL, but still enough to know that steel does not have (point) at which it is weakened but an decreasing tensile strength proportional to temperature.
Read :-
Steel behaviour under elevated temperature
Like all materials, steel weakens with an increase in temperature. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300ºC and increases rapidly after 400ºC. By 550ºC steel retains about 60% of its room temperature yield strength. However, at temperatures below about 600ºC, if the steel is cooled it returns to its original strength, stiffness and ductility.
So you KNOW that the planes were using kerosene?