A signature of molten iron, which can be produced by a hot enough fire. No other residue? People talk about thermite but don't seem to understand the chemistry of how it works, or why it leaves results (molten iron) that can come from other, more mundane combustion.
First paragraph added to the fake news of this article calling the planes computer generated. You gotta be kidding me... Whoever this is, is spreading so many lies on a single articles its stupid.
But the video of planes hitting the building would have shown an aircraft going splat with the wings, fuselage and tail crumbling as the building obstructs its path.
Things go "splat" only in Warner Brothers cartoons. In real life the forces of inertia are king. And it didn't turn out that way when a B-25 crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945.
Has it never occurred to you that the soundtracks to the videos you see could have been either added afterwards or were being performed by actors with a script?
Has it not occurred to you that thousands of witnesses saw a plane hit the building including family members of mine who live in New York. So it really doesn't matter what excuse you can give since first hand account is the best evidence.
I did not comment on whether there was a plane or not. I just pointed out that if someone could add a plane to a video then adding sound is even easier.
I think the planes were holograms that concealed a ball-shaped missile. People were able to photograph the "planes" as the moved through the sky. But the second they hit the solid buildings, they melted like butter. I think the buildings were wired with explosives that were timed to go off just as the missiles hit them, helping to mask the disappearance of the hologram planes.
Whenever someone says or writes, "What is undisputable..." or "We can all agree..." I stop paying attention and disengage. I know some of us say it out of habit but very little if anything is undisputable and/ or totally agreeable in this world.
I watched the Dmitri Khalezov documentary some years ago, very compelling arguments for the Towers taken down by nuclear, not least by what happened to him after. Being jailed and the released after he set of the first of five dead man switches.
It took a long time for WTC7 to collapse and it resulted from an internal fire that consumed the non-structural elements of the building and weakened the steel far below its margins of safety. Carbonaceous fuels are easily hot enough to melt steel (what do you suppose we use for blast furnaces?). Nuclear sources are simple loony fantasy.
What "thermal expansion" theory? What I have read is that the center of the building collapsed from weakening of the structural members (loss of strength with temperature). It may well be that the heating distorted the structural frame and created stresses that accelerated the process. Upon collapse of the center, the exterior walls followed suit. This is so unremarkable that I wonder how you can avoid it.
Thermal expansion is a concept that NIST came up with and was popularized in a popular mechanics article on the topic. Also total bullshit.
Review the facts;
no plane hit wtc 7.
no additional combustible material was supposed to be there (I.e. contents of an airplane’s gas tanks)
this means the only combustible material would be standard office tower contents. Review all prior office tower fires in history, is there a single one that collapsed into its own foot print? The answer is no.
in the dust of the wtc complex we find micro iron spheres. Operating theory is that they are produced when molten metal (not hear weakened, but steel in liquid state) is forcibley blown out into the atmosphere where is cools while on free fall.
in the dust of the wtc complex unexploded nano thermate is detected. (I forget many of the details, there is a difference between thermate and thermite; the nano bit comes in because commercial grade stuff is made of materials with x particle size; but this unexploded stuff that was found had component bits that were MUCH MUCH smaller. This means highly sophisticated manufacturing techniques and a thermate that is much more expensive than commercial grade stuff and a thermate that is not commercially available was in fact used.
then we get to the free fall speed. Proven using video and known measurements. Wtc 7 collapsed entirely within … 11 seconds? For 6 of those seconds it can be shown (and was demonstrated by analysis performed in university of Alaska) the roof line of wtc 7 falls at free fall speed. That means everything under the roof also was falling at the speed of gravity. No resistance whatsoever. Think of a tower of wood in your camp fire. It falls over. Ok. But it falls over and hits another piece of wood that changes trajectory of the fall or slows the fall to some degree. Now imagine what is required for a roof line to fall at free fall speed. Answer: everything supporting that roof line also collapsed at that same instant.
squibs. Aka lateral ejections of material from the building often seen in controlled demolitions. Squibs are clearly visible in all three buildings pre and during collapse.
No airplane fuel. So what. That was never a point.
Everything that was not steel or aluminum or glass was potentially combustible, including flooring, ceiling materials, wall, partitions, doors, as well as office furniture. The history of other fires does not disprove the existence of this one. There is always a first time for everything. The fire took a while to generate, and if it is confined, the temperatures can get very high.
As mentioned as simple fact, the burning of carbonaceous materials (wood, etc.) results in temperatures higher than the melting point of steel (wood @ 3596 F, iron @ 2800 F). The collapse would compress the air in the floor spaces and eject any molten materials by aspiration.
Nobody describes what is actually found. There would have to be aluminum oxide present. The fact that it is not mentioned is a "tell" for me that the people making the claim do not understand the chemistry of thermite. The presence of iron micro-spheres would only be evidence for the existence of molten steel, which would be resulting from the high temperature. Also, structural failure by compressive shear results in flaking of the steel from the shear surface.
Free fall. Nothing mysterious here. You have a building whose weight is supported by structural columns, based on design levels of compressive stress and safety margins of strength. A fire originates within the building, turning it into a furnace within. The strength of the steel columns will steadily drop with the increasing temperature until the strength at a given floor (it doesn't matter which one) will reach zero margin...and some column will fail in shear, which is essentially instantaneous. The compressive load will be redistributed among all the remaining columns at the speed of sound in the hot steel, taking maybe a millisecond, and then another column (or columns) would fail in shear, leading to a chain reaction that would take maybe a tenth of a second to accomplish across all the columns. And then the supported mass would descend at free fall. As it collides with floors beneath, the whole overload chain reaction would occur again in another tiny fraction of a second. Until it reaches bottom, at which time the now-unsupported walls would collapse inward. The tiny delays for the chain reaction would not be noticeable in an analysis that wouldn't have the timing resolution to notice a difference.
No squibs. Just the compression of air in the collapsing floors and its exhaust through perforations in the building walls. Blowing out dust and smoke. What else would you expect? You have to understand what is going on, in order to understand what you are seeing.
“As mentioned as simple fact, the burning of carbonaceous materials (wood, etc.) results in temperatures higher than the melting point of steel (wood @ 3596 F, iron @ 2800 F). The collapse would compress the air in the floor spaces and eject any molten materials by aspiration.”
Prove your bullshit. This is not an optimized combustion chamber. This is an open fire with black smoke indicating poor efficiency at burning its combustible materials.
“ No squibs. Just the compression of air in the collapsing floors and its exhaust through perforations in the building walls. Blowing out dust and smoke. What else would you expect? You have to understand what is going on, in order to understand what you are seeing.”
Again more revisionist bullshit. Watch the videos listen to the explosions.
Since you knew nothing about the temperatures involved, you are a poor one to carp about them. Who says efficiency is necessary? There is an 800 F margin between the two numbers. The stuff that burns will burn at the flame temperature. Even Diesel engines and gas turbines will produce soot, and they are supposedly optimized for high efficiency. You certainly can't substantiate your claim.
No squibs necessary. The video I watched of WTC7 showed a steady, undisturbed collapse with no shocks or expulsions of blast. Noise? You must be kidding. A building collapses and there would be no noise? Serious structural failures would make loud sounds. People are conditioned by bad movies to associate loud sounds with "explosions," when they be nothing of the kind.
You a bit of a know it all and not at all worth engaging with. You should know, I think you are stupid and misguided, that’s if you are not here as cognitive infiltration.
“ Carbonaceous fuels “ that’s a new one to add to the pile of revisionist bullshit.
You realize wtc 7 was not hit by a plane did not have hydrocarbons and the “office fires” were consuming standard office equipment (desks, chairs, carpets, paper, etc).
It had building materials. No building is all steel and glass. Desks, chairs, carpets, paper, etc., are all carbonaceous (carbon-containing) fuels---which is why I did not say "hydrocarbons.". You don't have to get close to the melting point before structural steel loses nearly all its strength.
How do you think we get molten steel in the first place? Burning carbonaceous fuels (e.g., coke in blast furnaces). The flame temperature is much higher than the melting point. We burn kerosene in gas turbine engines all the time and it is impossible to make the engines from steel, as it would not withstand the combustion temperature. I don't regard this as a mystery at all, and if you think it is, you are not listening to the relevant facts.
A pile that burned for weeks? What's mysterious about that? You are aware that there are coal mines that have been burning for 60 years? Smoldering piles of wreckage are not uncommon.
I did take a peek, but the conclusive videos at the opening page were nothing of the sort. And the quotations from the principals was an immediate flag of prejudice animating their approach.
No. Military grade thermite can also explain this, and there was traces of this very thing at ground 0
I agree, no traces of radiation in relation to nuclear explosions were found at ground 0. But lots of iron microspheres, a signature of thermite
A signature of molten iron, which can be produced by a hot enough fire. No other residue? People talk about thermite but don't seem to understand the chemistry of how it works, or why it leaves results (molten iron) that can come from other, more mundane combustion.
First paragraph added to the fake news of this article calling the planes computer generated. You gotta be kidding me... Whoever this is, is spreading so many lies on a single articles its stupid.
https://greatawakening.win/p/16c2I4xnus/old-911-footage-rare-911-footage/c/ Please if the planes are cgi, explain why civilian people on the ground, are talking about the plane at 3:20.
But the video of planes hitting the building would have shown an aircraft going splat with the wings, fuselage and tail crumbling as the building obstructs its path.
Things go "splat" only in Warner Brothers cartoons. In real life the forces of inertia are king. And it didn't turn out that way when a B-25 crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945.
If you can add a plane you can certainly add a soundtrack?
What
Has it never occurred to you that the soundtracks to the videos you see could have been either added afterwards or were being performed by actors with a script?
Has it not occurred to you that thousands of witnesses saw a plane hit the building including family members of mine who live in New York. So it really doesn't matter what excuse you can give since first hand account is the best evidence.
I did not comment on whether there was a plane or not. I just pointed out that if someone could add a plane to a video then adding sound is even easier.
I think the planes were holograms that concealed a ball-shaped missile. People were able to photograph the "planes" as the moved through the sky. But the second they hit the solid buildings, they melted like butter. I think the buildings were wired with explosives that were timed to go off just as the missiles hit them, helping to mask the disappearance of the hologram planes.
The planes were likely wired. Holograms are additive, they can't make anything darker, they also can't cast shadows.
That’s because you are retarded and have not spoken to any eye witnesses.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210304102431/https://www.drjudywood.com/wp/
Whenever someone says or writes, "What is undisputable..." or "We can all agree..." I stop paying attention and disengage. I know some of us say it out of habit but very little if anything is undisputable and/ or totally agreeable in this world.
It's therMATE. Thermite with added sulfur for military applications. Limited availability.
And particle sizes that were way smaller than normal enabling a more violent chemical reaction.
Thermite is used to weld train tracks together, so yes it melts steel.
Thermite be an another answer as well.
A one-two punch.
Nuclear evidence is present.
"Tritium, Strontium, Barium. Molecular dissociation. The Meteorite. The mushroom cloud. China Syndrome. 1400 melted motor vehicles. Rare cancers."
"Are we really supposed to believe that airplane crashes caused all that?"
From,
"The Great American Psy-Opera"
https://www.bitchute.com/video/DNaW2z0novoz/
I highly recommend watching this entire documentary.
Nuclear begins at 2:06.
.....
Also, Dmitri Khalezov goes into the nuclear 9/11 situation in great detail.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/SAYm9DYSdVHi/
.....
And please remember, one possibility does not preclude any others or a combination of methods.
Retarded revisionist bullshit.
There were planes.
Preplanted explosives including thermate brought the buildings down.
I watched the Dmitri Khalezov documentary some years ago, very compelling arguments for the Towers taken down by nuclear, not least by what happened to him after. Being jailed and the released after he set of the first of five dead man switches.
Mushroom clouds are not only created from nuclear explosions.
The article below (from Slate of all places!) shows 2. One is from a refinery and one is from a chemical plant. So - oil, and ammonium nitrate.
https://slate.com/technology/2013/04/is-this-texas-mushroom-cloud-photo-real-yes-but-it-s-from-2008.html
It wasn’t nuclear. That’s bullshit.
We have documented evidence of thermite in the dust. Thermite will cause the intense heat that we observed.
Don’t fall for the bullshit and do read up on cass sustien’s cognitive infiltration.
It took a long time for WTC7 to collapse and it resulted from an internal fire that consumed the non-structural elements of the building and weakened the steel far below its margins of safety. Carbonaceous fuels are easily hot enough to melt steel (what do you suppose we use for blast furnaces?). Nuclear sources are simple loony fantasy.
The thermal expansion theory put out by NIST is looney tunes as well. WTC 7 was taken out by preplanted explosives. (Thermate)
What "thermal expansion" theory? What I have read is that the center of the building collapsed from weakening of the structural members (loss of strength with temperature). It may well be that the heating distorted the structural frame and created stresses that accelerated the process. Upon collapse of the center, the exterior walls followed suit. This is so unremarkable that I wonder how you can avoid it.
Because that explanation is total bullshit.
Thermal expansion is a concept that NIST came up with and was popularized in a popular mechanics article on the topic. Also total bullshit.
Review the facts;
No plane. So what. That was never a point.
No airplane fuel. So what. That was never a point.
Everything that was not steel or aluminum or glass was potentially combustible, including flooring, ceiling materials, wall, partitions, doors, as well as office furniture. The history of other fires does not disprove the existence of this one. There is always a first time for everything. The fire took a while to generate, and if it is confined, the temperatures can get very high.
As mentioned as simple fact, the burning of carbonaceous materials (wood, etc.) results in temperatures higher than the melting point of steel (wood @ 3596 F, iron @ 2800 F). The collapse would compress the air in the floor spaces and eject any molten materials by aspiration.
Nobody describes what is actually found. There would have to be aluminum oxide present. The fact that it is not mentioned is a "tell" for me that the people making the claim do not understand the chemistry of thermite. The presence of iron micro-spheres would only be evidence for the existence of molten steel, which would be resulting from the high temperature. Also, structural failure by compressive shear results in flaking of the steel from the shear surface.
Free fall. Nothing mysterious here. You have a building whose weight is supported by structural columns, based on design levels of compressive stress and safety margins of strength. A fire originates within the building, turning it into a furnace within. The strength of the steel columns will steadily drop with the increasing temperature until the strength at a given floor (it doesn't matter which one) will reach zero margin...and some column will fail in shear, which is essentially instantaneous. The compressive load will be redistributed among all the remaining columns at the speed of sound in the hot steel, taking maybe a millisecond, and then another column (or columns) would fail in shear, leading to a chain reaction that would take maybe a tenth of a second to accomplish across all the columns. And then the supported mass would descend at free fall. As it collides with floors beneath, the whole overload chain reaction would occur again in another tiny fraction of a second. Until it reaches bottom, at which time the now-unsupported walls would collapse inward. The tiny delays for the chain reaction would not be noticeable in an analysis that wouldn't have the timing resolution to notice a difference.
No squibs. Just the compression of air in the collapsing floors and its exhaust through perforations in the building walls. Blowing out dust and smoke. What else would you expect? You have to understand what is going on, in order to understand what you are seeing.
“As mentioned as simple fact, the burning of carbonaceous materials (wood, etc.) results in temperatures higher than the melting point of steel (wood @ 3596 F, iron @ 2800 F). The collapse would compress the air in the floor spaces and eject any molten materials by aspiration.”
Prove your bullshit. This is not an optimized combustion chamber. This is an open fire with black smoke indicating poor efficiency at burning its combustible materials.
“ No squibs. Just the compression of air in the collapsing floors and its exhaust through perforations in the building walls. Blowing out dust and smoke. What else would you expect? You have to understand what is going on, in order to understand what you are seeing.”
Again more revisionist bullshit. Watch the videos listen to the explosions.
Since you knew nothing about the temperatures involved, you are a poor one to carp about them. Who says efficiency is necessary? There is an 800 F margin between the two numbers. The stuff that burns will burn at the flame temperature. Even Diesel engines and gas turbines will produce soot, and they are supposedly optimized for high efficiency. You certainly can't substantiate your claim.
No squibs necessary. The video I watched of WTC7 showed a steady, undisturbed collapse with no shocks or expulsions of blast. Noise? You must be kidding. A building collapses and there would be no noise? Serious structural failures would make loud sounds. People are conditioned by bad movies to associate loud sounds with "explosions," when they be nothing of the kind.
“The video I watched of WTC7 showed a steady, undisturbed collapse with no shocks or expulsions of blast.“
Hey everyone!!! The guy that watched one video once is an expert.
Took a quick look at your post history.
You a bit of a know it all and not at all worth engaging with. You should know, I think you are stupid and misguided, that’s if you are not here as cognitive infiltration.
You don’t get collapse at free fall speeds with “weakened” steel.
You get that with a skilled demolition team setting up timed charges.
“ Carbonaceous fuels “ that’s a new one to add to the pile of revisionist bullshit.
You realize wtc 7 was not hit by a plane did not have hydrocarbons and the “office fires” were consuming standard office equipment (desks, chairs, carpets, paper, etc).
It had building materials. No building is all steel and glass. Desks, chairs, carpets, paper, etc., are all carbonaceous (carbon-containing) fuels---which is why I did not say "hydrocarbons.". You don't have to get close to the melting point before structural steel loses nearly all its strength.
Molten steel as reported.
Does the magic of carbonaceous bullshit explain molten aka LIQUID steel? What about a pile that continued to burn for weeks following 911?
How do you think we get molten steel in the first place? Burning carbonaceous fuels (e.g., coke in blast furnaces). The flame temperature is much higher than the melting point. We burn kerosene in gas turbine engines all the time and it is impossible to make the engines from steel, as it would not withstand the combustion temperature. I don't regard this as a mystery at all, and if you think it is, you are not listening to the relevant facts.
A pile that burned for weeks? What's mysterious about that? You are aware that there are coal mines that have been burning for 60 years? Smoldering piles of wreckage are not uncommon.
If you are honestly interested this is a site with factual information.
https://www.ae911truth.org/
I did take a peek, but the conclusive videos at the opening page were nothing of the sort. And the quotations from the principals was an immediate flag of prejudice animating their approach.