Why should it? It was a light sport plane, probably weighing no more than a ton, flying at maybe 100 mph...not a 200-ton airliner flying at 500 mph. It helps not to pose stupid questions. In 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber crashed into the side of the Empire State building, leaving a hole and some wreckage. This falls into the category of "I shot the rhino with a .22, so why didn't it fall over dead?"
What brought building 7 down straight down into its own footprint AT FREEFALL SPEED, after the two twin towers collapsed? A 200-ton airliner flying at 500 miles an hour? No small office fires! Small office fires don't bring down high-rise steel frame buildings. Does that maybe suggest Jet planes had nothing to do with the total collapse of the twin towers. Could it be that the same thing that brought down building number 7, brought down the twin towers? Calling all cars!
Lack of an "acceptable" answer to question C does not invalidate firm answers to questions A and B. Not even collisions with 200-ton airliners at 500 mph were enough to take down the twin towers, which stood for nearly an hour before collapse. It was the fires which weakened the structures to failure. And one analysis of WTC7 indicated a similar mechanism, involving a prolonged interior fire extending through several floors. (I think I recall reading that the internal fire extinguishing system had been disabled by the initial shock of the Twin Towers collisions.) It was the failure and the weight of the overburdened structure that did the trick.
By accident, I happened to see a video clip of a building under attack, I think in Lebanon, where a guided missile hit and exploded at the perimeter base of the building. It collapsed like an accordion. The more you look, the more you see.
It suggests that the jet planes had everything to do with the collapse of the Twin Towers. Horrors! That would mean the "government narrative" is essentially true. And that would mean that the amazing conspiracy magical excuses vanish into thin air. Which would mean...nothing changes. Islam is still an enemy and the past government was working for the Deep State. And slipped up. Or, the Deep State could have been involved in the plot, which would be bad enough. Or both (left hand and right hand not talking, most likely). Credible enough to put across to Normies convincingly.
The official explanation included jet fuel coursing down the elevator shaft, somehow getting into a non-contiguous shaft and continuing to the ground floor to cause massive explosions. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Jet fuel is liquid, so going down a shaft is certainly possible. I would expect the fire to have followed suit, to the extent there was a draft to support it. I don't know anything about it getting into a "non-contiguous" shaft, although liquids are genius at penetration. Jet fuel does not cause massive explosions, and none were present. People confuse the compression of the collapsed floors to be "explosions" when the air has been raised to pressures of ~10 tons/square foot. A burst tire sounds like an explosion. And a compressed floor will blow loose material out through the burst windows. I don't think you are in a position to ridicule anyone.
I'm not aware of those details. A deflagration overpressure from a mixture of kerosene mist and air can often be mistaken for an explosion. Even a sudden compression of air can be mistaken similarly. These will cause damage. (Pressure explosions of truck tires can be exceedingly dangerous, as the wheel structure comes apart.)
I don't know those details or what they were modeling. But the adiabatic flame temperature of burning jet fuel (kerosene) is easily above the melting point of steel, and far above the temperature at which structural steel loses 70% of its strength. Since that is true, what is "unrealistic"?
Why not? That is the flame temperature at which a substance burns if there is neither an excess nor a lack of oxygen for combustion (i.e., complete combustion). More oxygen does not aid the combustion but dilutes the flame temperature. (This technique of lean burning is how modern jet engines avoid melting their turbine blades. So, there is no physical problem in jet fuel burning as hot as possible.) Less oxygen leads to incomplete combustion. The burning environment was a "stove" in which the walls retained the radiation produced by the combustion process and prevented cooling. The elevator shafts may have provided adequate draft to keep the fire going.
What about it? Different story. I can say that one analysis pointed to the weakening effect of a long-duration fire in the core of the building that caused the floor beams to expand from the heat and dislodge themselves from their mounting brackets on structural columns. It got to a point where they disconnected and it was an avalanche all the way down. Not my analysis, but prove it wrong.
Airplanes crash far too often, but fires are common. There are such things as jet engines whose combustors are hot, broken open by the crash, or still running and producing flame. What started the fire is not a question for airplane crashes.
All shear failures occur on a plane at 45 degrees to the direction of the applied load, whether they are instigated by "thermite" or not. That is just the inevitable mechanics of shear failure under compression. I guess you consider the science of strength of materials to be "BS."
The fires were at least hot enough to weaken the steel beams to below a strength of 30% of their strength at normal temperature (there is no data for how it further diminishes at higher temperature). They were even hot enough to melt the steel. The presence of burning aluminum fuselage structure would have created even higher temperatures. These are facts, not opinions. Look up the data before making erroneous statements.
The "government narrative" happens to be consistent with the physics and chemistry of what happened. You are not aware of how mistaken you are.
Might be a good idea to hear what"Architects for 9/11"have to say(over a thousand architects)(they have disputed the government narrative from the very start) - as to the government narrative being true, when has the government narrative ever been true? - now to the missile hitting perimeter base of that other building you spoke of and an airliner hitting the top of the twin towers, big difference between destroying the foundation and hitting the top of a skyscraper, and I highly doubt that the building you mentioned even though it was hit at the base with a missile, collapsed STRAIGHT down into its own footprint (not leaning over) at FREE FALL SPEED . - back to the twin towers,you don't have to be an engineer to figure out, if a building simply collapses one floor unto another(weakened by heat) each floor below would slow it down a bit as it collapses,you certainly would not have a building falling at freefall speed or straight down. Free Fall speed occurs when there is no obstruction between floors, which is what happens when they take down a building with demolition, they blow the floor out below it, ensuring it falls straight down, with no obstruction below(so as not to lean over and damage buildings beside it) in other words, (straight down,into its own footprint) (remind you of anything you saw on that day). The following in no particular order (food for thought): If the towers, simply collapsed onto itself, the amount of material that it took to build the building, would be the amount of material left in the pile of rubble. Was it? Or was the concrete blown to bits, creating a dust cloud, 10 to 15 miles, and a pile of rubble leftover that did not match the amount that should be there from a building that simply collapsed. - The extremely thick steel frame structure, would have simply bent if it were only heat that weakened it - (the temperature jet fuel producers is well below the temperature required to melt steel beams, how do they explain the beans melted, and cut right in half, that only the heat of thermite could do? (they don't) How is that thermite particles were found in the dust and on the beams explained? (they don't) - How is it (on a crime scene) the material of the crime scene is hauled away the very next day? How is the hijacked airliners are in air for nearly 3 hours before collision (with the towers and the Pentagon) we're not intercepted by one single fighter Jet? Yet if even a small Cessna goes off course(ESPECIALLY NEAR THE PENTAGON) there is a jet on its wing in 5 -10 minutes? How was the jet that was in the air for nearly 3 hours and flew into the most guarded place on Earth (the Pentagon) most secure building in the world, has cameras, everywhere and I mean everywhere, there is no (clear) video of the so-called yet that hit the pentagon? Another coincidence? All the cameras failed (like in Epstein cell) Okay, Right! - they found the pilot license of one of the hijackers on the ground at the base of the twin towers, remarkable isn't it, yet the jet he was flying, flew right into the twin tower and exploded on impact, but his pilot license, flew out of that mess and landed on the ground beside the twin towers unscathed, what a rare piece of luck? They found the pilot's license but they couldn't find the the jet, that crashed into the field into the mineshaft? (disintegrated I guess) or the jet that crashed into the Pentagon(disintegrated I guess) but not the pilot license! - The jet that hit the Pentagon hit exactly the offices where they were investigating the trillion dollars they couldn't account for,, chalk that up to another coincidence - simply hours after this tragic event they knew exactly who did it, remember (weapons of mass destruction) justifying that war only to find out, there were no weapons of mass destruction and had nothing to do with 911. Another false flag, and a bill of goods sold to us, (some not buying however). The one thing we know is the twin towers were destroyed, but I'm sorry my fine feathered friend, how and who did it, definitely does not line up with the government narrative. Critical thinking required or you could say it this way, "Calling all cars"
The building I saw on the video collapsed like an accordion. It was clearly visible.
The analysis by the other party reckoned that the lower floors impeded the upper floor descent by .03 second at each impact. Not enough even to be noticeable. The shear failures would be nearly instantaneous. The material used for the construction was ultimately scattered over a large area. The concrete was pulverized by the collapse in process. You commit a classic error of ignorance: the adabatic flame temperature of jet fuel (kerosene) is well above the melting point of steel, and far above the failure point. I have pointed that out many times; hardly anyone bothers to learn. Compression shear failure occurs as a break at a diagonal to the imposed load. What they found was residue from melted aluminum, aluminum oxide ash from combustion, melted iron, and some iron oxide from combustion. It was all "ash." (Thermite is only aluminum plus iron oxide.) When you have the same starting materials involved in combustion, you end up with these products. As for a crime scene, ask the government. What would you expect to find? It was a catastrophe, witnessed by many.
Why would the airliners be "intercepted" by a jet...and then what? Be shot down over populated territory with hundreds of passengers on board? Maybe so, but no one had foreseen this possibility. Who says there was no clear video of the jet crashing into the Pentagon? Have you forgot that its location would have been a secret? So, there was no public release to prevent its location for future sabotage. If they had that imagery, the public did not have a need to know. The existing video was enough to identify the livery of the airplane. There were eyewitnesses both on the ground and in the air. Components of the airplane were found. The radar track of the flight led to the Pentagon.
In catastophes resulting in great physical havoc, there is no telling what lightweight items might not be involved in any conflagration. It is not a mystery. Yes, the jet in Pennsylvania disinitegrated. This happens with a high speed direct collision. You can find videos of airplanes driven into concrete barriers at flight speed and they are utterly pulverized. Where the pentagon aircraft hit was only a coincidence. How could anyone have singled out such a target? That would be the impossible occurrence.
Then you go beyond the event, which is not the topic. Since they back-tracked the culprits who hijacked the airplanes, that may be as far as the trail goes.
Clear thinking is required to understand the physics and chemistry behind the event, understand how all the known pieces fit into the event. Understanding that produces a real theory. Inventing an alternate story out of nothing is not a theory but a fantasy. You don't make any progress by abandoning reality.
My thoughts too. Although even an airliner won't bring down a building like that this event was a bad comparison. A much better comparison would be when a B-25 bomber flew into the Empire State Building in 1945. Did some damage and killed some people but the building never flinched.
I'm familiar with that event. A B-25 weighed 17.5 tons and flew at 230 mph, about a factor of 20 difference in momentum compared to a 767, with a much smaller fuel load. I could shoot you with a .22 and you would look down and say, "What the hell was that?" Or I could shoot you with a 10 mm and you would look down and wonder where your heart went, then collapse. If I shoot a big building with a Big Game Rifle, it will succumb. Rhinos and elephants drop in their tracks. But if you go after them with a .45 Colt, they will drop you in your tracks. Same idea. Folks on this page can't seem to differentiate the effects of magnitude.
You have ignored 100% of the evidence of explosives. Also, the Empire State Building wasn't specifically engineered to be immune to jet planes flying into it.
Flying a huge plane into one side of a building cannot possibly cause the entire building to have explosions on lower levels and drop within its own footprint and leave very little debris. I have seen videos of huge sections of the metal structure dropping through the air and turning to dust midair. Witnesses heard the explosions. All three buildings were controlled demolitions. Before #7 fell, "Lucky" Larry actually said on camera to "pull it," which means to set off the demolition.
No evidence of explosives. You have to consider the chemistry. There is only evidence of melting and combustion of aluminum and iron,
The Empire State Building might not have survived the impact of a large jet airplane. But the Twin Towers did. They stood there for about an hour, before taken down by the effects of the fires.
"Explosions" on lower levels were from the air compression of floor collapses. Does a tire blowout require an "explosion"? It sure sounds like an explosion, doesn't it? So, the people were hearing only that. Yes, you don't expect to hear it because hardly anyone is familiar with what happens in a collapse, but each floor suddenly compressing to, say, a tenth of its previous volume will compress the enclosed air to a pressure of 150 pounds per square inch (or about 10 tons per square foot). What happens to you in the way of that? Not an explosion, but you would not be sensible of any difference. It's called physics.
Catastrophic failure at the crash floor simply propagated downward. The columns at those levels had lost their supporting strength. Failure was immediate, in shear. The downward acceleration of the upper floors created momentum that resulted in even higher compressive loads on the next lower floor, and its immediate failure in shear. The hesitations were on the order of 3 hundredths of a second. Down it goes, accelerating all the way (as observed).
Anything consisting of concrete or similar material would pulverize because such material cannot withstand mechanical stress, so beams covered in such stuff would certainly show pulverization. Reinforced concrete beams could essentially disintegrate. Leaving "very little debris" is an absurd claim. Both buildings shed pulverized debris in a large radius and ended as mounds of debris.
There is no evidence for any demolition. There is only evidence for the catastrophic compression failure by reason of a complete loss of supportive strength in the columns exposed to the fire temperatures.
I can answer the question. This building in China was hit by a much smaller aircraft.
Oh, and the Chinese building wasn't previously rigged with explosives and thermite for demolition like buildings 1, 2, and 7 in New York. Don't get me started on the use of directed energy....
Interesting little short video from the 5th anniversary of 9/11. GW is in the Rose Garden, giving a short little speech to the press, this is NOT the speech that is in the White House archives.
Go to the 3:45 mark: GW talks about the information that the CIA gathered from the terrorists that they captured. Interesting little bit of information, I’m sure it’s just a coincidence and had nothing to do with anyone covering their tracks.
Some of the comments are just sad. Still a lot of people in a slumber believing the MSM narrative. At least they are highly likely vaccinated and boosted.
Better yet, why didnt the building next to it (where the person is filming) collapse as well, even though no plane collided into it (wtc7)… just baffled
Building didn't have explosives in them.
Exactly and the owner didn’t get billions and billions using an insurance bought two weeks prior to 9/11
Why should it? It was a light sport plane, probably weighing no more than a ton, flying at maybe 100 mph...not a 200-ton airliner flying at 500 mph. It helps not to pose stupid questions. In 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber crashed into the side of the Empire State building, leaving a hole and some wreckage. This falls into the category of "I shot the rhino with a .22, so why didn't it fall over dead?"
What brought building 7 down straight down into its own footprint AT FREEFALL SPEED, after the two twin towers collapsed? A 200-ton airliner flying at 500 miles an hour? No small office fires! Small office fires don't bring down high-rise steel frame buildings. Does that maybe suggest Jet planes had nothing to do with the total collapse of the twin towers. Could it be that the same thing that brought down building number 7, brought down the twin towers? Calling all cars!
What brought building 7 down straight down into its own footprint AT FREEFALL SPEED
Delayed reaction. I know because I say CNN report it collapsed 15 minutes before it did collapse! Kek
Lack of an "acceptable" answer to question C does not invalidate firm answers to questions A and B. Not even collisions with 200-ton airliners at 500 mph were enough to take down the twin towers, which stood for nearly an hour before collapse. It was the fires which weakened the structures to failure. And one analysis of WTC7 indicated a similar mechanism, involving a prolonged interior fire extending through several floors. (I think I recall reading that the internal fire extinguishing system had been disabled by the initial shock of the Twin Towers collisions.) It was the failure and the weight of the overburdened structure that did the trick.
By accident, I happened to see a video clip of a building under attack, I think in Lebanon, where a guided missile hit and exploded at the perimeter base of the building. It collapsed like an accordion. The more you look, the more you see.
It suggests that the jet planes had everything to do with the collapse of the Twin Towers. Horrors! That would mean the "government narrative" is essentially true. And that would mean that the amazing conspiracy magical excuses vanish into thin air. Which would mean...nothing changes. Islam is still an enemy and the past government was working for the Deep State. And slipped up. Or, the Deep State could have been involved in the plot, which would be bad enough. Or both (left hand and right hand not talking, most likely). Credible enough to put across to Normies convincingly.
The official explanation included jet fuel coursing down the elevator shaft, somehow getting into a non-contiguous shaft and continuing to the ground floor to cause massive explosions. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Jet fuel is liquid, so going down a shaft is certainly possible. I would expect the fire to have followed suit, to the extent there was a draft to support it. I don't know anything about it getting into a "non-contiguous" shaft, although liquids are genius at penetration. Jet fuel does not cause massive explosions, and none were present. People confuse the compression of the collapsed floors to be "explosions" when the air has been raised to pressures of ~10 tons/square foot. A burst tire sounds like an explosion. And a compressed floor will blow loose material out through the burst windows. I don't think you are in a position to ridicule anyone.
Major explosions that blew out the lobby and fucked people up, not to mention the damage in the basement. You don't remember that?
I'm not aware of those details. A deflagration overpressure from a mixture of kerosene mist and air can often be mistaken for an explosion. Even a sudden compression of air can be mistaken similarly. These will cause damage. (Pressure explosions of truck tires can be exceedingly dangerous, as the wheel structure comes apart.)
Do your due diligence then.
NIST had to use unrealistic parameter values in their computer simulation to get the steel to weaken as much as they say it did.
I don't know those details or what they were modeling. But the adiabatic flame temperature of burning jet fuel (kerosene) is easily above the melting point of steel, and far above the temperature at which structural steel loses 70% of its strength. Since that is true, what is "unrealistic"?
I had to look up adiabatic. No way it burned as hot as possible, right?
Why not? That is the flame temperature at which a substance burns if there is neither an excess nor a lack of oxygen for combustion (i.e., complete combustion). More oxygen does not aid the combustion but dilutes the flame temperature. (This technique of lean burning is how modern jet engines avoid melting their turbine blades. So, there is no physical problem in jet fuel burning as hot as possible.) Less oxygen leads to incomplete combustion. The burning environment was a "stove" in which the walls retained the radiation produced by the combustion process and prevented cooling. The elevator shafts may have provided adequate draft to keep the fire going.
Here is a pretty good source for various adiabatic flame temperatures for common fuels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_flame_temperature (Also, look here for the flame temperature of aluminum.)
Pretty sure you have to force a ton of air to get the maximum.
What about #7?
What about it? Different story. I can say that one analysis pointed to the weakening effect of a long-duration fire in the core of the building that caused the floor beams to expand from the heat and dislodge themselves from their mounting brackets on structural columns. It got to a point where they disconnected and it was an avalanche all the way down. Not my analysis, but prove it wrong.
What started the fire?
Airplanes crash far too often, but fires are common. There are such things as jet engines whose combustors are hot, broken open by the crash, or still running and producing flame. What started the fire is not a question for airplane crashes.
Dr. Halsey of the university of Alaska Anchorage did an in depth study on building 7. He's an engineer. Check it out. Very interesting
I did manage to find an in-depth report and read it. I don't know if it was his, offhand.
All BS. You can see the support beams that were cut by explosive charges. Those "fires" were not hot enough to harm the steel beams at all.
The "government narrative" is fake and gay. 100%.
All shear failures occur on a plane at 45 degrees to the direction of the applied load, whether they are instigated by "thermite" or not. That is just the inevitable mechanics of shear failure under compression. I guess you consider the science of strength of materials to be "BS."
The fires were at least hot enough to weaken the steel beams to below a strength of 30% of their strength at normal temperature (there is no data for how it further diminishes at higher temperature). They were even hot enough to melt the steel. The presence of burning aluminum fuselage structure would have created even higher temperatures. These are facts, not opinions. Look up the data before making erroneous statements.
The "government narrative" happens to be consistent with the physics and chemistry of what happened. You are not aware of how mistaken you are.
Might be a good idea to hear what"Architects for 9/11"have to say(over a thousand architects)(they have disputed the government narrative from the very start) - as to the government narrative being true, when has the government narrative ever been true? - now to the missile hitting perimeter base of that other building you spoke of and an airliner hitting the top of the twin towers, big difference between destroying the foundation and hitting the top of a skyscraper, and I highly doubt that the building you mentioned even though it was hit at the base with a missile, collapsed STRAIGHT down into its own footprint (not leaning over) at FREE FALL SPEED . - back to the twin towers,you don't have to be an engineer to figure out, if a building simply collapses one floor unto another(weakened by heat) each floor below would slow it down a bit as it collapses,you certainly would not have a building falling at freefall speed or straight down. Free Fall speed occurs when there is no obstruction between floors, which is what happens when they take down a building with demolition, they blow the floor out below it, ensuring it falls straight down, with no obstruction below(so as not to lean over and damage buildings beside it) in other words, (straight down,into its own footprint) (remind you of anything you saw on that day). The following in no particular order (food for thought): If the towers, simply collapsed onto itself, the amount of material that it took to build the building, would be the amount of material left in the pile of rubble. Was it? Or was the concrete blown to bits, creating a dust cloud, 10 to 15 miles, and a pile of rubble leftover that did not match the amount that should be there from a building that simply collapsed. - The extremely thick steel frame structure, would have simply bent if it were only heat that weakened it - (the temperature jet fuel producers is well below the temperature required to melt steel beams, how do they explain the beans melted, and cut right in half, that only the heat of thermite could do? (they don't) How is that thermite particles were found in the dust and on the beams explained? (they don't) - How is it (on a crime scene) the material of the crime scene is hauled away the very next day? How is the hijacked airliners are in air for nearly 3 hours before collision (with the towers and the Pentagon) we're not intercepted by one single fighter Jet? Yet if even a small Cessna goes off course(ESPECIALLY NEAR THE PENTAGON) there is a jet on its wing in 5 -10 minutes? How was the jet that was in the air for nearly 3 hours and flew into the most guarded place on Earth (the Pentagon) most secure building in the world, has cameras, everywhere and I mean everywhere, there is no (clear) video of the so-called yet that hit the pentagon? Another coincidence? All the cameras failed (like in Epstein cell) Okay, Right! - they found the pilot license of one of the hijackers on the ground at the base of the twin towers, remarkable isn't it, yet the jet he was flying, flew right into the twin tower and exploded on impact, but his pilot license, flew out of that mess and landed on the ground beside the twin towers unscathed, what a rare piece of luck? They found the pilot's license but they couldn't find the the jet, that crashed into the field into the mineshaft? (disintegrated I guess) or the jet that crashed into the Pentagon(disintegrated I guess) but not the pilot license! - The jet that hit the Pentagon hit exactly the offices where they were investigating the trillion dollars they couldn't account for,, chalk that up to another coincidence - simply hours after this tragic event they knew exactly who did it, remember (weapons of mass destruction) justifying that war only to find out, there were no weapons of mass destruction and had nothing to do with 911. Another false flag, and a bill of goods sold to us, (some not buying however). The one thing we know is the twin towers were destroyed, but I'm sorry my fine feathered friend, how and who did it, definitely does not line up with the government narrative. Critical thinking required or you could say it this way, "Calling all cars"
The building I saw on the video collapsed like an accordion. It was clearly visible.
The analysis by the other party reckoned that the lower floors impeded the upper floor descent by .03 second at each impact. Not enough even to be noticeable. The shear failures would be nearly instantaneous. The material used for the construction was ultimately scattered over a large area. The concrete was pulverized by the collapse in process. You commit a classic error of ignorance: the adabatic flame temperature of jet fuel (kerosene) is well above the melting point of steel, and far above the failure point. I have pointed that out many times; hardly anyone bothers to learn. Compression shear failure occurs as a break at a diagonal to the imposed load. What they found was residue from melted aluminum, aluminum oxide ash from combustion, melted iron, and some iron oxide from combustion. It was all "ash." (Thermite is only aluminum plus iron oxide.) When you have the same starting materials involved in combustion, you end up with these products. As for a crime scene, ask the government. What would you expect to find? It was a catastrophe, witnessed by many.
Why would the airliners be "intercepted" by a jet...and then what? Be shot down over populated territory with hundreds of passengers on board? Maybe so, but no one had foreseen this possibility. Who says there was no clear video of the jet crashing into the Pentagon? Have you forgot that its location would have been a secret? So, there was no public release to prevent its location for future sabotage. If they had that imagery, the public did not have a need to know. The existing video was enough to identify the livery of the airplane. There were eyewitnesses both on the ground and in the air. Components of the airplane were found. The radar track of the flight led to the Pentagon.
In catastophes resulting in great physical havoc, there is no telling what lightweight items might not be involved in any conflagration. It is not a mystery. Yes, the jet in Pennsylvania disinitegrated. This happens with a high speed direct collision. You can find videos of airplanes driven into concrete barriers at flight speed and they are utterly pulverized. Where the pentagon aircraft hit was only a coincidence. How could anyone have singled out such a target? That would be the impossible occurrence.
Then you go beyond the event, which is not the topic. Since they back-tracked the culprits who hijacked the airplanes, that may be as far as the trail goes.
Clear thinking is required to understand the physics and chemistry behind the event, understand how all the known pieces fit into the event. Understanding that produces a real theory. Inventing an alternate story out of nothing is not a theory but a fantasy. You don't make any progress by abandoning reality.
My thoughts too. Although even an airliner won't bring down a building like that this event was a bad comparison. A much better comparison would be when a B-25 bomber flew into the Empire State Building in 1945. Did some damage and killed some people but the building never flinched.
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/empire-state-building-plane-crash/
I'm familiar with that event. A B-25 weighed 17.5 tons and flew at 230 mph, about a factor of 20 difference in momentum compared to a 767, with a much smaller fuel load. I could shoot you with a .22 and you would look down and say, "What the hell was that?" Or I could shoot you with a 10 mm and you would look down and wonder where your heart went, then collapse. If I shoot a big building with a Big Game Rifle, it will succumb. Rhinos and elephants drop in their tracks. But if you go after them with a .45 Colt, they will drop you in your tracks. Same idea. Folks on this page can't seem to differentiate the effects of magnitude.
You have ignored 100% of the evidence of explosives. Also, the Empire State Building wasn't specifically engineered to be immune to jet planes flying into it.
Flying a huge plane into one side of a building cannot possibly cause the entire building to have explosions on lower levels and drop within its own footprint and leave very little debris. I have seen videos of huge sections of the metal structure dropping through the air and turning to dust midair. Witnesses heard the explosions. All three buildings were controlled demolitions. Before #7 fell, "Lucky" Larry actually said on camera to "pull it," which means to set off the demolition.
You and everyone here responding to this killer space robot need to recognize 2 things.
You are not going to convince him/it of anything.
He/it is not worth convincing even if you could.
He/it is either a part of the apparatus or simply drunk on its ideology. Or both.
No evidence of explosives. You have to consider the chemistry. There is only evidence of melting and combustion of aluminum and iron,
The Empire State Building might not have survived the impact of a large jet airplane. But the Twin Towers did. They stood there for about an hour, before taken down by the effects of the fires.
"Explosions" on lower levels were from the air compression of floor collapses. Does a tire blowout require an "explosion"? It sure sounds like an explosion, doesn't it? So, the people were hearing only that. Yes, you don't expect to hear it because hardly anyone is familiar with what happens in a collapse, but each floor suddenly compressing to, say, a tenth of its previous volume will compress the enclosed air to a pressure of 150 pounds per square inch (or about 10 tons per square foot). What happens to you in the way of that? Not an explosion, but you would not be sensible of any difference. It's called physics.
Catastrophic failure at the crash floor simply propagated downward. The columns at those levels had lost their supporting strength. Failure was immediate, in shear. The downward acceleration of the upper floors created momentum that resulted in even higher compressive loads on the next lower floor, and its immediate failure in shear. The hesitations were on the order of 3 hundredths of a second. Down it goes, accelerating all the way (as observed).
Anything consisting of concrete or similar material would pulverize because such material cannot withstand mechanical stress, so beams covered in such stuff would certainly show pulverization. Reinforced concrete beams could essentially disintegrate. Leaving "very little debris" is an absurd claim. Both buildings shed pulverized debris in a large radius and ended as mounds of debris.
There is no evidence for any demolition. There is only evidence for the catastrophic compression failure by reason of a complete loss of supportive strength in the columns exposed to the fire temperatures.
You certainly have studied 9/11.
‘Twas a joke my guy.
In all these exchanges, I've lost the reference.
Color me surprised.
<[] <<<
???
Building didn't have explosives in them.
The steel beams were cut in clean, 45-degree angles.
They were all over the area after the collapse.
That's why they were shipped off to China before a real investigation could take place.
Building didn't have explosives in them.
Silverstein himself said, "... so we decided to 'pull it.'"
That's demo.
And that means explosives.
Or pull the teams on the site out of harm's way. Surmise is not evidence.
I can answer the question. This building in China was hit by a much smaller aircraft.
Oh, and the Chinese building wasn't previously rigged with explosives and thermite for demolition like buildings 1, 2, and 7 in New York. Don't get me started on the use of directed energy....
There's that difference.
Building no go boom.
Interesting little short video from the 5th anniversary of 9/11. GW is in the Rose Garden, giving a short little speech to the press, this is NOT the speech that is in the White House archives.
Go to the 3:45 mark: GW talks about the information that the CIA gathered from the terrorists that they captured. Interesting little bit of information, I’m sure it’s just a coincidence and had nothing to do with anyone covering their tracks.
Link to video: https://youtu.be/lSlH-MZ9J6M?si=w0CBI5FPkKYJgmBA
EDIT: And in case you didn’t know, Trump remarked about the buildings on the day that it happened. Here’s that link to the video: https://youtu.be/EmM755AaTlA?si=utqZ5NJsqLTf8TMd
One more thing: When did Q say “the start” was? July 16, 1999, when JFK jr’s plane went down.
I wonder if the Israeli art students (mossad) forgot to set the detonators before leaving the building this time.
https://nitter.net/MJTruthUltra/status/2070662335794909656
Some of the comments are just sad. Still a lot of people in a slumber believing the MSM narrative. At least they are highly likely vaccinated and boosted.
...the walking dead
Where's the 'Nose Out' video? kek
Better yet, why didnt the building next to it (where the person is filming) collapse as well, even though no plane collided into it (wtc7)… just baffled
Hmm...109 "stories"...
Chinese engineering. Kek.
That's no comparison to 9-11 not even close.
China perspective. CCP shaken.
CCP Deletes All: Woman Breaches Beijing Air Defense, Crashes Plane into Tallest Skyscraper