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 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"?
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.
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.
Lack of an "acceptable" answer to question C does not invalidate firm answers to questions A and B.
You are talking about apples and oranges. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, yet collapsed.
There are 3 possibilities as to why 3 buildings fell on that day:
(1) Planes hit them, caused damage, which then collapsed the buildings, and/or
(2) Fires raged, which caused the buildings to collapse, and/or
(3) Explosives (and/or incendiaries, such as thermite) were pre-planted in the building(s), which caused the collapses.
Scenario 1 is not possible. Building 7 was not hit by anything, which means it could not have collapsed due to a plane.
The architect of the Twin Towers was on video explaining that the buildings were designed so that MULTIPLE JUMBO JETS could hit those buildings, and they would not collapse.
He knew there was plenty of air traffic in the area, and he knew about the plane that had hit the Empire State Building.
The design of the Twin Towers was such that it had multiple redundancies, liking it to a mosquito net. He said that it would be like sticking a pencil through a mosquito net. Yes, it would create a hole, but the net would otherwise be unaffected, and the buildings would not fall due to aircraft damage.
Both towers had 47 steel pillars running 100+ stories high, with the outside "skin" being attached to those pillars. The CORE of the buildings were the strength. The outer walls were not important to the overall structure of the buildings.
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.
That was NOT a steel-framed building. It looks like a typical adobe building in the desert.
Which leads me to why Scenario #2 (fire) could also NOT have been the cause of the collapses.
The Twin Towers, being made of steel, would have dissipated the heat throughout the structure.
That is one of the reasons WHY skyscrapers are made of a steel structure. Steel spreads the heat throughout the structure.
In the event of a fire, the heat will DISPERSE throughout the structure, so that no one particular area -- even the area where a fire exists -- will be weakened enough to cause a collapse.
MANY skyscrapers have had massive fires in them, and NONE have collapsed due to fire. NONE.
The First Interstate Tower in Los Angeles caught fire in 1988. Fire raged on for 4 hours. The building did not have a functioning sprinkler system at the time.
Building 7 had office paper fires, which would never be hot enough to cause a complete collapse like what happened.
Also, British TV reported that "a 3rd building" (Building 7) ... "has also collapsed."
But that was at least an hour before it fell.
Which brings me to Scenario #3 (explosives and/or incendiaries, like thermite).
The Twin Towers were shut down the weekend before the attack. "Maintenance workers" did some work in the elevator shafts and some of the offices.
One of the offices was a computer room, which JUST SO HAPPENS to be the EXACT LOCATION of one of the planes hitting it. Homing devices planted for the plane to target?
Also, the core steel columns that were the solid strucutre of the buildings would be easy access from the elevator shafts.
WEEKS after the buildings collapsed, there was STILL MOLTEN IRON running underground.
Thermite is suspected of being used, which can cut through steel beams instantly.
ZERO chance that a group of arabs, who could not fly Cessna trainer airplanes could have pulled off the maneuvers of jumbo jets on 9/11.
"Operation Northwoods" was a secret CIA op that was planned, but JFK shut it down.
It would have had commercial jets being "hijacked" by "Cubans" (aka undercover FBI operatives), with drone planes substituting for the real planes, to cause an attack to be blamed on Cuba.
We know that members of the "Project for a New American Century" included a man who owned a remote flying software program that could have been used in the 9/11 attack.
We also know that Dick Cheney was given legal authority over hijackings just a few months before 9/11, and then the authority was turned back over to who had previously had that authority, right after 9/11.
And Cheney ordered Norm Minetta to NOT shoot down the incoming aircraft (the missile headed for the Pentagon).
We also know that on 9/11/2001, there were the MOST hijacking scenarios and the most military exercises, with Air Force jets OUT OF THE AREA on other missions during that time.
The entire sector was emptied of aircraft that could have responded, military drills being run that were the same as the exact thing happening, causing mass confusion and inability to respond properly.
The whole thing was set up by treasonsous bastards, with arab patsies used as the "Oswald" explantion.
Please ... don't tell us about clay buildings dropping from missiles or paper fires (or even jet fuel fires) bringing down a STEEL STRUCTURE BUILDING -- much less 3 in one day.
I have never mingled the situation of building 7 with the Twin Towers. You and others do that all the time. Don't accuse me of combining apples with oranges when you brought that fruit basket into the picture, not me.
I did state that a separate analysis of building 7 indicated that the core fire was sufficient to cause the expansion of floor beams out of their attachment brackets to the structural column beams, with their disconnection being responsible for the collapse. A different mechanism from the Twin Towers collapse.
I already pointed out that the collision event itself did not cause building collapse of the Twin Towers. There are simulations showing that the airplanes went through the array of pillars like a potato through a french fries cutter. Bad for the potato.
The Beirut apartment building in the photos you reference was NOT an "adobe building in the desert." Just look at it. It was a conventional framed building. You don't help your argument by making an absurd claim. As there was no video, I could not swear this was what I saw.
Steel is conductive of heat, yes, but not at all perfectly. I have an iron fireplace stove, and you don't want to touch it when it is burning, but the exterior is definitely not as hot as the interior. You don't seem to appreciate the "stove" effect of a closed burning environment, where all the heat radiation is trapped by the structure. It is why stoves were invented in the first place, to provide a more efficient way of generating heat from fire. There will be a high temperature region immediately adjacent to the combustion region, with lower temperatures farther away. Structural steel loses strength with high temperature. It makes the building progressively weaker.
No other buildings were subject to the combustion of tens of tons of jet fuel (and aluminum) in a stove-like region in their centers. Magnitude matters. Many homes have small fires internally that are successfully extinguished. From that, do we conclude that a house burning to the ground is impossible? That is essentially your logic. (We see evidence all the time that a burning airplane can be so hot as to consume the fuselage. I don't think you have any idea of the heat released by and the burning temperature of combusting aluminum.) Just because building X does not collapse from a fire does not mean it is impossible for building Y to collapse from a fire, if building Y has a far more powerful fire. I can drive my car into a wall at 5 mph and walk out with minor damage to the car. Or I can drive it into the wall at 100 mph and the car and me would be pulverized into tiny fragments. Same idea.
No evidence of "thermite". Only combustion products from iron and aluminum. You have to get your head around the fact that the combustion environment inside the building was essentially identical to that of thermite + jet fuel: burning jet fuel, molten and evaporating aluminum, burning aluminum, melting (and softening) steel, some combustion of the steel (think sparkler fireworks). This is the fact that everyone omits, because they are not used to the idea of burning aluminum (which is every bit as hot as burning magnesium). We see ferociously hot burning aluminum all the time in the incandescent flame from large launch vehicle booster stages.
Who says the hijackers could not fly the planes? The fact is that they did fly the planes. No special "maneuver" is required to point it at a building at a far distance and just ride it in to the collision. Radar tracking establishes they were able to change course and acquire their "bomb run" targeting path. Airplanes in level flight are designed to be self-stabiiizing and not need intensive pilot input (or the pilots would fatigue out on a long flight). They were the only planes on a heading to the towers. Drone planes only add another elaborate conspiracy to explain away, for which there is no evidence. These conspiracy theories have the quality of explaining deaths and disaster by means of magical disappearances and curses.
We never convict anyone on the basis of "they could have been" the culprit, when there is absolutely no evidence that they WERE. This is where the conspiracy theories turn into flights of fancy, not an actual theory, which is supposed to explain the evidence.
The question of whether the attack was a plot known and used by Deep State insiders is at this point unprovable, but entirely separate from the question of how the buildings collapsed.
If you have a closed mind on the subject and don't want to accept the factual information I have provided about combustion chemistry and physics, just pin that on your chest so other people won't bother to inform you of the applicable science.
I have no need to continue this conversation. Adios.
I have an iron fireplace stove, and you don't want to touch it when it is burning ...
Again, with the apples and oranges.
A small fireplace stove is a VERY small, confined space.
The Twin Towers were massive 100+ story buildings with megatons worth of steel, and a relatively small fire in an isolated loction.
The tower in Venezuela burned for 15 hours, destroyed 20 floors, but the building did not come down.
BECAUSE it is not a small stove.
And besides that, if fire can get THAT hot ... then why doesn't your stove melt?
You don't seem to appreciate the "stove" effect of a closed burning environment
And you don't seem to appreciate that this was NOT such a situation.
No closed environment. There was a big, gaping hole in the side, letting heat escape. Do that with your stove and see what happens (if you don't burn your house down -- lol).
There would have been a MASSIVE amount of heat from any jet fuel burning that was IMMEDIATELY released from the environment due to that huge hole in the side of the building.
Not anything close to a "things burning in an enclosed stove" scenario at all.
Structural steel loses strength with high temperature. It makes the building progressively weaker.
Any loss in strength is minimal, relatively speaking, as the structure is designed to send the heat away, along with the big, gaping hole on the side.
Venezuela. 15 HOURS ON FIRE.
Building did NOT come down.
So, your theory is not valid.
I don't think you have any idea of the heat released by and the burning temperature of combusting aluminum.
The jets were made of aluminum.
The steel skyscrapers were not.
There was an explosion from the aircraft impact, and there would have been a huge release of heat energy OUT the building (remember the fireball?) ... in an instant.
The remaining fuel would have burned, but not to the point of melting the steel structure.
No evidence of "thermite".
There was plenty of evidence of thermite. Steel beams were cut in clean 45-degree angles, as they were falling from the sky. Molten metal still flowed WEEKS afterwards. That does not happen in your standard "fire."
This is the fact that everyone omits, because they are not used to the idea of burning aluminum
My dad owned a foundry, which included making aluminum castings.
Aluminum is molten at about 1,000 degrees F.
Those fires were never at that level of temperature. And even if they were, again the steel would transfer the heat.
Even if you had a few areas of flooring break down, the core columns would have stood -- but they didn't because they were brought down with explosives/incendiaries.
Iron melts at about 2,000 degrees F, which is the basic ore used in making steel.
Plus, steel beams in buildings are usually coated with fireproof material, though I dont' know the specifics of those buildings.
Who says the hijackers could not fly the planes?
The guys who gave them flying lessons said that. One of them said, "Those guys could not fly ... AT ALL."
There is ZERO chance they could have made those maneuvers.
Shortly after 9/11, there were several pilots with 20 years and 30 years experience flying those types of aircraft. In some cases, some of these pilots had flown those EXACT aircraft -- as in those very same planes that were used in the event. Some of them were Air Force or Navy fighter pilots before flying the airlines.
They attempted to duplicate those maneuvers in a flight simulator.
NOT ONE pilot could do it.
NOT ONE.
The fact is that they did fly the planes.
No, that is not an established fact.
Those planes were more likely flown by remote computer program.
As I said, one of the members of Project for a New American Century owned such a system.
No special "maneuver" is required to point it at a building at a far distance and just ride it in to the collision.
That might be true for the North Tower plane, but not the South Tower plane, which came in at an extreme bank and angle to hit it at the last moment.
Plus, IF a plane hit the Pentagon (rather than a missile and/or bomb inside the building) ... then THAT maneuver would have been unthinkable for even a trained figher pilot, as the ground effects would have made it extremely difficult to keep a JUMBO JET just a few feet off the ground ... not to mention the extreme banking turn just before impact.
Guys who can't control a Cessna ... CANNOT do that.
As I said, even experienced pilots trying to duplicate it could not do it.
Radar tracking establishes ...
Radar tracking establishes that the PLANES did what they did, but says nothing about IF there were any pilots doing it.
Airplanes in level flight are designed to be self-stabiiizing and not need intensive pilot input
Thta is what you are missing. Only the plane hitting the North Tower would meet that description. The others did not.
Drone planes only add another elaborate conspiracy to explain away, for which there is no evidence.
Evidence cannot be generated when there is no investigation.
And there wasn't any investigation.
The debris from the fallen structures was quickly shipped off to China, never to be seen again.
This is where the conspiracy theories turn into flights of fancy
"Muh conspiracy theory !!!"
Police detectives engage in conspiracy theories every day when they are trying to solve a crime, if they think more than one person was involved.
Conspiracy = 2 or more people who agree to do something illegal or immoral
Theory = a working hypothesis to try to explain something
"Conspiracy theory" does NOT mean "fake."
It means that if the "official narrative" does not adequately explain what happened, based on known facts, then it is reasonable to consider alternative explanations
his is where the conspiracy theories turn into flights of fancy, not an actual theory ...
Average Joe does not have law enforcement authority to investigate and demand answers.
Ergo, speculation replaces narrative when those who do have that authority lie about what the so-called "evidence" shows.
Investigating people who engage in conspiracy is a valid pursuit. Just look at all the fraud being uncovered -- and that was pretty much all done via ... CONSPIRACY.
So, don't dismiss something that is a valid concern. You come across as dismissive due to ignoring some of the evidence when you do that.
If you have a closed mind on the subject and don't want to accept the factual information I have provided about combustion chemistry and physics,
You haven't proven a damn thing.
All you did was make CLAIMS ... like "muh Covid" and other "science" that is obviously false.
I have no need to continue this conversation. Adios.
Of course ... the true sign of one who is close-minded.
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?
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?
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.
But I'm aware of how untruthful you are. You are a shill, and I will not respond again.
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?
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
You are talking about apples and oranges. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, yet collapsed.
There are 3 possibilities as to why 3 buildings fell on that day:
(1) Planes hit them, caused damage, which then collapsed the buildings, and/or
(2) Fires raged, which caused the buildings to collapse, and/or
(3) Explosives (and/or incendiaries, such as thermite) were pre-planted in the building(s), which caused the collapses.
Scenario 1 is not possible. Building 7 was not hit by anything, which means it could not have collapsed due to a plane.
The architect of the Twin Towers was on video explaining that the buildings were designed so that MULTIPLE JUMBO JETS could hit those buildings, and they would not collapse.
He knew there was plenty of air traffic in the area, and he knew about the plane that had hit the Empire State Building.
The design of the Twin Towers was such that it had multiple redundancies, liking it to a mosquito net. He said that it would be like sticking a pencil through a mosquito net. Yes, it would create a hole, but the net would otherwise be unaffected, and the buildings would not fall due to aircraft damage.
Both towers had 47 steel pillars running 100+ stories high, with the outside "skin" being attached to those pillars. The CORE of the buildings were the strength. The outer walls were not important to the overall structure of the buildings.
Are you talking about this? --
https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2024/10/23/images-capture-exact-moment-israeli-missile-hit-building-in-beirut
That was NOT a steel-framed building. It looks like a typical adobe building in the desert.
Which leads me to why Scenario #2 (fire) could also NOT have been the cause of the collapses.
The Twin Towers, being made of steel, would have dissipated the heat throughout the structure.
That is one of the reasons WHY skyscrapers are made of a steel structure. Steel spreads the heat throughout the structure.
In the event of a fire, the heat will DISPERSE throughout the structure, so that no one particular area -- even the area where a fire exists -- will be weakened enough to cause a collapse.
MANY skyscrapers have had massive fires in them, and NONE have collapsed due to fire. NONE.
The First Interstate Tower in Los Angeles caught fire in 1988. Fire raged on for 4 hours. The building did not have a functioning sprinkler system at the time.
Building did NOT collapse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Interstate_Tower_fire
Also, a skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela caught fire in 2004. Fire raged for 15 hours.
Building did NOT collapse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parque_Central_Complex_fire
Building 7 had office paper fires, which would never be hot enough to cause a complete collapse like what happened.
Also, British TV reported that "a 3rd building" (Building 7) ... "has also collapsed."
But that was at least an hour before it fell.
Which brings me to Scenario #3 (explosives and/or incendiaries, like thermite).
The Twin Towers were shut down the weekend before the attack. "Maintenance workers" did some work in the elevator shafts and some of the offices.
One of the offices was a computer room, which JUST SO HAPPENS to be the EXACT LOCATION of one of the planes hitting it. Homing devices planted for the plane to target?
Also, the core steel columns that were the solid strucutre of the buildings would be easy access from the elevator shafts.
WEEKS after the buildings collapsed, there was STILL MOLTEN IRON running underground.
Thermite is suspected of being used, which can cut through steel beams instantly.
ZERO chance that a group of arabs, who could not fly Cessna trainer airplanes could have pulled off the maneuvers of jumbo jets on 9/11.
"Operation Northwoods" was a secret CIA op that was planned, but JFK shut it down.
It would have had commercial jets being "hijacked" by "Cubans" (aka undercover FBI operatives), with drone planes substituting for the real planes, to cause an attack to be blamed on Cuba.
We know that members of the "Project for a New American Century" included a man who owned a remote flying software program that could have been used in the 9/11 attack.
We also know that Dick Cheney was given legal authority over hijackings just a few months before 9/11, and then the authority was turned back over to who had previously had that authority, right after 9/11.
And Cheney ordered Norm Minetta to NOT shoot down the incoming aircraft (the missile headed for the Pentagon).
We also know that on 9/11/2001, there were the MOST hijacking scenarios and the most military exercises, with Air Force jets OUT OF THE AREA on other missions during that time.
The entire sector was emptied of aircraft that could have responded, military drills being run that were the same as the exact thing happening, causing mass confusion and inability to respond properly.
The whole thing was set up by treasonsous bastards, with arab patsies used as the "Oswald" explantion.
Please ... don't tell us about clay buildings dropping from missiles or paper fires (or even jet fuel fires) bringing down a STEEL STRUCTURE BUILDING -- much less 3 in one day.
I have never mingled the situation of building 7 with the Twin Towers. You and others do that all the time. Don't accuse me of combining apples with oranges when you brought that fruit basket into the picture, not me.
I did state that a separate analysis of building 7 indicated that the core fire was sufficient to cause the expansion of floor beams out of their attachment brackets to the structural column beams, with their disconnection being responsible for the collapse. A different mechanism from the Twin Towers collapse.
I already pointed out that the collision event itself did not cause building collapse of the Twin Towers. There are simulations showing that the airplanes went through the array of pillars like a potato through a french fries cutter. Bad for the potato.
The Beirut apartment building in the photos you reference was NOT an "adobe building in the desert." Just look at it. It was a conventional framed building. You don't help your argument by making an absurd claim. As there was no video, I could not swear this was what I saw.
Steel is conductive of heat, yes, but not at all perfectly. I have an iron fireplace stove, and you don't want to touch it when it is burning, but the exterior is definitely not as hot as the interior. You don't seem to appreciate the "stove" effect of a closed burning environment, where all the heat radiation is trapped by the structure. It is why stoves were invented in the first place, to provide a more efficient way of generating heat from fire. There will be a high temperature region immediately adjacent to the combustion region, with lower temperatures farther away. Structural steel loses strength with high temperature. It makes the building progressively weaker.
No other buildings were subject to the combustion of tens of tons of jet fuel (and aluminum) in a stove-like region in their centers. Magnitude matters. Many homes have small fires internally that are successfully extinguished. From that, do we conclude that a house burning to the ground is impossible? That is essentially your logic. (We see evidence all the time that a burning airplane can be so hot as to consume the fuselage. I don't think you have any idea of the heat released by and the burning temperature of combusting aluminum.) Just because building X does not collapse from a fire does not mean it is impossible for building Y to collapse from a fire, if building Y has a far more powerful fire. I can drive my car into a wall at 5 mph and walk out with minor damage to the car. Or I can drive it into the wall at 100 mph and the car and me would be pulverized into tiny fragments. Same idea.
No evidence of "thermite". Only combustion products from iron and aluminum. You have to get your head around the fact that the combustion environment inside the building was essentially identical to that of thermite + jet fuel: burning jet fuel, molten and evaporating aluminum, burning aluminum, melting (and softening) steel, some combustion of the steel (think sparkler fireworks). This is the fact that everyone omits, because they are not used to the idea of burning aluminum (which is every bit as hot as burning magnesium). We see ferociously hot burning aluminum all the time in the incandescent flame from large launch vehicle booster stages.
Who says the hijackers could not fly the planes? The fact is that they did fly the planes. No special "maneuver" is required to point it at a building at a far distance and just ride it in to the collision. Radar tracking establishes they were able to change course and acquire their "bomb run" targeting path. Airplanes in level flight are designed to be self-stabiiizing and not need intensive pilot input (or the pilots would fatigue out on a long flight). They were the only planes on a heading to the towers. Drone planes only add another elaborate conspiracy to explain away, for which there is no evidence. These conspiracy theories have the quality of explaining deaths and disaster by means of magical disappearances and curses.
We never convict anyone on the basis of "they could have been" the culprit, when there is absolutely no evidence that they WERE. This is where the conspiracy theories turn into flights of fancy, not an actual theory, which is supposed to explain the evidence.
The question of whether the attack was a plot known and used by Deep State insiders is at this point unprovable, but entirely separate from the question of how the buildings collapsed.
If you have a closed mind on the subject and don't want to accept the factual information I have provided about combustion chemistry and physics, just pin that on your chest so other people won't bother to inform you of the applicable science.
I have no need to continue this conversation. Adios.
Again, with the apples and oranges.
A small fireplace stove is a VERY small, confined space.
The Twin Towers were massive 100+ story buildings with megatons worth of steel, and a relatively small fire in an isolated loction.
The tower in Venezuela burned for 15 hours, destroyed 20 floors, but the building did not come down.
BECAUSE it is not a small stove.
And besides that, if fire can get THAT hot ... then why doesn't your stove melt?
And you don't seem to appreciate that this was NOT such a situation.
No closed environment. There was a big, gaping hole in the side, letting heat escape. Do that with your stove and see what happens (if you don't burn your house down -- lol).
There would have been a MASSIVE amount of heat from any jet fuel burning that was IMMEDIATELY released from the environment due to that huge hole in the side of the building.
Not anything close to a "things burning in an enclosed stove" scenario at all.
Any loss in strength is minimal, relatively speaking, as the structure is designed to send the heat away, along with the big, gaping hole on the side.
Venezuela. 15 HOURS ON FIRE.
Building did NOT come down.
So, your theory is not valid.
The jets were made of aluminum.
The steel skyscrapers were not.
There was an explosion from the aircraft impact, and there would have been a huge release of heat energy OUT the building (remember the fireball?) ... in an instant.
The remaining fuel would have burned, but not to the point of melting the steel structure.
There was plenty of evidence of thermite. Steel beams were cut in clean 45-degree angles, as they were falling from the sky. Molten metal still flowed WEEKS afterwards. That does not happen in your standard "fire."
My dad owned a foundry, which included making aluminum castings.
Aluminum is molten at about 1,000 degrees F.
Those fires were never at that level of temperature. And even if they were, again the steel would transfer the heat.
Even if you had a few areas of flooring break down, the core columns would have stood -- but they didn't because they were brought down with explosives/incendiaries.
Iron melts at about 2,000 degrees F, which is the basic ore used in making steel.
Plus, steel beams in buildings are usually coated with fireproof material, though I dont' know the specifics of those buildings.
The guys who gave them flying lessons said that. One of them said, "Those guys could not fly ... AT ALL."
There is ZERO chance they could have made those maneuvers.
Shortly after 9/11, there were several pilots with 20 years and 30 years experience flying those types of aircraft. In some cases, some of these pilots had flown those EXACT aircraft -- as in those very same planes that were used in the event. Some of them were Air Force or Navy fighter pilots before flying the airlines.
They attempted to duplicate those maneuvers in a flight simulator.
NOT ONE pilot could do it.
NOT ONE.
No, that is not an established fact.
Those planes were more likely flown by remote computer program.
As I said, one of the members of Project for a New American Century owned such a system.
That might be true for the North Tower plane, but not the South Tower plane, which came in at an extreme bank and angle to hit it at the last moment.
Plus, IF a plane hit the Pentagon (rather than a missile and/or bomb inside the building) ... then THAT maneuver would have been unthinkable for even a trained figher pilot, as the ground effects would have made it extremely difficult to keep a JUMBO JET just a few feet off the ground ... not to mention the extreme banking turn just before impact.
Guys who can't control a Cessna ... CANNOT do that.
As I said, even experienced pilots trying to duplicate it could not do it.
Radar tracking establishes that the PLANES did what they did, but says nothing about IF there were any pilots doing it.
Thta is what you are missing. Only the plane hitting the North Tower would meet that description. The others did not.
Evidence cannot be generated when there is no investigation.
And there wasn't any investigation.
The debris from the fallen structures was quickly shipped off to China, never to be seen again.
"Muh conspiracy theory !!!"
Police detectives engage in conspiracy theories every day when they are trying to solve a crime, if they think more than one person was involved.
Conspiracy = 2 or more people who agree to do something illegal or immoral
Theory = a working hypothesis to try to explain something
"Conspiracy theory" does NOT mean "fake."
It means that if the "official narrative" does not adequately explain what happened, based on known facts, then it is reasonable to consider alternative explanations
Average Joe does not have law enforcement authority to investigate and demand answers.
Ergo, speculation replaces narrative when those who do have that authority lie about what the so-called "evidence" shows.
Investigating people who engage in conspiracy is a valid pursuit. Just look at all the fraud being uncovered -- and that was pretty much all done via ... CONSPIRACY.
So, don't dismiss something that is a valid concern. You come across as dismissive due to ignoring some of the evidence when you do that.
You haven't proven a damn thing.
All you did was make CLAIMS ... like "muh Covid" and other "science" that is obviously false.
Of course ... the true sign of one who is close-minded.
That's what the Dumocrats do.
And we say ... buh-bye!