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.
The building you're talking about that fell like an accordion, the base was taken out, (fell from the bottom up) no resistance between each floor (or very little) unlike the twin towers fell from the top down, resistance on every floor. I'm guessing the building you saw was not built anywhere near the level of strength, the number of steel beams,thickness of the twin towers i the twin towers outer steel columns were only 14 inches apart, not to mention the center Core columns. For me your example of that other building is comparing apples and orangees. And I beg to differ, mine was not a classic error of ignorance( Jet fuel Burns between 1,830 f - 2370 f - Steel melts from between 2500 f - 2800 f not to mention the steel beams were all insulated, you would need a lot more than 2,800 f to melt them , then take into account, most of the jet fuel burnt off in the initial blast the explosion you saw, what was left was office fires, But let's pretend it could melt the steel, if there was melted steel from the jet fuel, the melted steel would be at the top of the twin towers, and therefore on the top of the rubble, however two days later when they were cleaning up, the steel beams that were on the bottom of the pile (that we're obviously not the steal beans from the top) the bottom steel beams were still were melting two days later and pouring molten lava from the buckets of the machines using to pick it up, as they hauled it away. There is no getting away with the fact that this does not line up. Explaining that would be like explaining how the pilot's license survived the explosion of jet fuel when The airliner hit, destroying steel beams, but leaving the pilot's license intact. Yes Thermite was found at the scene (as I said listen to the evidence from the engineers for 9/11) Why would airlines be intercepted by jet fighters, the same reason a Cessna is intercepted in Washington, or anywhere near the Pentagon if it goes off course,to prevent it from being used as a weapon to fly into buildings, or the Pentagon itself . These jet airlines were hijacked and in the air for almost 3 hours, so the question you should be asking is "Why were they not intercepted? As far as disintegration, flying into a concrete barrier, and flying into soft Earth above a mineshaft are not one in the same thing. You are right that clear thinking is needed with the events of that day - then why not listen to the scientists and engineers, who give a very different perspective than the government perspective, Google and listen to "Engineers for 9/11" Yes there were witnesses at the Pentagon, but that is not as conclusive as video footage, and yes there was 24-hour surveillance of Jeffrey Epstein in the jail cell, and yet at the time of his death 2 minutes of recording is missing, the same way,at the Pentagon there are cameras at every angle, so though there were witnesses, you have to ask yourself why wasn't there video footage, from every angle? I think it's denying reality not to ask that question. You mentioned not abandoning reality it reminds me of someone who was investigating 9/11, at the time,just after it happened, in Pennsylvaniawhere the plane crashed in the field, and the investigator asked where's the plane, and they responded to him what do you mean where's the plane, and he said I mean where's the plane, and they responded what are you a conspiracy theorist, NOW, THAT'S DENYING REALITY. But the smoking gun that to me cannot be denied,is high-rise building number 7, that only had small office fires, and it collapsed, at freefall speed(that's not possible unless the floor is beneath it were blown out) conveniently it fell straight down (not sagging over), right into its own footprint, an engineering impossibility. And if somebody can deny that then of course you can deny the whole thing. But to me, that's another abandoning reality moment, which caused people, not to question the rest of the government narrative There is no doubt,building number 7 didn't happen the way they said, therefore again to me it's abandoning reality to not even question everything else. I would like to commend you however on your respectful response, and you're writing ability, which is far above mine.
Diesel fuel is essentially like jet fuel, both are forms of kerosene, and the adiabatic flame temperature of kerosene is 3,801 F. Here is the reference table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_flame_temperature When the Germans were trying to develop the turbojet engine, burning kerosene, they were having trouble with the combustion melting the steel turbine blades. Ever since then, we have had the problem of high turbine inlet temperature. Getting the wrong flame temperature is a characteristic error of the conspiracy mentality.
It may surprise you to think that iron may remain molten if it is insulated by more iron, at least for a period of time. And if the upper stories are crashing through the lower stories, it is reasonable to expect the bottom level of the upper stories to appear at the bottom of the rubble.
The survival of the pilot's license is an expectable occurrence with a massive event. Not every tiny piece of the plane's cargo would necessarily be consumed, when there was likely to be strong air motions within the building during the process of the collision, and the airplane was being torn apart by the building support columns. Nature is not a perfectionist.
Do you have any idea what thermite consists of? It is fine aluminum powder and iron oxide. Exactly the kind of result after a massive combustion event involving the melting and burning of aluminum and the burning of hot iron (a component of sparklers). There would also be aluminum oxide and melted iron. Chemically, there is no way to distinguish the reaction products of thermite with the burning that happened in the Twin Towers. It is exactly this kind of ignorance of combustion chemistry that impeaches the position of the Engineers for 9/11. I am increasingly convinced that no one took into account the presence of aluminum combustion.
Undoubtedly, the Pentagon has a multitude of cameras for surveillance purposes. Explain to me why on Earth they would show any footage that would reveal the location of the camera? That would be a secret, for which the public would NOT have a need to know. The DoD would be the only party that needed to know.
In the Pennsylvania crash, it is not uncommon for such high-speed crashes to result in hardly anything left. The recent crash of a B-52 at Edwards AFB had that result.
Building 7 proves or disproves nothing. One credible analysis put the cause as the thermal expansion of floor beams after a prolonged fire in the building core, which ultimately pushed them out of the mounting brackets attaching them to the support columns. It did seem to have the character of the upper stories collapsing as they fell into the bottom story, so it was not the same kind of collapse as the Twin Towers.
Your cavalier use of the phrase "engineering impossibility" makes me think you are no engineer, and a poor judge of possibility.
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.)
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.)
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.
The building you're talking about that fell like an accordion, the base was taken out, (fell from the bottom up) no resistance between each floor (or very little) unlike the twin towers fell from the top down, resistance on every floor. I'm guessing the building you saw was not built anywhere near the level of strength, the number of steel beams,thickness of the twin towers i the twin towers outer steel columns were only 14 inches apart, not to mention the center Core columns. For me your example of that other building is comparing apples and orangees. And I beg to differ, mine was not a classic error of ignorance( Jet fuel Burns between 1,830 f - 2370 f - Steel melts from between 2500 f - 2800 f not to mention the steel beams were all insulated, you would need a lot more than 2,800 f to melt them , then take into account, most of the jet fuel burnt off in the initial blast the explosion you saw, what was left was office fires, But let's pretend it could melt the steel, if there was melted steel from the jet fuel, the melted steel would be at the top of the twin towers, and therefore on the top of the rubble, however two days later when they were cleaning up, the steel beams that were on the bottom of the pile (that we're obviously not the steal beans from the top) the bottom steel beams were still were melting two days later and pouring molten lava from the buckets of the machines using to pick it up, as they hauled it away. There is no getting away with the fact that this does not line up. Explaining that would be like explaining how the pilot's license survived the explosion of jet fuel when The airliner hit, destroying steel beams, but leaving the pilot's license intact. Yes Thermite was found at the scene (as I said listen to the evidence from the engineers for 9/11) Why would airlines be intercepted by jet fighters, the same reason a Cessna is intercepted in Washington, or anywhere near the Pentagon if it goes off course,to prevent it from being used as a weapon to fly into buildings, or the Pentagon itself . These jet airlines were hijacked and in the air for almost 3 hours, so the question you should be asking is "Why were they not intercepted? As far as disintegration, flying into a concrete barrier, and flying into soft Earth above a mineshaft are not one in the same thing. You are right that clear thinking is needed with the events of that day - then why not listen to the scientists and engineers, who give a very different perspective than the government perspective, Google and listen to "Engineers for 9/11" Yes there were witnesses at the Pentagon, but that is not as conclusive as video footage, and yes there was 24-hour surveillance of Jeffrey Epstein in the jail cell, and yet at the time of his death 2 minutes of recording is missing, the same way,at the Pentagon there are cameras at every angle, so though there were witnesses, you have to ask yourself why wasn't there video footage, from every angle? I think it's denying reality not to ask that question. You mentioned not abandoning reality it reminds me of someone who was investigating 9/11, at the time,just after it happened, in Pennsylvaniawhere the plane crashed in the field, and the investigator asked where's the plane, and they responded to him what do you mean where's the plane, and he said I mean where's the plane, and they responded what are you a conspiracy theorist, NOW, THAT'S DENYING REALITY. But the smoking gun that to me cannot be denied,is high-rise building number 7, that only had small office fires, and it collapsed, at freefall speed(that's not possible unless the floor is beneath it were blown out) conveniently it fell straight down (not sagging over), right into its own footprint, an engineering impossibility. And if somebody can deny that then of course you can deny the whole thing. But to me, that's another abandoning reality moment, which caused people, not to question the rest of the government narrative There is no doubt,building number 7 didn't happen the way they said, therefore again to me it's abandoning reality to not even question everything else. I would like to commend you however on your respectful response, and you're writing ability, which is far above mine.
Diesel fuel is essentially like jet fuel, both are forms of kerosene, and the adiabatic flame temperature of kerosene is 3,801 F. Here is the reference table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_flame_temperature When the Germans were trying to develop the turbojet engine, burning kerosene, they were having trouble with the combustion melting the steel turbine blades. Ever since then, we have had the problem of high turbine inlet temperature. Getting the wrong flame temperature is a characteristic error of the conspiracy mentality.
It may surprise you to think that iron may remain molten if it is insulated by more iron, at least for a period of time. And if the upper stories are crashing through the lower stories, it is reasonable to expect the bottom level of the upper stories to appear at the bottom of the rubble.
The survival of the pilot's license is an expectable occurrence with a massive event. Not every tiny piece of the plane's cargo would necessarily be consumed, when there was likely to be strong air motions within the building during the process of the collision, and the airplane was being torn apart by the building support columns. Nature is not a perfectionist.
Do you have any idea what thermite consists of? It is fine aluminum powder and iron oxide. Exactly the kind of result after a massive combustion event involving the melting and burning of aluminum and the burning of hot iron (a component of sparklers). There would also be aluminum oxide and melted iron. Chemically, there is no way to distinguish the reaction products of thermite with the burning that happened in the Twin Towers. It is exactly this kind of ignorance of combustion chemistry that impeaches the position of the Engineers for 9/11. I am increasingly convinced that no one took into account the presence of aluminum combustion.
Undoubtedly, the Pentagon has a multitude of cameras for surveillance purposes. Explain to me why on Earth they would show any footage that would reveal the location of the camera? That would be a secret, for which the public would NOT have a need to know. The DoD would be the only party that needed to know.
In the Pennsylvania crash, it is not uncommon for such high-speed crashes to result in hardly anything left. The recent crash of a B-52 at Edwards AFB had that result.
Building 7 proves or disproves nothing. One credible analysis put the cause as the thermal expansion of floor beams after a prolonged fire in the building core, which ultimately pushed them out of the mounting brackets attaching them to the support columns. It did seem to have the character of the upper stories collapsing as they fell into the bottom story, so it was not the same kind of collapse as the Twin Towers.
Your cavalier use of the phrase "engineering impossibility" makes me think you are no engineer, and a poor judge of possibility.