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.
Jet fuel is not diesel fuel, even if some components are the same, but you switch over to diesel to bring up your temperature to over 3,000°, making it fit your narrative. With your take on this matter,It's a Marvel to me why companies pay millions of dollars to hire demolition crews, to ensure a building comes straight down into its own footprint, when all you have to do(according to you) is set some offices on fire using kerosene or diesel, and the buildings come straight down into their own footprint (bingo) millions saved. I mean after all kerosene or diesel whichever you're using to fit the narrative,according to you has been proven to be so effective (look) three high-rise steel frame buildings, came straight down into its their own footprint on the very same day. Good grief Charlie Brown! But I will say my conversation with you,has helped me a lot, what I noticed,use one word the wrong way, and some can justify(to themselves) dismissing the whole argument, if indeed I am even talking to a real person. So why do I invest any time, this you have been effective in helping me ask mysel. You point out the obvious I'm not an engineer, but you make no mention of being willing to listen to the arguments presented by those who are engineers and scientist (much like) the people who refuse to listen to scientists and doctors, in regards to covid and the safety and integrity of the covid vaccine(who now have been proven right). For some people once they make a stance no amount of evidence will change their mind. Admitting they were wrong or even could be wrong, is unthinkable for some. If you are a real person I hope this does not apply to you and you will take the time to listen to those (apparently you respect) "Engineers for 9/11" I'm reminded of this verse "A wise man receives advice and becomes wiser, but a fool will not receive a rebuke" I have listened to both sides of this argument, before coming to the conclusion I have, forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't think you have, since you are either ignoring or unwilling to listen to other scientists and engineers, who present very strong evidence that contradicts the government narrative. Based on the word of God, this I do believe, those who planned what happened on that day, haven't gotten away with anything (no one does) for we must all give an account for the things done in the flesh, as it is written "God is Not mocked whatever a man sows that shall he reap" Though it grieves me greatly what happened on that day and the bill of goods we've been sold, I am comforted, that the God of all who sees all, says I will repay.
They are both strains of kerosene. The heating value does not differ significantly. The M-1 tank's turbine engine was touted for its ability to use a variety of fuels, jet fuel and Diesel alike. You are the one who is choking on the independent data. Where did you get your flame temperature? I was discussing this with a person once who referred to jet engine combustion temperature---but they had no awareness of the fact that jet engines are designed to run on a lean fuel mixture SPECIFICALLY TO LOWER THE FLAME TEMPERATURE so as not to burn out the turbine blades. Did i mention that the WW2 German engineers developing turbojet engines were troubled by melting their steel turbine blades?
I have listened to plenty of arguments. And noted plenty of misunderstandings. I have long thought on my own ideas and take them seriously. As I said, I deliberately avoided reading any government reports in order to keep a detached view. Engineers for 9/11 have preconceptions in mind that I don't agree with. Why are they to be believed and not the other majority view? Because they feed your bias?
And nobody talks about the potential of burning aluminum.
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.
Jet fuel is not diesel fuel, even if some components are the same, but you switch over to diesel to bring up your temperature to over 3,000°, making it fit your narrative. With your take on this matter,It's a Marvel to me why companies pay millions of dollars to hire demolition crews, to ensure a building comes straight down into its own footprint, when all you have to do(according to you) is set some offices on fire using kerosene or diesel, and the buildings come straight down into their own footprint (bingo) millions saved. I mean after all kerosene or diesel whichever you're using to fit the narrative,according to you has been proven to be so effective (look) three high-rise steel frame buildings, came straight down into its their own footprint on the very same day. Good grief Charlie Brown! But I will say my conversation with you,has helped me a lot, what I noticed,use one word the wrong way, and some can justify(to themselves) dismissing the whole argument, if indeed I am even talking to a real person. So why do I invest any time, this you have been effective in helping me ask mysel. You point out the obvious I'm not an engineer, but you make no mention of being willing to listen to the arguments presented by those who are engineers and scientist (much like) the people who refuse to listen to scientists and doctors, in regards to covid and the safety and integrity of the covid vaccine(who now have been proven right). For some people once they make a stance no amount of evidence will change their mind. Admitting they were wrong or even could be wrong, is unthinkable for some. If you are a real person I hope this does not apply to you and you will take the time to listen to those (apparently you respect) "Engineers for 9/11" I'm reminded of this verse "A wise man receives advice and becomes wiser, but a fool will not receive a rebuke" I have listened to both sides of this argument, before coming to the conclusion I have, forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't think you have, since you are either ignoring or unwilling to listen to other scientists and engineers, who present very strong evidence that contradicts the government narrative. Based on the word of God, this I do believe, those who planned what happened on that day, haven't gotten away with anything (no one does) for we must all give an account for the things done in the flesh, as it is written "God is Not mocked whatever a man sows that shall he reap" Though it grieves me greatly what happened on that day and the bill of goods we've been sold, I am comforted, that the God of all who sees all, says I will repay.
They are both strains of kerosene. The heating value does not differ significantly. The M-1 tank's turbine engine was touted for its ability to use a variety of fuels, jet fuel and Diesel alike. You are the one who is choking on the independent data. Where did you get your flame temperature? I was discussing this with a person once who referred to jet engine combustion temperature---but they had no awareness of the fact that jet engines are designed to run on a lean fuel mixture SPECIFICALLY TO LOWER THE FLAME TEMPERATURE so as not to burn out the turbine blades. Did i mention that the WW2 German engineers developing turbojet engines were troubled by melting their steel turbine blades?
I have listened to plenty of arguments. And noted plenty of misunderstandings. I have long thought on my own ideas and take them seriously. As I said, I deliberately avoided reading any government reports in order to keep a detached view. Engineers for 9/11 have preconceptions in mind that I don't agree with. Why are they to be believed and not the other majority view? Because they feed your bias?
And nobody talks about the potential of burning aluminum.