Oh, ok, so they built a bunker 110 stories tall. Cool.
You have to minimize materials and construction costs or you never make a profit. You could build your house so that it would resist me if I rammed it with a bulldozer, but I'd be willing to bet your house would topple like it was made of paper. BECAUSE YOUR HOUSE IS BUILT ECONOMICALLY.
I'm done arguing with willful idiots. Later.
What I'm saying is that there is viable evidence of malfeasance on 9/11. We shouldn't be focusing on "fire doesn't melt steel" and "45 degree angle cuts." That sort of obviously refutable "evidence" just makes the people trying to expose the viable evidence look like lunatics.
Which I'm sure absolutely elates the people responsible.
"...but we should all at least be in agreement that what did NOT happen was the "official story"."
Absolutely agreed. It's awfully hard to find the real story when the "evidences" against the "official story" are just plain stupid. Discredits the entire search.
What you are missing is the fact that the jet fuel was merely an accelerant. There were thousands of tons of petrochemicals and wood in those buildings in the form of carpet, vinyl, adhesives, furniture, paper, etc. Plenty of stored chemical energy to soften steel to the point where it can no longer bear the thousands of tons on top of it.
Isn't it funny how the people around here are as blindly defensive to their theories on this as the normie sheep are to the idea of global warming? You can present all the science and common sense you want, it just doesn't penetrate. And you lose all those fake internet points.
It makes sense to me to think that the first priority was the safety of the rescuers picking their way through the rubble. With hundreds of tons of pick-up sticks stacked precariously above and the hope of survivors underneath, finesse work is exactly what would have been called for.
Also, note the lack of rust on the slag and the cut. If that cut had been done before the collapse, they would have been sprayed with water like everything else and would have rusted like everything else. But they are clean. That cut was made after the area was deluged.
I don't need to insult anyone's intelligence, it generally speaks for itself.
If I'm a guy with a torch trying to improve the safety of the area and I want to make the structurally unsound beam fall in a specific controlled direction, that's exactly how I would cut it. Perhaps other beams were in a position to be lifted instead and so a horizontal cut made more sense.
I guarantee if that beam had been cut dozens of stories up and then fallen into that position, there wouldn't be any slag stuck to it. That stuff can be knocked off with a hammer (I have some experience in this area), it would never survive forces that can pulverize concrete, and it certainly wouldn't be clean, it would be covered with dust and rust like everything else even if it had survived the fall.
No, that beam was cut where it stood. Using this photo as evidence of 9/11 malfeasance does nothing but undermine the position because the visual is easily understood by anybody who knows what they're talking about. Critical thinking and some real-world understanding are what I'm arguing for here.
Critical thought, people. If I'm a firefighter digging through that rubble and I have a beam swaying, say, 30 feet overhead, I'm sure gonna want that beam cut down so that I can work under it safely.
I'm open to the idea that 9/11 is not as advertised, but posts like this make us all look stupid.
I see applying logic is getting downvotes. Please, oh please, do not take away my fake internet points.
I checked. Your bag is already empty. Hope you enjoyed.