“As mentioned as simple fact, the burning of carbonaceous materials (wood, etc.) results in temperatures higher than the melting point of steel (wood @ 3596 F, iron @ 2800 F). The collapse would compress the air in the floor spaces and eject any molten materials by aspiration.”
Prove your bullshit. This is not an optimized combustion chamber. This is an open fire with black smoke indicating poor efficiency at burning its combustible materials.
“ No squibs. Just the compression of air in the collapsing floors and its exhaust through perforations in the building walls. Blowing out dust and smoke. What else would you expect? You have to understand what is going on, in order to understand what you are seeing.”
Again more revisionist bullshit. Watch the videos listen to the explosions.
If you are honestly interested this is a site with factual information.
Because that explanation is total bullshit.
Thermal expansion is a concept that NIST came up with and was popularized in a popular mechanics article on the topic. Also total bullshit.
Review the facts;
- no plane hit wtc 7.
- no additional combustible material was supposed to be there (I.e. contents of an airplane’s gas tanks)
- this means the only combustible material would be standard office tower contents. Review all prior office tower fires in history, is there a single one that collapsed into its own foot print? The answer is no.
- in the dust of the wtc complex we find micro iron spheres. Operating theory is that they are produced when molten metal (not hear weakened, but steel in liquid state) is forcibley blown out into the atmosphere where is cools while on free fall.
- in the dust of the wtc complex unexploded nano thermate is detected. (I forget many of the details, there is a difference between thermate and thermite; the nano bit comes in because commercial grade stuff is made of materials with x particle size; but this unexploded stuff that was found had component bits that were MUCH MUCH smaller. This means highly sophisticated manufacturing techniques and a thermate that is much more expensive than commercial grade stuff and a thermate that is not commercially available was in fact used.
- then we get to the free fall speed. Proven using video and known measurements. Wtc 7 collapsed entirely within … 11 seconds? For 6 of those seconds it can be shown (and was demonstrated by analysis performed in university of Alaska) the roof line of wtc 7 falls at free fall speed. That means everything under the roof also was falling at the speed of gravity. No resistance whatsoever. Think of a tower of wood in your camp fire. It falls over. Ok. But it falls over and hits another piece of wood that changes trajectory of the fall or slows the fall to some degree. Now imagine what is required for a roof line to fall at free fall speed. Answer: everything supporting that roof line also collapsed at that same instant.
- squibs. Aka lateral ejections of material from the building often seen in controlled demolitions. Squibs are clearly visible in all three buildings pre and during collapse.
“ Carbonaceous fuels “ that’s a new one to add to the pile of revisionist bullshit.
You realize wtc 7 was not hit by a plane did not have hydrocarbons and the “office fires” were consuming standard office equipment (desks, chairs, carpets, paper, etc).
It wasn’t nuclear. That’s bullshit.
We have documented evidence of thermite in the dust. Thermite will cause the intense heat that we observed.
Don’t fall for the bullshit and do read up on cass sustien’s cognitive infiltration.
Any guesses what India did to upset the WEF's pretty boy? We all know Trudeau wouldn't take such a big step unless told to. We also know that nation states don't give a shit when a plebe is murdered by the powers that be. If anything they just play a game of tit for tat over these sorts of things, unless, unless there is a need for an open international dispute to be created and a pretext is needed.
There is a circular blow out in the third ring that is about 8 to 10 feet in diameter.
There is also a single jet engine that was found.
There are photos showing some debris. Looks like aluminum sheet that’s crumpled.
There were impacts on approach to the pentagon. Couple of utility poles were knocked down.
As for the eye witnesses, I don’t any of them are educated enough to distinguish between a plane and a cruise missile.
"I am a bit of a "know it all." I was rated high for that in my performance reviews at work. "
It shows.
"But what I do know is solid;"
No. You are wrong, but you are highly confident in your ignorance.
"You, on the other hand, have no credentials"
You do not know this for a fact, yet you project this as a conclusion with great confidence. You are ignorant.
" and use this opportunity to throw insults at me."
Because it is a language you understand.
"The stupid and misguided ones are the Flat-Earthers, Moon-Hoaxers, space travel deniers, chemtrail hawkers, and orbiting DEW believers."
Are you evaluating information based upon information, or are you evaluating information within the filter of your prejudice and ignorance?
Don't bother, it was a rhetorical question.