I mentioned earlier that I'm a blacksmith who has worked with hot steel for over 25 years; I've twisted it, coiled it, scrolled it and even shaped it, hot, into everything from leaves to gargoyle heads. The point at which steel bends varies. It depends on the amount of lateral pressure exerted on it and the temperature to which it is heated. I've easily bent cold 3/4" bar steel into various shapes with bending forks I've made. Additionally, I have accidentally burned more than one piece of steel I was working on; it has a white color, sparkles like a sparkler and drips while liquified. It is simply my opinion that a brief, topical application of kerosene on structural steel would not have caused the Twin Towers to implode as perfectly as they did. This brings us to Building # 7 which also imploded just as the Twin Towers did but without any fire or lateral impact. Why do you think that building # 7 fell as it did? Thanks,
I was wrong, it appears jet fuel burns at between 800 to 1,500 degrees fahrenheit. Aluminum melts at 1,200 degrees fahrenheit. Aluminum cladding encased the exterior beams of the WTC towers. another false Truther claim= DEBUNKED. https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/5-times-scientists-tackled-conspiracy-theories-and-won
he has no evidence that the melting metal we all saw coming out of the side of the tower, was actually steel. It was more likely aluminum, as aluminum cladding surrounded the exterior beams to give it a nice pretty shine when the sun is right. Aluminum melts at 1,200 degrees, jet fuel burns at up to 1,500 degrees.
I will admit that I am not as knowledgable about the tragedy that has come to be known as "9/11" as some in this forum but I simply cannot believe the official version for several reasons. Briefly put, I am simply asking anyone who does believe the official 9/11 version to answer the following two questions among the many I have: 1. How did Building # 7 implode as it did? 2. Why is the hole in the Pentagon so much smaller and less extensive than it would have been if had been hit by an airliner? Finally, at the heart of any crime of this magnitude it's useful to consider "cui bono".
This thread equating those who don't believe the official 9/11 narrative with Holocaust deniers is just a phony attempt at discrediting those who haven't bought the official 9/11 fairy tale. As the son of Holocaust survivors and a descendant of family who were murdered during the Holocaust and a decades long researcher into 9/11 I can unequivocally state that there is absolutely no connection. For those who believe it was molten aluminum that poured out of the tower on the 80th floor, that would make no sense since molten aluminum is silvery in color and the molten metal pouring out of the tower was yellow/orange as seen on color videos. Furthermore, all corroborating eyewitness claims were clearly about seeing large amounts of molten steel or molten metal. There is not one eyewitness claim of seeing molten aluminum. A FEMA investigator even claims to have seen the melting of girders at the 9/11 site. Girders are obviously not made of aluminum.
Peer reviewed research and conclusion drawn by Dr. Leroy Hulsey's team hypothesizes that all 81 columns of WTC7 were taken out nearly simultaneously. First the interior column followed 4-5 seconds later by the exterior columns. Obviously office fires are not capable of taking out columns in such a manner.
I'm terribly sorry for your losses, I too lost several relatives in the Holocaust, all brothers and sisters of my grandmother. I also lost one great-uncle to the Communists, as he was an ally of Benes in Prague (not Socialist enough for Stalin). Funny thing is, he was war hero and was congratulated by Marshall Zhukov.
FYI, fires in the past have caused steel structure buildings to collapse. It happened in Spain and other cities. Steel is not some magic element that is impervious to the forces of heat & gravity.
Up until 9/11, there were zero steel frame towers that collapsed in their entirety due to fire. There were over 60 steel frame high rise steel frame tower infernos since prior to 9/11 up until today. Of those only 2 collapsed in their entirety, one in Iran and one in Brazil, both were fully engulfed in flames. The North Tower suffered a fire over multiple floors for 3 hours in 1975 and did not collapse. Regardless, neither the twin towers nor WTC7 were infernos fully engulfed in flames. In fact, the fire in the South Tower was nearly out when it "collapsed". WTC7 suffered minor fires and the fire was long out at the location where NIST claims column 79 was dislodged by thermal expansion of the connecting beam(s). 3 towers were demolished all on the same day at unimpeded near gravitational acceleration (2/3 G) for the twin towers and at gravitational acceleration for WTC7 through their own massive structures. None of that makes any sense unless these were controlled demolitions. There are also well over 150 eyewitness claims of seeing, hearing, feeling and being killed by explosions on 9/11. Not to mention the unprecedented multiple corroborating claims of seeing molten steel. All of these are characteristics of controlled demolitions. Deny all you want but the evidence and many other supporting factors point to controlled demolitions. Furthermore, the peer reviewed research and conclusion reached by Dr. Hulsey's team has not been contradicted by any legitimate research so it is now the de facto hypothesis for what actually happened to WTC7 on 9/11. Unless and until you or anyone else can prove otherwise, that is the current standard.
you have examples of eyewitnesses who were killed on 9-11 by explosions? how's that work? LOL!!!!! as for "seeing" molten steel on 9-11, did they actually test the molten material to make sure it was steel and not aluminum? how did they actually know for sure it was steel? Never heard of him. However, I do see that there are many problems with his research and analysis of the NIST's studies. https://www.reddit.com/r/engineering/comments/71yw9v/nist_versus_dr_leroy_hulsey_911_megathread/ One good point needs to be made: if steel structure are impervious to collapse and severe damage from fire, why are steel structures sprayed with thermal insulation? I have NEVER seen a modern steel structure without all beams & columns covered in fire insulation.
Not an eyewitness for someone who was killed, an autopsy that supports that Bobby McIlvane was killed by an explosion in the lobby. There are also those who were injured (as in hospitalized) by explosions. I know this is all amusing to you but it would be to one who's in denial of anything and everything that directly contradicts or questions the official 9/11 narrative. Is the Holocaust amusing to you? 9/11 was a massacre, is it amusing to you? You have no questions about the official 9/11 narrative? It's all 100% true as told by the US government? The same one that lies 24/7 about virtually everything of any importance? The molten girder seen by the FEMA investigator is not made of aluminum. Again, not one eyewitness mentioned molten aluminum, all (corroborating each other) mentioned molten steel or molten metal. There is also fused debris and corroded steel members that experts have not explained. There is nothing that supports any molten aluminum claims (almost always made by defenders of the official 9/11 narrative without any supporting evidence). It may not all be proof (the molten girder is though) but it is overwhelming evidence. You never heard of Dr. Leory Hulsey but rather than research his published report you decided to research blogs that criticize his work. None of those blogs are scientific studies, they are strictly opinions, all of which could have participated in the open public peer review process. They are all worthless unless and until they can produce a legitimate counter peer review analysis, preferably by a team of independent experts with proper standing, not bloggers. Nothing is "impervious to collapse". Your point has nothing to do with what happened on 9/11. If anything it adds questions as to why the twin towers "collapsed" if the vast majority of the towers suffered no damage, no fire and were properly insulated. But coincidentally, both towers were reinforced with thermal insulation prior to 9/11 at the floors that were impacted by the planes. In any case none of that has anything to do with the manner in which the 3 towers were destroyed. Look up the Cardington and Broadgate experiments if you're actually interested. These structures were not insulated at all (deliberately) yet they suffered extreme fires and did not collapse.
Aluminum, is a metal. If you actually read the discussion, you would see that these "bloggers" seem to be very knowledgable about structural engineering & architecture, and know what they are talking about. Did you read the thing or simply disregard it immediately?
Steel is also a metal. Is that obvious cherry picking supposed to be some kind of counterpoint? Is it so important to you to try to defend the official 9/11 narrative that this is the best you feel you must come up with as a response to what I posted? Why? Did you read Dr. Hulsey's report or simply disregard it immediately? I not only read all of it I also participated in the peer review process of his draft report and read all the comments as well as read many blogger criticisms from rabid defenders of the OCT. Especially that phony self proclaimed "debunker" guru, Mick West. Again, unless and until an engineering team with proper standing can produce a legitimate counter peer review analysis, they are all worthless. But to be sure, I didn't need Dr. Hulsey to tell me that WTC7 was a controlled demolition (he never even states that anywhere in his report). That is beyond obvious. No office fire can ever duplicate what a controlled demolition does to a massive steel frame tower. I knew what it was the instant I first saw the video. It's not rocket science.
Anybody today, and there are many, who still believes the official story about 911 is simply not informed of the details. That is how well government misinformation works, thanks to a complicit MSM. When everything the American people believe (about 911) is false, we will know the successes of our misinformation efforts.
No, but the fantasy story you defend IS impervious to the known laws of physics. The NIST explanation can stand only if the laws of physics are violated.
But you did. If you didn't care you wouldn't have posted in this thread at all. But apparently you cared enough to write several posts in defense of the official 9/11 narrative and when I asked you several questions, you couldn't even defend your own position. That signifies to me that you have no confidence in your position.