World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Lesson time!!

If you're going to give me a "lesson", you might want to use someone a little more credible than RKowens. He's the laughing stock of the debunker world.

a reply to: Flatcoat

If you're going to give me a "lesson", you might want to use someone a little more credible than RKowens. He's the laughing stock of the debunker world.

Conspiracy theorist continued to post false information that the CIA supported the group that Osama bin Laden belonged to without realizing there were two distinct groups.

Bergen: Bin Laden, CIA links hogwash

The story about bin Laden and the CIA — that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden — is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on.

They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.

The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.

www.cnn.com...

According to Milton Bearden the CIA did not recruit Arabs because there were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight. The Arab Afghans were not only superfluous but "disruptive," angering local Afghans with their more-Muslim-than-thou attitude, according to Peter Jouvenal.

Veteran Afghan cameraman Peter Jouvenal quotes an Afghan mujahideen as saying "whenever we had a problem with one of them [foreign mujahideen], we just shot them. They thought they were kings."

I have had to correct Truthers on the reality of the way things work in the real world of aviation because I had noticed that much of what they were posting in support of their arguments was totally false. I also noticed that some of their references pointed to the "Pilots for 9/11 Truth". Its founder, Rob Balsamo, and I, went head-to-head in another forum because I caught him posting disinformation.

I have also let them know that:

* Tampering with the transponder does not render an aircraft invisible to radar

* There was no modified pod attached to the bottom fuselage of United 175

* ACARS did not depict the 9/11 airliners airborne after their reported crash time

* The aircraft that struck the Pentagon was in fact, American 77 and not a missile, which is understandable that a missile could not have knocked down the multiple light poles near the Pentagon.

To further add, I have identified B-757 wreckage from photos and my Wing Commander was in the Pentagon at the time it was struck and I was also aware that American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Co. provided the conversion formulas for the FDR of American 77, which pertained ONLY to the airframe of American 77 and no other aircraft.

* I was aware that conspiracy theorist confused Delta 1989, a B-767, with United 93, a B-757, at Cleveland Airport and also confused passengers of United 93 with scientist who had disembarked from a KC-135 at that airport, so I corrected them.

* I let them know that United 93 was not shot down and why.

* I let them know that none of the 9/11 airliners were modified to fly under remote control, and I told them why as well.

* None of the 9/11 airliners were switched, which was obvious to those of us who know better.

* The molten metal seen flowing from the corner of WTC 2 just before it collapsed, was molten aluminum, not steel.

* I knew that themite was not capable of bringing down the WTC buildings.

* I knew that explosives were not used to bring down the WTC buildings.

The list goes on and there are tons of disinformation that has been spread around the Internet by conspiracy theorist. I soon came to the conclusion that there are people who are deliberately setting up conspiracy theorist by planting disinformation in order to discredit the Truth Movement because much of what they were posting was so ridicules that I could come to no other conclusion.

Now, we have no aircraft involved in the 9/11 attack, missiles taking out the WTC buildings and the Pentagon, space-based beam weapons and nukes floating around by conspiracy theorist as responsible for the destruction of the WTC buildings.

What's next? Government-engineered steel-eating termites?

a reply to: skyeagle409

I must chuckle at your post.



All your points--ACARS, unusual shapes on the aircraft that hit the south tower, molten iron in the belly of the towers, the presence of thermite by-products, etc etc, are really but government talking points long ago exposed as inaccurate claims.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Temperatures at ground zero never reached the melting point of steel.

I beg to differ. No evidence for weakened steel due to fires can be found, rather a lot of very little and very questionable particles. But if you can explain to me why they didn't find more 'fly ash' in those "Background Buildings": go ahead! No?

Agreed to disagree then.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I beg to differ. No evidence for weakened steel due to fires can be found, rather a lot of very little and very questionable particles.

Let's take a look here and here's the proof that steel beams were weakened by fire, not explosives.

Fire-Weakened Steel

Fire-weakened steel 2

Fire-Weakened steel

I also mentioned WTC 5, which also suffered an internal collapse.


FAILURE ANALYSIS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER 5 BUILDING

This project involves a failure analysis of the internal structural collapse that occurred in World Trade Center 5 (WTC 5) due to fire exposure alone on September 11, 2001.

www.wpi.edu...

Not to mention the collapse of three steel frame buildings in Thailand due to fire. Let's take a look at what fire can do to structural steel.

Fire Collapses Oakland Freeway as Steel Supports Fail

At about 3:30 AM on Sunday, April 29, 2007, a tanker truck collided into the right side guard rail of a freeway ramp from Highway 80 east (Richmond, Berkeley) to Highway 880 gsouth (San José), rolled onto its right side and exploded into fire. The metal supports below the upper ramp heated and expanded. The heating and expansion were far beyond design expectations.

www.nytimes.com...

Buckling Steel

According to Shyam-Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam-Sunder said. The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns.

Police had already ordered a complete evacuation of the north tower at the time those transmissions were made, said Police Department Inspector Michael Coan. Both transmissions came after the south tower was already down, he said.

Which WTC Tower is supporting the highest load at the impact points?

Why WTC 2 Collapsed Before WTC 1

a reply to: Salander

All your points--ACARS, unusual shapes on the aircraft that hit the south tower, molten iron in the belly of the towers, the presence of thermite by-products, etc etc, are really but government talking points long ago exposed as inaccurate claims.

That is false. The fact that ACARS did not indicate any of the 9/11 airliners landing anywhere, was one very important clear-cut fact that I was 100% correct on ACARS.

Another was the fact that radar contacts were lost at the location and time of the aircraft impacts. And add to the fact that I also spoken with the folks at ARINC, the ACARS folks, who confirmed to me personally, information that conspiracy theories are incorrect. Conspiracy theorist were unaware of how ACARS works, and as a result, they concocted another unfounded conspiracy theory.

I guess conspiracy theorist were also unaware of the fact that seismic data, in conjunction with radar data, also confirmed the impact times.

The molten metal was found to be aluminum, not steel, which was evident in the flow at the corner of WTC 2, which was clearly molten aluminum, not steel as evident by the silvery droplets as they cooled. Conspiracy theorist were unaware of the differences between molten aluminum and molten steel which is why they concocted another unfounded conspiracy theory. BTW, I have seen my share of aircraft incidents to known what molten aluminum looks like.

As far as the non-existent modified pod on United 175 is concerned, did you really think that United Airlines would have grounded its B-767 for many months in order to attach a modified pod to carry only 1000 pounds of explosives? That is one of the silliest claim that I have ever read. As it was, conspiracy theorist confused aerodynamic fairings and MLG doors as a pod that never was. Check it out.

How Conspiracy Theorist Confused a Modified Pod That Wasn't There

Where's The Pod?

CLAIM Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing. The film "911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-refueling tanker. LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who planned and engineered 9/11."

FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects.

After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images—the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels."

When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."

www.popularmechanics.com...

As far as molten steel and thermite are concerned, conspiracy theorist were duped once again by Steven Jones and Richard Gage, both of whom were caught lying.





As you can plainly see, I am correct and you are incorrect. If you are going to laugh at the facts, make sure you are on the right side of the fence. In this case, it is clearly evident that you are on the wrong side of the fence.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Let's take a look here and here's the proof that steel beams were weakened by fire, not explosives.

Why? Let's take a look at the missing evidence in the Nist report instead. You can't validate that your examples suffered from office fires and nothing else, can you? No? Ok, agreed to disagree again.

You probably meant the Toldya, I've got it. And indeed, that's rocksolid evidence for a very twisted force in your pictures. Let's ask Fortean what we should makes of this, the ideal-standard Horseshoe-Laser (TM) would have vaporized everything in it's path. Concrete, steel cores, computers, etc.pp. Uhm... Wait!

Aliens with lasers!!!oneoneeleven

Thanks for inspiration, a quarter star and another piece of irony iron is awarded.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Why? Let's take a look at the missing evidence in the Nist report instead.

What missing evidence? We have evidence that WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 suffered massive impact and fire damage, but no evidence after 14 years, that explosives were used.

You can't validate that your examples suffered from office fires and nothing else, can you?

Of course I can. Go back and read the report on those 3 steel frame buildings that collapsed within hours due to fire in Thailand.

Then, read the report regarding WTC,5, that suffered an internal collapse when fire weakened its steel structure.


FAILURE ANALYSIS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER 5 BUILDING

This project involves a failure analysis of the internal structural collapse that occurred in World Trade Center 5 (WTC 5) due to fire exposure alone on September 11, 2001.

www.wpi.edu...

a reply to: skyeagle409

What I can "plainly see" sir, is that all these years later you are grossly misinformed.

The ACARS data for the airliner that was UA93 that day was still active 30 minutes after the supposed crash time in Pennsylvania. How could an airliner that crashed still be transmitting within the ACARS system? It cannot. That is one more little fact that contradicts the official story.

By many accounts there was molten iron in the belly of the towers. It did not cool off for about 3 months. Such a situation cannot be caused by burning office fires, no matter how much jetfuel might have been involved.

The story presented to the public is a lie.

Plus they found steel from building 7 that looked like Swiss cheese it was literally melted

FIRES DON'T DO THAT



When they show building 7 to foreign engineers who don’t even know about building 7 what they say without blinking an eye: CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.


The NIST admits NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF MODERN ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING ENGINEERING HAS A BUILDING GONE DOWN BY FIRES ALONE

They also admit it went down by FREE FALL

Originally they lied and said it didn’t but they changed

So all they have left is the flimsy ridiculous unscientific miraculous lie that fires on a few floors took down (by free fall) this 47 story steel framed modern skyscraper

Common sense, logic, scientific facts, engineers, and scientific testimony, and known observatory reality concludes without a shadow of a doubt


Building 7 was taken down by a controlled demolition


Next case


This case is closed

a reply to: Salander

What I can "plainly see" sir, is that all these years later you are grossly misinformed.

The ACARS data for the airliner that was UA93 that day was still active 30 minutes after the supposed crash time in Pennsylvania. How could an airliner that crashed still be transmitting within the ACARS system? It cannot. That is one more little fact that contradicts the official story.

At no time did United 93 send an ACARS message after its crash time. A dispatcher sends a message to a specific (or multiple) aircraft, based either on the tail number, flight number or any other combination of addressing information they have configured for their particular system.

In the same way they don't choose which cell tower to send a mobile phone call though, they just dial a number and the system does the work. In addition, the dispatcher just sends a message and the DSP does the routing work. That message is then sent ground-to-ground to the DSP in a specific format. The DSP then analyzes the message and performs some re-formatting to make it suitable to ground-to-air uplink transmission based on the ARINC 618 specification.

If the message cannot be formatted for uplink, the DSP rejects the message and sends a message back to the originator stating the reason for the message failure.

At no time did United 93 send a message after its crash time and in addition, seismic and radar data also confirmed the time United 93 crashed.

By many accounts there was molten iron in the belly of the towers. It did not cool off for about 3 months.

I don't know exactly home many accounts, but what I do know is that tons of aluminum was melted at ground zero, which was evident by the fact that molten aluminum was seen flowing from WTC 2. Also, stored iron can generate temperatures high enough to start fires. Check it out here.

Iron Burns

Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

And, it is no secret that fires can smolder for days, weeks, and even months

Queensbury warehouse fire still smoldering two days after start

QUEENSBURY — Firefighters were still dousing hot spots Monday at a blaze that began more than two days ago in warehouses rented by SCA Tissue. "It's the biggest fire in our history as far as a big commercial building," said West Glens Falls Fire Chief Mike Gordon.

www.timesunion.com...


Packing shed fire will continue to smolder for next few days

The fire that broke out earlier this week at the Bruce Church produce packing sheds will continue to smolder for the next couple of days and produce some light smoke, but there are no longer any flames coming from the site.


Hobby Store Still Smoldering After Saturday's Fire

Lynchburg, VA - The remains of The Collector's Lair were still smoldering on Monday. Officials still do not have a cause, but confirmed the fire started in the basement of the building. Investigators say it will probably continue smolder for days until they can get to the bottom of the 12 feet of rubble. "A little hard to see it go," said frequent shopper of "Collector's Lair," Chris Morris.

Locals like Morris have been stopping by to get one last look. "There's a lot of stuff in there. I'm not surprised it's burning this long," said Morris.

www.wset.com...


Officials say Caldwell plant fire smoldered for days

Firefighters work at the scene of a structure fire as a portion of the Land O’ Lakes Purina Feed building collapses in the background, Sunday evening in Caldwell.

www.idahopress.com...


Fire at Yuma-area packing shed to smolder for days

YUMA, AZ (AP) -
A fire that destroyed a group of produce packing sheds east of Yuma is expected to smolder for days as piles of burned cardboard cools and foam building insulation continues to send up smoke.

www.kpho.com...


Great Chicago FireGreat Chicago Fire

Once the fire had ended, the smoldering remains were still too hot for a survey of the damage to be completed for days.

www.kpho.com...

There was no molten iron because other than high temp wands and torches, there was nothing that could generate molten steel at ground zero, much less, huge pools of molten steel.

Such a situation cannot be caused by burning office fires, no matter how much jetfuel might have been involved.

Jet fuel was the catalyst to get the fires going. Remember, WTC 7 also collapsed and WTC 5 had suffered an internal collapse due to fire.

edit on 9-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Willtell

Plus they found steel from building 7 that looked like Swiss cheese it was literally melted

FIRES DON'T DO THAT

I saw that photo and at no time was that piece of metal in a molten state. It was annealed at a temperature that was nowhere near the melting point of steel, which was evident to me, because I have annealed aerospace steel on many occasions at a temperature of only 1000 degrees F., which is below the melting point of aluminum, much less below the melting point of steel.

When they show building 7 to foreign engineers who don’t even know about building 7 what they say without blinking an eye: CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

That was the same engineer who claimed that no explosives brought down WTC 1 and WTC 2. Now, about WTC 7, review this video of WTC 7 and please tell us at what time lines demolition explosions can be heard. If you are unable to post the time lines for demolition explosions, then my point will be made that fire, not explosives, brought down WTC 7.

The NIST admits NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF MODERN ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING ENGINEERING HAS A BUILDING GONE DOWN BY FIRES ALONE

Well, let's take a look to see if they are right.

Kader Toy Factory Fire

At about 4pm on May 10th, 1993, a small fire was discovered on the first floor of part of the E-shaped building. Workers were instructed to keep working as the fire was thought to be minor. The fire alarm in this building did not sound.

The building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed. This part of the building was dedicated to the storage of finished products and the fire spread quickly. Other parts of the factory were full of raw materials which also burnt very fast. Fire-fighters arrived at the factory at about 4:40pm, to find Building One about to collapse.

The Kader buildings,...collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures. A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.

Now, you know that 3 steel frame buildings collapsed due to fire in a few hours.

They also admit it went down by FREE FALL

At no time did WTC 1 WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapse at free fall speed. Claims those buildings collapsed at free fall speed was debunked years again. Check it out.



Take a look at this photo and you will notice that dust plumes and debris are outpacing the collapse of the WTC building, which is proof that the building is not falling at free fall speed.

Photo Proof WTC Building not Falling at Free Fall Speed

Common sense, logic, scientific facts, engineers, and scientific testimony, and known observatory reality concludes without a shadow of a doubt

Let's take a look at some real numbers.

Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

There are 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...

a reply to: skyeagle409

What missing evidence?

Read the Nist-report or just my 2 Cents in this thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Fun with fictional evidence!

You didn't realize that already?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

If fire didn't weaken them and logic still applies - what else did?

Fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. Check it out.

Temperature and Strength of Metals

Influence of temperature on the strength of metals

Some common types of steel lose 10% of their strength at 450 C (840 F), and 40% at 550 C (1022 F). At temperatures above 800 C ( 1475 F), it has lost 90% of its strength. Other types of steel are made to stand higher temperatures before losing 10% of their strength, but they are much more expensive (and are weaker at room temperature).

And there are types which actually get stronger, up to 450 F (but then get a lot weaker at higher temperatures

www.engineeringtoolbox.com...


Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

Bearing walls and Open floor design

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors.

The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

vincentdunn.com...


Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

sites.google.com...


The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations, and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting


Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...


WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

www.representativepress.org...

As you can see, experts have said that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Considering the damage observed at WTC, there is no way that office fires caused that damage as NIST has claimed.

Clearly there actually were office fires involved, but they could not possibly have caused the damage that resulted. Some other very powerful explosive forces were involved.

originally posted by: Salander
Considering the damage observed at WTC, there is no way that office fires caused that damage as NIST has claimed.

Clearly there actually were office fires involved, but they could not possibly have caused the damage that resulted. Some other very powerful explosive forces were involved.

Unfortunately, the evidence does not support that theory. The seismic proofs that would exist if that were the case are completely lacking. So unless every entity monitoring such matters is also in on it, the theory fails in the face of direct lack of supporting evidence.

a reply to: Salander

Considering the damage observed at WTC, there is no way that office fires caused that damage as NIST has claimed.

Clearly there actually were office fires involved, but they could not possibly have caused the damage that resulted. Some other very powerful explosive forces were involved.

Then, explain the condition of these structural steel beams that buckled during a fire.

Fire-Weakened Steel Photo 1

Fire- Weakened Steel Photo 2

Fire-Weakened Steel Photo 3

Fire-Weakened Steel of WTC 5

Seems my previous post are being overlooked for some reason or another, so let's do it again.


FAILURE ANALYSIS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER 5 BUILDING

This project involves a failure analysis of the internal structural collapse that occurred in World Trade Center 5 (WTC 5) due to fire exposure alone on September 11, 2001.

www.wpi.edu...

a reply to: PublicOpinion

From your reference.

... the hardness evaluation suggested that there was no detoriation of the mechanical properties of the materials as a result of exposure to pre-collapse fires.

Now, explain to us why these photos prove that claim is bogus.

Fire-Weakened Steel Photo 1

Fire-Weakened Steel Photo 2


Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall."

www.bloomberg.com...

a reply to: skyeagle409

explain to us why these photos prove that claim is bogus.

Explain to us why you seem to ignore the microsctructural hardness evaluation completely. Maybe we start talking then, copypasta crapola was not very usefull so far.
And where can I find the microstructural analysis regarding your horseshoe steel? There is none, innit?

a reply to: skyeagle409

Perhaps most of your posts are being overlooked or ignored because one cannot tell whether you are presenting a "hoaxed" version as you've already admitted to, or a genuine version.

The NIST explanation does not hold water and is politically corrupt. So too the 911 Commission which was "set up to fail" as several members have admitted.

We were deceived on that day, simply put. Some of us have now realized we were fooled, others have not yet figured it out.