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

originally posted by: jhn7537
It must suck being a person who 100% believes the official story.... lol

It must suck being taken in by conspiracy theories

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: jhn7537
It must suck being a person who 100% believes the official story.... lol

It must suck being taken in by conspiracy theories

I choose the red pill... I guess you're taking the blue pill from our dear friend Morpheus!

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: Shadow Herder

I knew that none of those buildings were brought down by fire when I was watching it happen live. Common sense really is all it takes. But given how daft I know the western populace to be now after all is said and done, videos and eye witness testimony can be shown until the cows come home, and those folks will still cling to the official story.

The human psyche is designed so that it filters out mentally harmful information. People say they want the truth and that they don't like being lied to, however when it's at such a large scale and it would mean radically altering their comfort level they choose to believe the lie. Look at Reldra's response to only see that human beings are still capable of believing the narrative.

Unfortunately, I'm one of the ones alongside Witness2008. Being an Air Force brat I've known enough about planes to know that when those buildings fell that it wasn't the planes that brought them down. I even remember sitting at work as we all watched the events unfold (online, and I was using FARK for news because all the other web outlets were clogged), when the buildings collapsed I told co-workers "airplanes don't do that."

Look at the assassination of JFK. Many Americans alive during the assassination now question the official story but there aren't many people stepping up and challenging it either. It's business as usual. The fact is the average citizen wants to live and work in peace. TPTB know this and they use this complacent mentality to their advantage.

Good videos nonetheless. Hopefully it will wake up those that are still lulled by the mountain of BS they feed on daily.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

Wow. The weird glitches on the video sure look like they were strategically placed to detract from and cover up charges that can be seen going off in the building.

That was my first impression any way. I haven't read through the thread yet and I bet others noticed the same.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Shadow Herder

Wow. The weird glitches on the video sure look like they were strategically placed to detract from and cover up charges that can be seen going off in the building.

That was my first impression any way. I haven't read through the thread yet and I bet others noticed the same.

And there are tons of those glitches just as the building starts to fall.

a reply to: haven123

Fantastic graphic.

originally posted by: wmd_2008I have YET to meet a STRUCTURAL ENGINEER that thinks any of that was a demolition job.

Oh, really?

Patrick Matthews - Degree: B Arch and MA Structural Engineering Architecture, University of Illinois Urbana
William Russell - Architect, Structural Engineer, B Arch; MS Arch Eng, Univ of IL, Urbana, IL
Antonio Arthay -Degree: MS Structural Engineering, Illinois, West Palm Beach, FL

And that are just the first three I found after doing a very, very quick search.

You're not just incorrect, but lazy too.

EDIT: Nevermind, I answered my own question.

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
Preaching to the choir here I'm afraid.

I've been saying this since I watched them over and over and over and over again on news stations the day of and the many months after.

Brought down by fire my @$$.

Anyone who believes that needs to study building demolition, specifically controlled demolitions.

Wouldn't hurt to also check out other buildings that have been struck by aircraft and the damages they suffered. Not one that I've found has even partially collapsed from an aircraft crashing into it.

The melting point of the construction-grade steel girders is 2,795 degrees, well beyond what jet fuel and the associated things being burnt in it's path could possibly heat the steel to.

Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt steel. Well, to be exact, construction-grade steel melts at 2795 degrees Fahrenheit. That's a proven fact, as can be seen from the website: www.chemicalelements.com...

Video on one explanation: www.youtube.com...

Plus if a plane hit that far up, the building would have toppled, not fell straight down like in a demolition...so many people buy that bull$h!t theory...I guess the fluoride in the water is really starting to work along side our failing education system.

Oh, and during clean up, DAYS after the 'crash' there was *still* molten steel in the bottom floors....do the math over 2700 degrees, and held for *how* long?

Right, jet fuel. Whatever.

*rolls eyes*

Sorry for ranting - just so sick of people claiming 1+1 = 3,451 to the quintupled power by the root of 37.

You need to give this information to the likes of Roll Royce and Pratt and Whitney, they've been spending millions on developing metals that can withstand burning aviation fuel to use as Turbine blades in gas turbine engines (jet engines)

Turns out all they needed was some construction grade steel! Damn they'll probably thank you no end.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

Question: what are you trying to achieve with the conspiracy of a controlled demolition with these buildings?
There is so much talk about "it's not the fire that caused, or a jet full of fuel that caused" but it has to be controlled demolition by the government. Are you planning on suing the government and hope they tell you the truth?

Good luck on your quest.

a reply to: Mianeye

I could be wrong but I think thermite and nanothermite don't cause the standards "BOOM" explosions you hear in this video. I am pretty certain I read that somewhere in the years since 9/11.

originally posted by: FawnyKate
Turns out all they needed was some construction grade steel! Damn they'll probably thank you no end.

You're not an engineer, methinks. Indeed, in a jet engine fuel burns at up to 2000 degrees Celsius (or more in the newest engines). The temperature at which metals start to melt is 1300 degrees Celsius. Hence special cooling mechanisms are required. The reason for the high temperatures in the engine - they are MEANT to be that high! - are that engines put out more power per gallon if the temperature is higher. The metals used are very conductive and strong, not very heat resistant per sé, as in most engines the elaborate cooling techniques will prevent the metal to melt. However, newer engines DO use very heat resitant materials, like ceramics.

But no, if you burn jet fuel in the open air, it will NOT melt steel.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: wmd_2008I have YET to meet a STRUCTURAL ENGINEER that thinks any of that was a demolition job.

Oh, really?

Patrick Matthews - Degree: B Arch and MA Structural Engineering Architecture, University of Illinois Urbana
William Russell - Architect, Structural Engineer, B Arch; MS Arch Eng, Univ of IL, Urbana, IL
Antonio Arthay -Degree: MS Structural Engineering, Illinois, West Palm Beach, FL

And that are just the first three I found after doing a very, very quick search.

You're not just incorrect, but lazy too.

The difference mate is I actually TALK to STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS not look up names on the web



Metals beams bent over a charred timber beam after a fire

Steel beams have melted and collapsed over charred timber beam, which, despite heavy damage, remains in place." Note that the wood beam, while badly charred, retains enough structural integrity to support the deformed steel beams.

Fire cant damage steel they say

a reply to: wmd_2008

Do you have a source for that photo? I would be interested in further analysis.

a reply to: wmd_2008

I tried to click on the photo and looked for a link to read about these melted beams on timber but there doesn't seem to be a link or info. Please provide. Thanks!

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: reldraI watched it happen live. The heat of the jet fuel can do this. You need an engineering degree, not just common sense.

Engineering degrees? Like these guys have?

There are a lot of engineers that would agree that steel begins to become unstable at as low as 500 degrees.

I looked at the website you pointed out. Their board of directors are architects, not engineers. One of them minored in civil engineering. Smart people, I am sure. But not engineers.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

www.softwood.org... about 4 images down.

"When exposed to fire wood retains its strength for a
longer period of time than metal. Unprotected metals
quickly lose their strength and collapse suddenly,
often with little warning. In contrast, wood loses
strength slowly and only as material is lost through
surface charring.
Average building fire temperatures range from
approximately 700º to 900º Celsius. Steel weakens
dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230ºC,
retaining only 10% of its strength at about 750ºC."

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I found this one article, however it provides zero information in the photo that was posted.

rustylopez.typepad.com...

a reply to: reldra

The fires were being starved of oxygen soon after the planes hit, so there were no fires on the lower floors. How did all that structural steel melt below the impact zone?

a reply to: Shadow Herder

Still curious how these buildings were wired to blow with all the people in them and how NO ONE saw any bombs planted around the buildings before 9/11.