Seek help, or at least try to avoid topics like this.

New World Ag said:

---

You guys do know that the guy who planned the entire operation, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who we have locked up in Gitmo, confessed and gave all the details on the planning and logistics? We have videos of all the hijackers as they go through security and many eyewitness accounts from gate agents and other people?

For someone to believe that our government was behind this, you would have to believe that multiple people, including the POTUS, signed off on a plan that would:

Kill thousands of American citizens
Nobody would squelch on
Nobody would get caught
Would work
Nobody would squelch in the years afterwards
Was the best plan they had for the objective they wanted.

I could go on and on. The psychology, the logistics,etc…none of it holds up to any logical reasoning.

---

None of this theoretical discussion matters in the face of the physical impossibility of collapse.

I'll believe that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the mastermind just as much as I do that Mohammed Atta's passport was somehow found in the rubble and yet thousands of bodies were essentially unrecoverable from the debris, pulverized into fine powder by the explosions of the collapse.

But hey, let's believe George Bush on this one. Certainly wouldn't lie to us like he did with Iraq.

Quote:

---

I'll believe that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the mastermind just as much as I do that Mohammed Atta's passport was somehow found in the rubble and yet thousands of bodies were essentially unrecoverable from the debris, pulverized into fine powder by the explosions of the collapse.

---

Why are you so hung up on the passport? There were hundreds of thousands of documents, paper, photos, etc in the debris before and after the towers fell. You've seen the videos and photos, we all have.

Just so it's on here since it keeps getting repeated… Atta's passport was not found. It's just another small piece of information that people get totally wrong over and over and over with this thing. The passport found belonged to another highjacker on that flight, Satam Al-Suqami.

There were also other examples of jewelry, wallets, other identification found from other people on the aircraft both in the street and on rooftops, as well as recovered from the debris.

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Unless someone can factually prove a conspiracy was wrong with evidence I don't doubt peoples conspiracies anymore after the last 2 years.

---

This had 54 blue stars when I copied it. Some may boast, but of what, I'm not sure any more.

JJxvi said:

---

Just so it's on here since it keeps getting repeated… Atta's passport was not found. It's just another small piece of information that people get totally wrong over and over and over with this thing. The passport found belonged to another highjacker on that flight, Satam Al-Suqami.

There were also other examples of jewelry, wallets, other identification found from other people on the aircraft both in the street and on rooftops, as well as recovered from the debris.

---

Which is comical considering we can't find a shred of tangible physical evidence remaining from many of the victims, but conveniently a passport is found from one of the hijackers

Amazing how gullible the public is to lap this stuff up

New World Ag said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Just so it's on here since it keeps getting repeated… Atta's passport was not found. It's just another small piece of information that people get totally wrong over and over and over with this thing. The passport found belonged to another highjacker on that flight, Satam Al-Suqami.

There were also other examples of jewelry, wallets, other identification found from other people on the aircraft both in the street and on rooftops, as well as recovered from the debris.

---

Which is comical considering we can't find a shred of tangible physical evidence remaining from many of the victims, but conveniently a passport is found from one of the hijackers

Amazing how gullible the public is to lap this stuff up

---

You're talking out your ass again. There is plenty of physical evidence, victims personal items (wallets, badges , etc) body parts…thousands of victims identified via DNA testing. You've seen the videos of all the paper debris falling in the air, a passerby finding a passport from one of the hijackers on the street before either tower fell is that hard for you to believe? And you call US gullible? You've gone so deep into the conspiracy culture rabbit hole you can't get out.

---

They can't find anything of significance from many of the victims due to the pulverization of their remains.

But you're going to tell me an aircraft slams into the towers, is engulfed by flames, and a passport is recovered? That's one hell of a far fetched conspiracy theory if I've ever heard one

What's so difficult to understand? Again the streets get a rainstorm of paper, debris and body parts after AA11 and UA175 each make their hits. Were they consumed by the explosions?

No, you believe this was number 12,245 of 25,000 steps of the most complicated insider plan in the history of mankind

Step 12,245. Plant fake passport of one of the fake hijackers on the street after AA11 hits the north tower.

The paper was from the office, the idea that the high velocity object that gets slammed into the stationary object and explodes is part of the office paper of surrounding debris is just yet one more part of the ridiculousness to the official lie

New World Ag said:

---

AeroAg1 said:

---

So the fact we immediately go to war with Iraq, who had nothing to do with this attack, doesn't give you any questions?

---

Iraq war didn't start until until 1-1/2 years later, not "immediately"

---

also, i think that they were hoping to squeeze Iran between 2 democratic states, which obviously didn't pan out

If there is no force applied to a falling mass, the mass will fall STRAIGHT DOWN.

Another thing, when you demolish a building; work is not just putting explosives everywhere. You have to weaken the structure:partially cut beams, remove bracing etc

2 buildings 1/4 mile high fall. Never happened before, so conjecture about what should of happened or beliefs deny plane videos is ridiculous.

The physics of energy the fall created is so enormous few people in the world fully understand.

TRADUCTOR said:

---

If there is no force applied to a falling mass, the mass will fall STRAIGHT DOWN.

Another thing, when you demolish a building; work is not just putting explosives everywhere. You have to weaken the structure:partially cut beams, remove bracing etc

2 buildings 1/4 mile high fall. Never happened before, so conjecture about what should of happened or beliefs deny plane videos is ridiculous.

The physics of energy the fall created is so enormous few people in the world fully understand.

---

The top portion of the building starts evaporating before you even see the impact zone floors collapse.

A huge portion of the building's steel is thrown laterally over 600 feet outside the footprint of the collapse, thus providing much less gravitational force on the floors below than a true pancaking collapse. What is causing this massive ejection of steel with white hot smoke trails? What's causing the molten steel?

The structure below is providing much more resistance than the floors where the impact zone are located, the conservation of momentum theorem is violated. The "energies" you speak of are merely a matter of scale, they are not some nebulous, unknown factor we don't know how to account for.

The way the towers fell was unnatural.

They vaporized.

Anybody that knows anything can see that.

I remember being shocked on 9-11 that the towers collapsed the way they did. It didn't look right at the time.

But by the time you see the **** replayed 1000 times on tv you lose sight of that.

Also, I remember watching a live feed discussing rumors that they were gonna demo building 7 or 'pull it' as was being discussed at the time. I specially remember them discussing the concept of 'pull it' on live tv. They were talking about demoing the building but it wasn't clear why.

I assumed that building 7 was demoed from the day of 9-11 because that's what I remember them talking about at the time. They were going to demo it because it might to collapse.

Seems like I have a clear memory of all of the above. Anybody else remember it that way?

yes i remember it too

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

The way the towers fell was unnatural.

They vaporized.

---

What would the "natural" way look like for 1,400 foot tall steel and concrete structures? More like this?



The concrete was pulverized. The steel did not "vaporize".

Space based disintegrating beam!

AggiEE said:

---

Appreciate the tone of this response versus others in this thread. I don't disagree with the notion that aircraft + jet fuel would have induced significant local damage. That is clearly evident. What we do disagree with is the notion that this local damage at the least important section of the towers (from load bearing standpoint) would cause catastrophic systemic and complete failure of the entire building at free fall speed from top to bottom. The USS Bonhomme may have been unsalvageable from the standpoint of getting it repaired for service again, but it DID NOT exhibit complete and utter failure of all the core supporting structure.

Buildings do not completely and utterly collapse due to office fires. They sustain significant damage, of which there is no doubt. They may even feature partial collapses. But unless every single loadbearing member is removed near simultaneously it won't result in a near free fall collapse.

There was also nothing that should have caused significant molten steel, nor the extremely high thermal readings at Ground Zero that lasted for a very long time.

---

I watched a small portion of your 14 minute video on the previous page. Several things peaked my interest. It was clearly stated in that video of some news guy talking about the smoke dissipating or getting lighter meaning the fires were being contained or getting less intense (paraphrasing). Hell, I think I started the whole chimney starter gif joke early on in the thread but in a serious evaluation of that, when you light one of those with only paper and charcoal, it puts out a ton of smoke as the paper starts to burn, then lessens over the next several minutes. By about minute 7-10 depending on wind, you have no more smoke and just pure heat shooting out the top with glowing coals in the central core. I don't think you could find a much better example with vents (doors, windows, ventilation, elevator shafts) that are providing ample air flow to fuel a massive core fire that is basically unseen observing the skin of the building as observed in the towers and pretty well with the broken windows and damaged side of Building 7.

Second, you reference the NASA observation of extremely high temperatures observed "for a very long time." The video plainly said "days". I'm an old Ag and I remember walking by bonfire a couple of days after burn and the pile was still plenty warm. So much so you could warm your hands pretty easily. Doesn't seem far fetched millions of tons of burnt building and steel would stay warm for days.

These are normal observations with real life examples, not under the stress of such a catastrophic event where bits of information are cherry picked and held up as golden nuggets. The preponderance of evidence along with the lack of thousands of feet of tension wires required to pull a building to collapse on itself closes any book in my mind on govt conspiracy.

AggiEE said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

You're an embarrassment to all the basket weaving degree holders from Blinn. Time to turn in your basket weaving degree.

You cannot name a single other building that collapsed like WTC7 in the entire history of modern steel buildings. We have countless examples of many fires that have raged in an uncontrolled fashion for much longer. Should be easy to find some if buildings are THAT vulnerable to routine fires, yet you CAN'T. The fact that you believe buildings are that vulnerable to office fires to the point where they can cause complete and utter collapse of massive steel columns all simultaneously shows how much of a basket weaving mouthbreather you are. Engineering designs would never be that completely fragile and exposed.

None of the eye witnesses were "debunked". It's not just Jennings either, there are countless others. It all gets hand waived as "bububu that day was really chaotic they probably weren't hearing or seeing explosives"

Complete and utter cognitive dissonance. I do not need to speculate on the mechanics of a covert complex operation to know that it has occcurred due to the physical impossibility of WTC7's "natural collapse" which is corroborated by the university studies I've previously posted yet you continue to ignore.

---

Without resorting to degree returns and offending any true basket weaving professionals from Blinn, let me refer to the below report from the American Society of Civil Engineers on potential causes.

Significant damage in almost certain probability occurred following the collapse of WTC1. This ignited fires on several floors as well and likely led to the chimney effect also seen on WTC1 and WTC2. This type of burning can create superheated gasses quite efficiently which undermines the steel quickly. To study this, go to your local patio store and get you a chiminea.. Enjoy a nice, overbuilt fire and watch it shoot out the top like a blow torch. Not perfect, but you get the idea.

The report below also points to a potential assist from a damaged fuel oil distribution system on floor 5. You have another complicating factor with a ConEd substation in a basement.

Finally, a 20-inch water main was damaged likely resulting in little or no flow to the buildings sprinklers. It also meant no firefighting was done as no water for hoses.

The building burned for 7 hours uncontrolled before collapsing.

And to add another point of reference, the USS Bonhomme Richard burned for just 2 hours before firefighting began and it took 5 DAYS to put the fire out. On a ship made almost entirely of steel and with less combustibles than you would find in not just an office building, but keeping in mind this was a hotel and JAM PACKED with combustibles.

It just takes common sense sometimes when you remove the tin foil hat.

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000398

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2021-10-20/navy-failures-bonhomme-richard-fire

---

Appreciate the tone of this response versus others in this thread. I don't disagree with the notion that aircraft + jet fuel would have induced significant local damage. That is clearly evident. What we do disagree with is the notion that this local damage at the least important section of the towers (from load bearing standpoint) would cause catastrophic systemic and complete failure of the entire building at free fall speed from top to bottom. The USS Bonhomme may have been unsalvageable from the standpoint of getting it repaired for service again, but it DID NOT exhibit complete and utter failure of all the core supporting structure.

Buildings do not completely and utterly collapse due to office fires. They sustain significant damage, of which there is no doubt. They may even feature partial collapses. But unless every single loadbearing member is removed near simultaneously it won't result in a near free fall collapse.

There was also nothing that should have caused significant molten steel, nor the extremely high thermal readings at Ground Zero that lasted for a very long time.

---

100% pure bullshart

And classifying this as an "office fire" is just stupid. Comparing a ship to a fuggin 1,360 foot building with a massively more complex structural system (not to mention pure mass above the compromised sections) is probably even dumber.

You seem to know very little about the real world, or steel properties. Stick to electricity. Maybe.

I am simply amazed that people are dumb enough to not believe what we witnessed and actual facts supported by mechanical properties, thousands of engineers and anybody with a bit of common sense.

fka ftc said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

You're an embarrassment to all the basket weaving degree holders from Blinn. Time to turn in your basket weaving degree.

You cannot name a single other building that collapsed like WTC7 in the entire history of modern steel buildings. We have countless examples of many fires that have raged in an uncontrolled fashion for much longer. Should be easy to find some if buildings are THAT vulnerable to routine fires, yet you CAN'T. The fact that you believe buildings are that vulnerable to office fires to the point where they can cause complete and utter collapse of massive steel columns all simultaneously shows how much of a basket weaving mouthbreather you are. Engineering designs would never be that completely fragile and exposed.

None of the eye witnesses were "debunked". It's not just Jennings either, there are countless others. It all gets hand waived as "bububu that day was really chaotic they probably weren't hearing or seeing explosives"

Complete and utter cognitive dissonance. I do not need to speculate on the mechanics of a covert complex operation to know that it has occcurred due to the physical impossibility of WTC7's "natural collapse" which is corroborated by the university studies I've previously posted yet you continue to ignore.

---

Without resorting to degree returns and offending any true basket weaving professionals from Blinn, let me refer to the below report from the American Society of Civil Engineers on potential causes.

Significant damage in almost certain probability occurred following the collapse of WTC1. This ignited fires on several floors as well and likely led to the chimney effect also seen on WTC1 and WTC2. This type of burning can create superheated gasses quite efficiently which undermines the steel quickly. To study this, go to your local patio store and get you a chiminea.. Enjoy a nice, overbuilt fire and watch it shoot out the top like a blow torch. Not perfect, but you get the idea.

The report below also points to a potential assist from a damaged fuel oil distribution system on floor 5. You have another complicating factor with a ConEd substation in a basement.

Finally, a 20-inch water main was damaged likely resulting in little or no flow to the buildings sprinklers. It also meant no firefighting was done as no water for hoses.

The building burned for 7 hours uncontrolled before collapsing.

And to add another point of reference, the USS Bonhomme Richard burned for just 2 hours before firefighting began and it took 5 DAYS to put the fire out. On a ship made almost entirely of steel and with less combustibles than you would find in not just an office building, but keeping in mind this was a hotel and JAM PACKED with combustibles.

It just takes common sense sometimes when you remove the tin foil hat.

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000398

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2021-10-20/navy-failures-bonhomme-richard-fire

---

Shhhhh!!!! Don't let actual facts cloud the mist of stupidity that is surrounding some of these folks like the Charlie Brown character Pig Pen.

I mean, obviously George Bush himself was pulling wires and planting tons and tons and tons of some magical explosive that doesnt' actually explode, but can level buildings in front of thousands of people and hundreds of cameras without anybody actually knowing it was an inside job with some nefarious US government agenda. Those bigass planes that hit the towers were just distractions and really didn't cause any damage or do anything of significance!

FYI, here is the other side of WTC7 that you don't see in any of the videos of it falling. but let's run with the demo theory. There is literally a gash from top to bottom.

New World Ag said:

---

For someone to believe that our government was behind this, you would have to believe that multiple people, including the POTUS, signed off on a plan that would:

Kill thousands of American citizens
Nobody would squelch on
Nobody would get caught
Would work
Nobody would squelch in the years afterwards
Was the best plan they had for the objective they wanted.

---

Are you talking about 911 or covid?

Because you do realize that your scenario you use to discredit 911 is exactly what happened with covid?

I mean, do you not see what the government's been doing?

It's the same people in charge. It's a club and we're not in it.

snowdog90 said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

For someone to believe that our government was behind this, you would have to believe that multiple people, including the POTUS, signed off on a plan that would:

Kill thousands of American citizens
Nobody would squelch on
Nobody would get caught
Would work
Nobody would squelch in the years afterwards
Was the best plan they had for the objective they wanted.

---

Are you talking about 911 or covid?

Because you do realize that your scenario you use to discredit 911 is exactly what happened with covid?

I mean, do you not see what the government's been doing?

It's the same people in charge. It's a club and we're not in it.

---

Whataboutism at its finest.

Duckhook said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

For someone to believe that our government was behind this, you would have to believe that multiple people, including the POTUS, signed off on a plan that would:

Kill thousands of American citizens
Nobody would squelch on
Nobody would get caught
Would work
Nobody would squelch in the years afterwards
Was the best plan they had for the objective they wanted.

---

Are you talking about 911 or covid?

Because you do realize that your scenario you use to discredit 911 is exactly what happened with covid?

I mean, do you not see what the government's been doing?

It's the same people in charge. It's a club and we're not in it.

---

Whataboutism at its finest.

---

It's a terrible argument: It's the same guys, 20 years later, doing completely different things.

snowdog90 said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

For someone to believe that our government was behind this, you would have to believe that multiple people, including the POTUS, signed off on a plan that would:

Kill thousands of American citizens
Nobody would squelch on
Nobody would get caught
Would work
Nobody would squelch in the years afterwards
Was the best plan they had for the objective they wanted.

---

Are you talking about 911 or covid?

Because you do realize that your scenario you use to discredit 911 is exactly what happened with covid?

I mean, do you not see what the government's been doing?

It's the same people in charge. It's a club and we're not in it.

---

Trump signed off on the COVID show?

FBI & CIA shot down the Challenger also.

Don't believe me? Look what they did with COVID.

Panama Red said:

---

FBI & CIA shot down the Challenger also.

Don't believe me? Look what they did with COVID.

---

Anyone for the Hurricane machine that stirred up Harvey, Katrina, and Ian?

AggiEE said:

---

TRADUCTOR said:

---

If there is no force applied to a falling mass, the mass will fall STRAIGHT DOWN.

Another thing, when you demolish a building; work is not just putting explosives everywhere. You have to weaken the structure:partially cut beams, remove bracing etc

2 buildings 1/4 mile high fall. Never happened before, so conjecture about what should of happened or beliefs deny plane videos is ridiculous.

The physics of energy the fall created is so enormous few people in the world fully understand.

---

The top portion of the building starts evaporating before you even see the impact zone floors collapse.

A huge portion of the building's steel is thrown laterally over 600 feet outside the footprint of the collapse, thus providing much less gravitational force on the floors below than a true pancaking collapse. What is causing this massive ejection of steel with white hot smoke trails? What's causing the molten steel?

The structure below is providing much more resistance than the floors where the impact zone are located, the conservation of momentum theorem is violated. The "energies" you speak of are merely a matter of scale, they are not some nebulous, unknown factor we don't know how to account for.

---

Steel was thrown 600 ft because energy of a jumbo jet at over 500mph... Or a structural failure; take a paper clip and squeeze lengthwise for the effect. Cannot deny there was structural failure due to a jumbo jet crashing into the building. The heat generated melted the steel. Think about a steel mill furnace using electricity and natural gas as fuel. The fuel alone is not what melts the steel. There is nothing that documents the amount of heat generated by the collapse of a 1/4 mile high skyscraper or the amount of heat generated from the flue effect on a fire in a 1/4 mile high skyscaper.

Also I forbid you to watch any sandy hook conspiracy videos if they can be found.

New World Ag said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

For someone to believe that our government was behind this, you would have to believe that multiple people, including the POTUS, signed off on a plan that would:

Kill thousands of American citizens
Nobody would squelch on
Nobody would get caught
Would work
Nobody would squelch in the years afterwards
Was the best plan they had for the objective they wanted.

---

Are you talking about 911 or covid?

Because you do realize that your scenario you use to discredit 911 is exactly what happened with covid?

I mean, do you not see what the government's been doing?

It's the same people in charge. It's a club and we're not in it.

---

Trump signed off on the COVID show?

---

Trump is one of the funniest parts of the tinfoil equation too. You're telling me if the government orchestrated 9/11 that he 1. Wouldn't find out about it and/or 2. Wouldn't tweet about it on like a random Tuesday afternoon? He has the least impulse control in history so no way he's not telling everyone immediately.

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Appreciate the tone of this response versus others in this thread. I don't disagree with the notion that aircraft + jet fuel would have induced significant local damage. That is clearly evident. What we do disagree with is the notion that this local damage at the least important section of the towers (from load bearing standpoint) would cause catastrophic systemic and complete failure of the entire building at free fall speed from top to bottom. The USS Bonhomme may have been unsalvageable from the standpoint of getting it repaired for service again, but it DID NOT exhibit complete and utter failure of all the core supporting structure.

Buildings do not completely and utterly collapse due to office fires. They sustain significant damage, of which there is no doubt. They may even feature partial collapses. But unless every single loadbearing member is removed near simultaneously it won't result in a near free fall collapse.

There was also nothing that should have caused significant molten steel, nor the extremely high thermal readings at Ground Zero that lasted for a very long time.

---

I watched a small portion of your 14 minute video on the previous page. Several things peaked my interest. It was clearly stated in that video of some news guy talking about the smoke dissipating or getting lighter meaning the fires were being contained or getting less intense (paraphrasing). Hell, I think I started the whole chimney starter gif joke early on in the thread but in a serious evaluation of that, when you light one of those with only paper and charcoal, it puts out a ton of smoke as the paper starts to burn, then lessens over the next several minutes. By about minute 7-10 depending on wind, you have no more smoke and just pure heat shooting out the top with glowing coals in the central core. I don't think you could find a much better example with vents (doors, windows, ventilation, elevator shafts) that are providing ample air flow to fuel a massive core fire that is basically unseen observing the skin of the building as observed in the towers and pretty well with the broken windows and damaged side of Building 7.

Second, you reference the NASA observation of extremely high temperatures observed "for a very long time." The video plainly said "days". I'm an old Ag and I remember walking by bonfire a couple of days after burn and the pile was still plenty warm. So much so you could warm your hands pretty easily. Doesn't seem far fetched millions of tons of burnt building and steel would stay warm for days.

These are normal observations with real life examples, not under the stress of such a catastrophic event where bits of information are cherry picked and held up as golden nuggets. The preponderance of evidence along with the lack of thousands of feet of tension wires required to pull a building to collapse on itself closes any book in my mind on govt conspiracy.

---

First, the fact that the temperatures/smoke were observed to be attenuating does not support your argument. It is inconsistent with the idea that the fires were hot enough to bring down the buildings. Even if the office fires reached and sustained 1400 degrees, which is a huge stretch, it does not explain the fact that molten steel was observed and photographed running like lava in the minutes before collapse and the aftermath of the cleanup. To melt steel you need to reach temperatures over double that amount, 2800 degrees. Despite the physical evidence, there is nothing about office fires, the impact of planes, or the jet fuel that can explain those temperatures.

Regarding the NASA imagery, the heat at Ground Zero was not only extreme, it was also persistent, as proven not only by witness statements and a photograph of orange-red glowing steel as late as October 21, but also by thermal images EarthData satellites. The ground zero wreckage was not a smoldering flame of uncontrolled fires, it was trapped molten metal.

You can choose to believe that the government conspiracy was too difficult to pull off, but that is in direct conflict with the physical evidence that clearly points to a controlled demolition. I choose to believe the physical evidence rather than the naive idea that the government is incapable or unwilling to pull something like this off.

TRADUCTOR said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

TRADUCTOR said:

---

If there is no force applied to a falling mass, the mass will fall STRAIGHT DOWN.

Another thing, when you demolish a building; work is not just putting explosives everywhere. You have to weaken the structure:partially cut beams, remove bracing etc

2 buildings 1/4 mile high fall. Never happened before, so conjecture about what should of happened or beliefs deny plane videos is ridiculous.

The physics of energy the fall created is so enormous few people in the world fully understand.

---

The top portion of the building starts evaporating before you even see the impact zone floors collapse.

A huge portion of the building's steel is thrown laterally over 600 feet outside the footprint of the collapse, thus providing much less gravitational force on the floors below than a true pancaking collapse. What is causing this massive ejection of steel with white hot smoke trails? What's causing the molten steel?

The structure below is providing much more resistance than the floors where the impact zone are located, the conservation of momentum theorem is violated. The "energies" you speak of are merely a matter of scale, they are not some nebulous, unknown factor we don't know how to account for.

---

Steel was thrown 600 ft because energy of a jumbo jet at over 500mph... Or a structural failure; take a paper clip and squeeze lengthwise for the effect. Cannot deny there was structural failure due to a jumbo jet crashing into the building. The heat generated melted the steel. Think about a steel mill furnace using electricity and natural gas as fuel. The fuel alone is not what melts the steel. There is nothing that documents the amount of heat generated by the collapse of a 1/4 mile high skyscraper or the amount of heat generated from the flue effect on a fire in a 1/4 mile high skyscaper.

Also I forbid you to watch any sandy hook conspiracy videos if they can be found.

---

Right. Steel is ejected 600 feet from the collapse in neatly cut sections of columns around an hour after impact because, "Aww shucks, some planes hit the towers! hyuck hyuck". Despite the actual physical structure taking the impact of the planes hitting them with great resilience at the moment of impact. Structural failure does not explain steel being ejected from the top of the building in neatly cut sections 600 feet away or longer. There would need to be a massive amount of lateral energy/force to accomplish that. Natural structural failure results in the top building hitting the bottom portion and the momentum of the top would be slowed down, or the top would stay in tact and topple over. What you actually witness is a massive amount of explosive force pushing the columns outward, with the corners containing hot white smoke consistent with thermate.

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

FYI, here is the other side of WTC7 that you don't see in any of the videos of it falling. but let's run with the demo theory. There is literally a gash from top to bottom.

---

Wow! That looks so terrible it must mean the building should collapse entirely at free fall speed!

Oh, until you realize that the other WTC buildings and other surrounding buildings that were MUCH closer to WTC1 and 2 sustained much larger amounts of structural damage and were still standing, despite huge gaping holes all around the building. Use some common sense.

How did thermite or whatever was planted in the WTCs create enough heat to make the molten steel? I made my observation on what the video said. Gave an example of what happens with the combustion of fuel. I could see fires raging internally with less smoke being emitted.

Your posted video said days. Now you say a month. Post that. I'm just commenting on what you posted.