So you think that after burning for seven hours, someone set off a controlled demolition that had been prepared for weeks in advance without anyone noticing, and this worked perfectly because the seven-hour fire had left the miles of exposed detonation wiring untouched?
This is the problem with all of your theories. You are seeing things no one else can see, then proceeding as if they are facts that must be accounted for.
This is a general reminder to everybody: remain civil and don’t comment on other people in the thread. Personal insults aren’t allowed in this forum.
Why do you assume it is aluminum?
Irrelevant. The resolution is not sufficient to determine what it is. There is little need to assume it is metal at all.
Yes. Because the people were at the entry hole. Where the impact would have the very minor benefit of pushing the flammable materials out of the way.
Sound like BLEVEs to me. 7 had several fuel tanks for generators; apply a sustained heat source and you get something like this (1:24 if you just want the explosion).
Anyone with a shred of physics education will understand that the buildings fell because of structural collapse.
Add in even just a few low level structural engineering classes, and it is obvious that structural failure caused the collapse of the buildings.
Structural steel does not do well with high heat. Structural steel many, many hundreds of feet up and weakened by heat does not do well with gravity.
I’m sorry, but I know that all 9/11 CTers who suggest controlled demolition are uneducated people, usually with some axe to grind.
You’d do well to educate yourself. I’d offer my assistance, but I really don’t think you want to be educated, but rather would like to keep grinding your axe.
Hard to tell. I can sort of see what you’re looking at, but with the graininess of the video I couldn’t tell if it was even liquid or solid material falling.
Aluminum, no problem. I’ve seen aluminum parts melt in car fires. There were other materials that could also create a molten flow, including glass, or copper from wiring. But I’m not even convinced that we’re seeing a flowing liquid in that shot, versus falling debris leaving smoke trails.
There was more than one hole in the building, and not all parts of the building were on fire at the same time. Do you see any people standing in a hole in a part of the building that is currently on fire?
More importantly, how does this help the controlled demolition theory? The cutting charges used in controlled demolitions don’t generate much heat. They sever structural beams by physically shearing through them with a focused shock wave, not by melting them. Pooling melted metal is more consistent with the theory that a hot fire weakened the structure enough to trigger a collapse.
Actually, no I don’t. I think you are trying to bait me into coming up with some off the wall CT, which is a mistake that most people make. Then you can put your tin foil hat on me and dissmiss me as crazy.
The offical 9/11 tale is in fact, a CT.http://www.collativelearning.com/conspiracy%20theories%20-%20contents.htmlhere is a link that kind of explains why I don’t really need an alternate theory.
I can look at the evidence sorrounding 9/11 and see at least some of it is a lie, therefore the whole offical story is a lie.
I know you want me to come up with some thing about remote crontrolled planes and drones, a missle hit the pentagon and whatever.
The fact is I don’t have to.
We have seen that because that is how we dismantle buildings. We are not in the habit of destroying them by setting them ablaze. Tends to be rather messy, as can be seen.
Irrelevant.
But you do need to have some sense of how the building stands, why its structure varies from other buildings, the secondary results of an impact by the plane, etc. etc. Just saying ‘it looks like CD to me because that is all I have seen’ is not good failure analysis.
No. Because my logic accounts for the difference in the structural design, the difference in the airplanes, etc.
Wheras your logic works on ‘never saw it do that before, must be a cause we are completely familiar with’. That’s a Cargo Cult bit of logic, there.
You realize this is how “creation science” works, yes?
Right. Because the fact is that the controlled demolition theory is a conspiracy theory, and it’s a conspiracy theory not in the “a bunch of terrorists collaborating is a conspiracy” sense, but in the “WAKE UP SHEEPLE!” sense.
You are a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.
There was an uninterruptible power supply in that general location. Perhaps it’s giving off sparks?
If the UPS had lead-acid batteries, we could even be seeing a flow of molten lead. I doubt it, but it’s another possibility.
My ‘guess’, and I freely admit it is such, is that it is blobs of burning plastic. It reminds me too much of lighting plastic army men on fire in my friend’s yard as a kid and watching the blobs of sizzling, brightly-burning plastic blobs coming off the rifles.
Nice excluded middle you have there.
The DoD was, in fact, caught in a lie because they were too busy trying to cover their collective ass. Doesn’t mean there were lies flying everywhere, much like how “explosions” are not all caused by explosives.
Thin stamped aluminum parts as used in a car? Ok mabye they will melt.
But, and I maybe mistaken, I thought the outside members of the WTC were stainless steel. No way that is melting from a kerosene fire.
I see. Wait, no I don’t.
Let’s assume explosives really did bring down the buildings. No one has come forth to say they planted explosives, so doesn’t that make the act of using explosives covert?
I make no claims about whether you are right or not, but by your own cite that means you are proposing a CT.
Oh please, I gave links to evidence that explains why I believe what I do. You are the one taking it all on faith.
Your links don’t support your beliefs.