Author Topic: Why you should question the official explanation of the collapse of WTC  (Read 3269 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tess

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70

Why you should question the official explanation of the collapse of WTC...

Basic science disproves the official theory. This video also includes some witness testimony that I haven't heard before.

118 seperate fire fighters there on the day mention explosions.

The very last witness testimony is astonishing.

Offline Rex

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 918
Re: Why you should question the official explanation of the collapse of WTC
« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2017, 02:02:44 pm »
An obliteration of the "official" version of the WTC collapse story.

Fire Could Not Have Collapsed WTC: Scientists for 9/11 Truth

David Chandler: The impacts of the planes had little effect on the buildings. Both of the Twin Towers withstood the impacts and showed no sign of failure in response. WTC7 was not hit by a plane, but it was the building with the most precipitous collapse.

It is incorrect to say the fires in the buildings melted the steel beams or caused them to fail. Most of the jet fuel (kerosene) burned in large fire balls outside of the buildings. What remained behind would have burned off within a few minutes. The fires that continued were fed by ordinary office furnishings.

The flame temperature due to office fires in open air is limited by the chemical reactions taking place, not the "size" of the fire, with a maximum temperature 1000 degrees F less than the melting point of steel. The color of the smoke indicated incomplete combustion was taking place, so the limiting temperature would be even lower. There was a woman seen standing in the hole made by the airplane in the North Tower, leaning on a steel columns and waving. She could not have done so if the temperatures were exceptionally high.

The temperature of the steel lags far behind the flame temperature because it wicks away the heat, so hours of exposure to intense heat would be needed for the steel temperature to rise to the flame temperature. In fact the South Tower burned for only 56 minutes and the north tower for 102 minutes. The short duration of the fires in the Twin Towers precludes the possibility that high temperature caused the steel to fail. Actual tests of steel floor structures subjected to intense prolonged heating fail to cause them to collapse.

Please explain what exactly happened in the buildings, and comment on the evidences to sustain your statements.

The fires could not have caused the collapses. There is clear evidence from numerous sources that explosive demolition techniques were used in the towers and in Building 7. Among these are the rate of fall, the simultaneous failure of all supporting members at once leading to symmetric collapse of the North Tower and Building 7, the lack of resistance to the fall, visual evidence of explosive ejection of material at and below the failure points, and visible evidence of continued explosive reactions in the debris ejected from the building.

Residue in the dust includes billions of iron-rich spheres, indicating temperatures above the melting point of iron in a blast environment that sprayed the molten iron as droplets. Iron spheres are a common effect of thermite reactions. In fact unreacted red-grey chips of thermite fabricated from high tech nanoparticles was found in the dust. These chips react as nanothermite when heated, producing very high temperatures, iron spheres, aluminum oxide dust, and iron spheres as end products. All of these features are consistent with the identification of these chips as nanothermite.

Much more there. 

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,061
Re: Why you should question the official explanation of the collapse of WTC
« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2017, 03:36:19 pm »
9/11: Explosive Evidence Experts Speak Out (On-Demand AIA CES-Approved Course)

Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!