Oh ya, and there are over 1,300 architects and engineers who agree the buildings should not have fallen. Including the person that designed the twin towers who said a plane hitting the building would be akin to shoving a pencil through a screen door.
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/407-buildingwhat-appears-on-geraldo-at-large-on-fox-news.html
English
-
It wasn't the plane. The plane's impact actually blew off the fireproofing on the structural i-beams. The heat of burning jet fuel weakened the structure and strength of the metal. The buildings then collapsed under the weight of the higher floors. Spray-on fire insulation for metal buildings is now being cycled out in new construction because of this. Unfortunately, buildings with the old style of fire proofing cannot be replaced unless they are destroyed and rebuilt. Any other construction related insights you wish to know?
-
And guess what. They did survive the planes impacting. The burning jet fuel weakened the support columns, and the massive weight from the floors above created a pile drive effect.
-
I have seen conflicting articles as to whether or not jet fuel burns hot enough to melt support beams, however, Tower 7 was never hit by a plane.
-
Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. It does, however, burn hot enough to cause brittle fatigue failure, which is exactly what happened.
-
The Twin Towers fell by impact, explosion and burning effects, combined with excessive strain on the remaining support pillars. The architect's model was based on impact alone, not an ensuing blast and superheated blaze. I'm aware that the temperature at which jet fuel burns isn't enough to melt steel, but what confuses me most is how people seem to be adamant that the temperature would remain constant. Are they not aware that the average house fire is 1500 degrees C? With the jet fuel acting as an initial blaze, the building itself caught fire and burned at increased temperatures due to airflow and other sources of fuel, not just the jet fuel. As for everything else? -blam!- knows.
-
It didn't have to melt them. It just had to weaken them enough so that gravity took over and did the rest.
-
No, a test was done, and the support columns won't melt at all. They were heated enough to weaken their structural integrity. Also, do you see how close Tower 7 is? The twin towers are huge! All that falling rubble and debris would be more than enough to trash tower 7.
-
Then why did the government fail to mention it in the report? Right before the building "collapsed" it seemed stable and fine, not to mentioned it looked EXACTLY like a controlled demolition and it was reported collapsed before it actually happened. And people said, "Get back they're going to pull it!" Which is a term used in demolition.
-
If you're referring to tower 7, here's what I found out. The tower was built larger than it was supposed to be. The substation was meant to accommodate a smaller building. There were special columns built, but if they were damaged in any way...
-
Here's the shocking truth: the buildings survived being hit by a plane.
-
Tower 7 was never hit be a plane.
-
Yeah, but the Twin Towers survived being hit by a plane. Fire and debris destroyed Tower 7. It's not like 7 was the only nearby building destroyed, too. The entire surrounding area was devastated.
-
Fire could not have possibly brought that building down, and it sustained hardly any damage at all by debris.
-
[quote]Fire could not have possibly brought that building down[/quote] Of course it could, especially when the design flaws made it impossible for the suppression system to combat the fires.
-
Fire can not bring down a steel and concrete building, no matter what you say. And the fact that it was reported collapsed before it actually happened and firefighters were saying, "Get away they're going to pull-it!" Which is a demolition term.
-
[quote]firefighters were saying, "Get away they're going to pull-it!" Which is a demolition term[/quote] Firefighters were not evacuated from the area. There are pictures of firefighters standing next to the building when it collapsed. [quote]Fire can not bring down a steel and concrete building, no matter what you say.[/quote] An office fire? No. A fire that spread rapidly throughout the entire building after anterior support beams had been destroyed? Absolutely.
-
How were the support beans destroyed?
-
Debris falling from the north tower collapse.
-
That's quite the stretch. Did you hear the ADA is warning against giving fluoride to infants? Also, I've had a water source without fluoride for three months now and also stopped using fluoride toothpaste and my teeth have gotten substantially whiter.
-
Is it a brand water or what? And I'm just curious, what products do you use instead of fluoride based accessories?
-
Reverse Osmosis. I just use regular baking soda mixed with coconut oil with some mint leaves added.
-
Hmmm, been reading about the fluoride water. D: good notice too. Read about a small article about Reverse Osmosis. Heard that it can be expensive. Also checked out what Penta is. Really effective but the priciest in the market. There is much to learn for me.
-
Fortunately I have local stores that sell RO water real cheap. You can make your own by boiling water and collecting what evaporates in a pretty simple rig, Youtube should be able to help you there. Or maybe you have a store near you that sells RO water. Fluoride is actually an acid and has the highest danger rating allowed by the CDC, as they pump it into the water it eats away at the metallic pipes and concrete.
-
I checked a local Costco and were sold out 😒 Definitely going to look into it, see what else what other poisons are put into our stuff, thanks Camm, you made my night. Man is it just me, or is it that school taught me jack.😡