The Government Lies

Building 7 was a controlled implosion.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9R1cwYqwFgo Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

As much as I like you.....you're still an idiot.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

This video really doesn't debunk anything. First of all what actually caught fire? Office furnishings. Desks, carpet, paper products, ect. None of these item are going to burn and generate enough heat to melt or even slightly weaken heat forged Steel support beams, and even if these fires could generate the intense heat required, do you really think all the support beams would fail at the exact same time to cause a forty seven story building to fall so uniformly? C'mon, quit listening to these Momos on YouTube that talk bullshit.


Jim

This video really doesn't debunk anything. First of all what actually caught fire? Office furnishings. Desks, carpet, paper products, ect. None of these item are going to burn and generate enough heat to melt or even slightly weaken heat forged Steel support beams, and even if these fires could generate the intense heat required, do you really think all the support beams would fail at the exact same time to cause a forty seven story building to fall so uniformly? C'mon, quit listening to these Momos on YouTube that talk bullshit.


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

24,000 gallons of fuel for the building's generators caught fire, but it was the seven-hours of uncontrolled burning of the building's other combustibles, e.g., office furnishings, in combination with the structural damage inflicted on the building by falling debris from the twin towers that are together blamed for the ultimate collapse of Building 7.

A Saudi connection? Ya thinck? Wow what a reach.

I am trying to recall the exact number of very large skyscrapers in close proximity to each other , two of which had jet airliners loaded with fuel, crash into them so we could get a really good comparison to what happened at the WTC so we could confirm that there was a cover-up and conspiracy rather than an extremely damaging blow with fire fueled by jet fuel causing temperatures hot enough to deform and allow the weight of more than several floors above them to collapse causing a pancake of floors withing their very own footprint.

We waste enough money on useless things that are not fueled by conspiracy theorists desperate to be relevant to something.

Why do we protect the Saudis?
What comes from there?
Who gets that which comes from there?
You should probably look at the big oil companies who have long since recovered their investments there and would benefit from an embargo on Saudi oil. This would greatly increase the price of all that oil the have in their reserves.
Unfortunately this would hurt the military industrial complex that sells a lot of armaments to the Saudis.Saudis think they are the elite of the cockroaches, they believe they a wood roaches..

24,000 gallons of fuel for the building's generators caught fire, but it was the seven-hours of uncontrolled burning of the building's other combustibles, e.g., office furnishings, in combination with the structural damage inflicted on the building by falling debris from the twin towers that are together blamed for the ultimate collapse of Building 7. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The fuel in the generators didn't catch fire that's another misconception. They couldn't have. The fuel is encased in airtight vessels located at the very bottom of the building. Steel is very resistant to heat especially forged steel used in tall buildings. The fires you have seen in any video footage of the 911 WTC is not indicative of high heat fires the flames are mostly Orange and Red and lots of black smoke that's actually a cool fire in terms of adversely affecting the structural strength of steel support beams. 911 happened roughly fifteen years ago. The original narrative has been shattered over and over again. Unfortunately though the original narrative is encased in history and can't be officially changed. Unless of course if all MSM outlets all agree to let the cat out of the bag.

Jim

Here we go again.... Read it carefully:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a50/1230517/

There's even a separate link for "WTC 7 Collapse".

Here we go again.... Read it carefully:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a50/1230517/

There's even a separate link for "WTC 7 Collapse". Originally Posted by lustylad

It's a cover up. Phony. By their own admission they didn't look at all the evidence.

As much as I like you.....you're still an idiot. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

The feelings and opinion are mutual. Thanks!

Here we go again.... Read it carefully:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a50/1230517/

There's even a separate link for "WTC 7 Collapse". Originally Posted by lustylad

+1

Argue with the experts. I know it's comforting to think that the government would not lie to us about an event of such magnitude. We want to think that our government cares about us. It was a terrifying day, and we want quick, easy answers. We want a villain we can identify and destroy. All this came neatly wrapped for us on 9-11. But if you stand back and look at what happened objectively, it's not that clear. If you saw these buildings free fall into their own foot print in another context, there would be no doubt that they were controlled demolitions. Other steel framed skyscrapers have suffered much greater fires, and remained standing. But the government rallied us against an enemy within hours of the event, so everything we hear after that must fit within that government created paradigm.

Take a closer look. Despite what you've been told to believe, the Emperor has no clothes. A&E for 9-11 Truth answer NIST, and explain the science. We know the government lied about how the buildings came down. Now we need to know the who and the why.

Has this been covered on Mythbusters yet?

Has this been covered on Mythbusters yet? Originally Posted by JCM800

Mythbusters aired this little episode then was told not to discuss 911 again. Apparently they did a good job of busting the Governments explanation of how the towers fell.

Jim



https://youtu.be/69p_91_T7qE

Early on it was discussed by first responders that jet fuel was coming down stairwells from the upper floors. Typically stairwells are located in the inner structural portion of buildings (as opposed to being at the perimeters) and the intense heat from ignited jet fuel in the stairwells could weaken the inner structural support of the buildings and cause them to collapse in on themselves. One might view that as "imploding."

The reports are that the buildings (like most tall buildings) are engineered to withstand a direct hit by an aircraft (typically a commercial airliner) .... with the concept along the lines of an aircraft coming into the city area like in a bad weather or low visibility situation as opposed to taking off from a field in the area and then striking building. As a consequence engineering would not take into account a fully fueled aircraft taking off, but would be factoring a lightly fueled aircraft which had come from a distant field ... particularly in NYC with all the international flights entering the area.

Early on it was discussed by first responders that jet fuel was coming down stairwells from the upper floors. Typically stairwells are located in the inner structural portion of buildings (as opposed to being at the perimeters) and the intense heat from ignited jet fuel in the stairwells could weaken the inner structural support of the buildings and cause them to collapse in on themselves. One might view that as "imploding."

The reports are that the buildings (like most tall buildings) are engineered to withstand a direct hit by an aircraft (typically a commercial airliner) .... with the concept along the lines of an aircraft coming into the city area like in a bad weather or low visibility situation as opposed to taking off from a field in the area and then striking building. As a consequence engineering would not take into account a fully fueled aircraft taking off, but would be factoring a lightly fueled aircraft which had come from a distant field ... particularly in NYC with all the international flights entering the area. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Jet fuel does burn hot enough to melt steel. Sorry, WTLL. You're wrong again.

Jet fuel does burn hot enough to melt steel. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You're correct. However, it burns far hot enough to affect steel's structural integrity. You don't need steel to melt before a building collapses.