Collapse of the twin towers in 2001. An engineering perspective

[NayborBear]

Q)
How do powers and principalities of darkness and spiritual wickedness in high places "consume" the "American Elephant?"

A)
One BITE at a time!

(there's a monster on loose)
(its got our heads into a noose)
(and it just sits there watching!)

If we DON'T start doing this NOW?
We won't NEED to wait until AI kills off humanity!
1 Corinthians 6:3
Know ye not that we shall judge angels?* how much more things that pertain to this life?

*not in the millennium!
NOW!

 

[Armour of God]

As you already know, Aunt Jemima was not baking a stack of pancakes on 9/11 in lower Manhattan.

I do not believe the official account truthfully explains what occurred in Lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001.

Much of the concrete reportedly disintegrated into fine dust, along with materials inside the buildings, including office furniture and parts of the elevator systems.

It’s clear, on-site first responders reported extremely hot material and persistent fires at the sites for weeks afterward. The fires would not ‘go out’ because the heat was too extreme for any simple much lower jet fuel and office fire temperature environments.

Military weapons (missiles) launched from airborne platforms were involved and the commercial aircraft served as a convenient cover story. Odd, those implicated commercial jets were still in service the day after 9/11.

The aircraft impacts could not have caused the observed and then examined destruction as also thermite or thermate charges (their signature examined) were placed in advance. The official “pancaking” explanation is obviously scientifically and structurally wrong as an unviable hypothesis and foot-loose theory.

My background includes astronautical and aerospace engineering. I was also among the first several dozen published signatories supporting the nonprofit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, founded by Richard Gage.

I find it difficult to dismiss all of those professionals as mistaken. In my view, many people were misled about the events, and that multiple state and non-state actors were involved warrants serious scrutiny and investigation even after all these years, rather than automatic attribution to Iraq or Saudi Arabia as they had no play on 9/11.

As a fellow engineer, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this topic and you signing the nonprofit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, founded by Richard Gage.

God bless

 

[Armour of God]

1. the office furnishings, ceiling tiles carpets were all non-flammable as per NYC regulations.

2. In a 110 story building, 5 floors is marginal damage.

3. Jet fuel combusts at 500 c. which is 930F. Jet fuel combusts and explodes not burn log a wood fire. so the effects of the combustion are short lived. The Jet fire would not burn long enough to comromise the steel. Other than clothing and papers, there were no combustibles there by law.

4. Industrial steel used in skyscrapers BEGINS to melt at 1370C. which is 2500F.

5. Inddustrial steel begins to soften at 1100F.

6. Those fires did not get to the 1500-1800 degrees you allege except for maybe the first few minutes when the jet fuel combusts.

7. One floor falling will result in a collapse of two - 4 floors only. Every floor collapse releases energy and destruction of material. so as the floors were dropping they would be eating the material and thus weakening and ending the collapse to the equivalent of the number of upper floors involved. This is proven architectural physics. It is known as the pnacake effect.

8. Finally damaged buildings do not collpase into their own foot print.. If a building is struck on a side and opens a gaping hole like we saw in both twin towers, the upper floors will fall onto the weakest side.

9. If you care to google search, you can see high rise skyscrapers hit by planes, fully engulfed in flames and other ctastrophes and not one of the over hundred recorded collapsed in on itself as aplanned demolition does.

Well explained

 

[Armour of God]

Jet fuel burns at a rate sufficient to weaken the structural steel by 50% and to such a point that catastrophic failure of the exposed supports easily happens. To claim EVERYTHING in those offices were not flammable is simply naive. It was an inferno.

That's is true. A fire will weaken steel.

But here are some important facts that need to be considered.

- Only the steel in the floors impacted would weaken. Not the steel in the floors below.

- A fire cannot melt steel but molten metal was found in the wreckage.

- A building has never free fallen onto its own footprint without explosives.

- Whole buildings have been engulfed in flames but not collapsed. Here are some examples



- Buildings that are severely damaged on one side, like the towers were, will tip over. Here are some examples

When the weight of multiple floors, ABOVE the five damaged floors, fall a mere 15 feet ONTO the unaffected floors, the energy created is more than sufficient to created a sequential failure of every floor thereafter.

That's false according to our calculations and the calculations of many other engineers and physicists. The buildings mass would have to be much heavier and/or the columns would have to be much weaker.

That's why we've never seen a building free fall onto its own footprint without explosives. It defies the laws of physics