Comment: Response

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: A number of things you are missing (see in situ)


>First of all, the video is in conflict with itself. First they say it
>was a controlled demolition. Then they say it was thermite. Then
> again they say it was explosives. Thermite is not an explosive, so
> which is it?

It's my understanding that thermite burns very hot. That would account for the steel core columns melting despite the jet fuel (kerosene) not being able to burn hot enough to melt the steel. From what I understand, the collapse happened at near free fall speed. That doesn't make very much sense to me when the official explanation was something about a pancaking effect. Wouldn't the floors that got pancaked down on have caused some level of resistance (thus, slowing the speed of the fall?)

> Once it starts, you would not be able to put it out.

Isn't that consistent with the fact that the fires were still burning in the rubble a month later?

>You start pulling structural supports out from the middle,
> how many do you think you can remove before the building falls down? 50%?

The building falling down is one thing. Having the steel melt is entirely a different story.

>Two fully fueled jet liners crashed in the area... that's why the
>buildings came down! DUHHHHHHHHH.

Right. Except 3 buildings came down.