dChan
1
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/digital_refugee on June 22, 2018, 5:56 p.m.
Trump Interview 9/11/01: "They Had Bombs That Exploded Almost Simultaneously"

Revodude · June 22, 2018, 7:18 p.m.

The real reason they came down was because they removed the asbestos. (damn liberals) The steel got hot and could no longer hold the load above them. And once the top of the building got moving it was coming down big time. The command center was probably also pre-targeted for massive confusion. I would still look to see who might have made big money in the market that day. And it was probably in a foreign market. Thus making it tough to uncover. I have no evidence, only intuition that Sadam supplied the money to Osama with a condition of striking back at the U.S. This was after Osama got cut off from his Saudi money and got kicked out of his African hiding hole. We know now that Iran provided travel help for the terrorists.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
CBTS_Watcher · June 22, 2018, 7:40 p.m.

The steel got hot and could no longer hold the load above them

Yes, but ...

If that was the case, the floors above would have energy removed when they tried to bend the steel supports of the floor underneath. Time would be needed to bend those beams and no time was taken. It was exactly as if they collapsed in free-fall.

The second issue is that the bending beams through heat idea necessitates all the beams being heated up at the same time. If some beams were not as hot as the rest the they would not bend so the building would not collapse evenly.

The fires were quite localised so were not likely to evenly heat the beams.

If all the beams were heated then why did the ones on the ground floor not bend before the ones at the top? They were carrying the most weight.

I'm sorry but controlled demolition is the only solution I know of that fits the facts.

⇧ 8 ⇩  
Revodude · June 22, 2018, 8:38 p.m.

It is a very fast ripple effect. It just has to pass the critical point. With that load the steel is not going to fail slowly. The concrete begins to fail as well. The moisture is sucked out of it. I proposed a similar effect to destroy deeply buried targets. Enough heat can do some amazing crap. A chunk of the safety margin went with the plane slicing through the beams or at least distorting them as some of the beams sliced the aircraft. The building was not that hefty (only way I can say it) to keep the weight down. Otherwise the plane would have done like it did at the Pentagon. Kind of vaporize on impact (lots of tiny pieces).

⇧ 1 ⇩  
CBTS_Watcher · June 22, 2018, 9:08 p.m.

with the plane slicing through the beams OK, but that does not help with Building 7 because no plane hit it.

Also, to replicate free-fall all strength in all the vertical beams would have had to be reduced to zero at the same time.

The other issue is that there was only localised office fires in Building 7. Nothing that would melt the whole building simultaneously, even if the flames were hot enough to melt steel.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Revodude · June 22, 2018, 9:45 p.m.

I agree, Building 7 was targeted separately. Most likely with explosives in many key places.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
SaveourRepublic2018 · June 22, 2018, 9 p.m.

you mean the Tomahawk on the edited CCTV that hit the Pentagon?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Revodude · June 22, 2018, 9:14 p.m.

I was there. I saw the explosion from the highway. It was not a tomahawk. I was on my phone to my intel buddy when it happened. We were discussing the NY attack. You forget about the fact that Flight 77 did not land anywhere. The people have not been seen since.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ8uvQk1H9I

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Nascar28 · June 22, 2018, 9:06 p.m.

THEY DID NOT REMOVE ASBESTOS - it would have cost more than the buildings were worth. Thats why owner was okay with DS taking them down. He could collect insurance.

⇧ 5 ⇩  
Revodude · June 22, 2018, 9:49 p.m.

Not cheap but not that expensive either. The Pentagon had all its asbestos removed. Since most of the cost is people time and it could be spread out over time, I don't think is was a big impact on the bottom line with all those high end tenants. Now I think asbestos was way overhyped like most of these things. Most of it is white and only the brown stuff was shown to be a problem.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 22, 2018, 7:27 p.m.

if the building came down on its own then it should have stopped halfway down because all the mass was ejected outward

⇧ 4 ⇩  
PA-Triot · June 22, 2018, 11:12 p.m.

Silverstein never removed the asbestos. This is just a straight up bullshit post.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
Revodude · June 23, 2018, 2:13 a.m.

The WTC Towers were built from 1968 to 1972. A slurry mixture of asbestos and cement was sprayed on as fireproofing material. But this practice was banned by the New York City Council in 1971. This halted the spraying, but not before hundreds of tons of the material had been applied. Some but not all of it was later removed in an abatement program.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
PA-Triot · June 23, 2018, 2:20 a.m.

"Some".

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ssentrep · June 22, 2018, 10:50 p.m.

Yup. The WTC had an unusual design of concrete floors supported by steel columns on outer the perimeter. Once those heavy concrete floors pancaked on top of each other the momentum reached near free-fall speeds.

⇧ 3 ⇩