A very neat presentation. I love the conspiracy theorists that suggest the twin towers were blown up. In order to believe that you have to #1...disbelieve the lying eyes of everyone in Manhattan that was there when the airplanes actually flew in to the building! #2. Believe that somehow a team of demolitions experts wired and placed charges in the building with no one noticing all the det cord and wires all over the place. It takes several days of work to place explosives to demolish a small building, never mind 2 if the tallest buildings in the world.

Hello AJAshinoff,
That was fantastic!

For what it is worth, I have been working metal professionally for over 4 decades. My primary customers are Foundries. I have studied metallurgy, but there is nothing like a demonstration and most people never get them. I believe that Popular Mechanics got it right as far as the mechanics of the event. http://www.popularmechanics.com/milit...

Now as to any conspiracy theories about who may have been ultimately behind the events... One must also consider the phone calls received by loved ones and their account from the plane that was brought down by the passengers (UA93). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world... One must dismiss this altogether as unrelated or faked too and part of the conspiracy... Many questions... I cannot say definitively, since I have no first hand knowledge, but I am inclined to use Occam's Razor, I believe. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/occamraz.html

Respectfully,
O.A.

The official story of 911 has enough holes in it to fly a fleet of 747s through wing tip to wing tip. No, I do not know what really happened that day. But we should not smugly dismiss all those that raise objections as crackpots.

As there will always be war, there will always be those who act upon emotion rather than reason. I was among those in the days, weeks and months following 9/11. The perpetrators of the crimes against this country and it's people rely on that fact. (Hint: "Game Theory" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_th...
There are, thankfully, those willing to spend the time following their instincts to investigate the inconsistencies of the official narrative. Among those are a group of professional pilots who have logged thousands of hours in the very type of aircraft that were used in the "attacks" of 9/11. Using FAA approved full-motion flight simulators in which they routinely conduct training for certification and proficiency, none of them, despite their massive experience and expertise, were able to fly Boeing 757 simulators into the Twin Towers. It's easy enough to find the accounts online, you can research that yourself. .
What I would like to share, however, are the views concerning questions that the professional architects and engineers who have joined the 9/11 Truth movement choose not to get into: Who did it and why?
This is a link to a short interview with Christopher Bollyn. I think you'll find in interesting and enlightening:
https://youtu.be/_0p0OIHZ-RI

Interesting as well are two books by Rebekah Roth, who spent nearly thirty years in an airline career working as both a flight attendant and an international purser. She was trained as an emergency medical technician and served as a volunteer firefighter. Her books are titled Methodical Illusion and Methodical Deception. In these books you'll learn about the lies told to us by our media about those events; among those being the lies about the inflight calls that were allegedly made from the airliners while in flight. You can find plenty of videos of Rebeka Roth on YouTube if you prefer videos to books.

Most of you will not invest the time to watch this 5 hour video. Those of you who will will be rewarded with the accounts of level-headed professional scientists, architects and engineers who take apart the lies found in the official narrative and that which was penned by Michael Chertoff's cousin in Popular Mechanics.

https://youtu.be/8DOnAn_PX6M

Still with me? Check out Barbara Honegger:

https://youtu.be/4fvJ8nFa5Qk

And last but not least is an outstanding Italian documentary: Zero

https://youtu.be/QU961SGps8g

It's nice to see rationality and an appreciation of objective reality. Conspiracy theorists aren't swayed by facts. Just like the Islamic Terrorists who massacred thousands in the WTC and the planes for an ideology that is one giant conspiracy theory. They believe Nazi and soviet propaganda about Jews and are still fighting Christian "Crusaders". They deny the Holocaust genocide of the Armenians by the Muslim Turks. They deny the accuracy of the Jews preserving the original Hebrew of the Bible and claim that "The Jews" altered the Bible and that Ishmael not Isaac is the true inheritor of Israel. That the USA is the Great Satan and that everything is someone else's fault, that women are slaves and that all non Muslims are guilty of trespass on Muslim land and therefore they can massacre women and children and innocent civilians. That Islam is the only true religion and that Islam must be at war with non-Muslims until the Muslims take over the world... Muahh Ha. Muhammad as Plankton, Dr. Evil and all other cartoon villains.

I wouldn't be surprised that the whole WTC conspiracy theory was Islamic Propaganda to blame the CIA instead of their own.

Liquid fuel contains a large amount of BTU's.
EX: A Grizzly Coroner fact: 3 gallons of gasoline is enough to completely incinerate a person if contained in a steel box, (no DNA left, NONE)
So hundreds (if not thousands) of gallons of fuel is actually enough BTU's to heat steel enough for it to lose its temper and also heat it enough that it will become malleable. That is a FACT of science and engineering. (This fuel is also most likely responsible for incernerating a large number of bodies).
Another fact Explosives leave residue and signs of extreme heat (completely melted steel). IF explosives had been used the evidence would have easily been found. IT would have taken several hundred pounds of directed charges all sequenced in a very particular order in order to cause an implosion. This would require a particular type of control wire, more evidence (also not found).
So while a conspiracy seems like a good explanation. The size of the destruction and material need to conduct it, would have made it impossible to conceal all the evidance. (Welcome to the real world). By the way I do have first hande experience with said material that you propose was used. It just doesn't work like in the movies.

Found this today. I'm not physicist, but it reads pretty neat
"Weakened steel does not fail explosively. It gradually loses strength along it's stress-strain curve and then only in the areas that attain the temperatures required to fail. Steel is an excellent heat conductor and will conduct heat away from the point of application. The materials "specific heat" will show you how much it has to absorb in order to get hot. This is measured in BTU's / mass. You can have flames as hot as you like but if there is not enough heat energy available to heat up the material you will do nothing.

There was not enough heat value in the jet fuel to come anywhere close to making the steelhot enough to fail. You will run out fuel long before that happens and the math is straight forward.

You simply take the tons of steel in question, the amount of BTU's it would take to make thesteel hot, including the concrete and the air and you just can't do it.

In fact it is so far from possible, the fires cannot be a factor, the temperature would not have even come close to the starting of the elastic region.

Anyone who repeats the jet fuel burns at xxx and steel loses yy% of it strength at xxx temp is an idiot or a liar or just cannot understand the physics involved here.

That this was an official explanation tells me that they are lying. When a suspect lies, ask any cop what that tells him.

As an aside, jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees all right IN A JET ENGINE. A jet engine forces air through a compressor to get enough volume and mass of O2 to support the combustion. You cannot get the fuel to burn at anywhere near that temp in open air, there is not enough mass air flow for an optimal stoichiometric ratio.

Even if you could, which you can't kerosene only yields 18,500 Btu/lb in perfect conditions.

In open air you'd be lucky to get 20% of that efficiency, but even at 100% efficiency there aren't enough BTU's to heat up the steel past about 700 degrees.

If you use a full fuel loading with zero gallons burned in the fireball and zero gallons sent down the elevator shaft to blow up the lobby you still only have enough fuel to to get the steel up to 500 degrees or so. That's with optimal heat transfer into the steel, best case conditions of delta-T and R values, with worst case delta-t for the heat LOSS from the steel. As material heat up they radiate and conduct heat AWAY at a rate governed by the temperature and ambient factors. So the hotter the steel gets the more heat it LOSES. This is why steel mills use crucibles to hold the steel as well as the heat.

The specific heat of steel is 240 btu/ton per degree > to raise the temp from ambient to 1800 degrees would require 432,000 btu/s ton at OPTIMAL efficiency. The concrete requires even more over 800,000 btu's.

The the air also has to heat up, and air being a poor conductor and all the humidity in the air, the specific heat of water is 8 times higher than steel and 5 times high than concrete.
It's a rather long equation but not really complex. Bottom line, not enough BTU to make the steel hot enough to fail. Can't be done. Something else brought the buildings down. If they didn't fall immediately after the impacts there is now way the fires could have triggered it as the tensile and compressive strength of the steel did not change at all ( reference the stress-strain diagram for structural steel) after the fires did their work. It never exceeded it's maximum working stress, if it did, the top would have fallen over towards the point of maximum damage. It would have done this slowly as the stress progressed along to top of the curve to the point of maximum or ultimate strength. The metal would be very deformed at this point.

From the the origin to the point called proportional limit, the stress-strain curve is a straight line. This is called Hooke's Law that within the proportional limit, the stress is directly proportional to strain up to the elastic limit. That is the limit beyond which the material will no longer go back to its original shape when the load is removed, or it is the maximum stress that may be developed such that there is no permanent or residual deformation when the load is entirely removed.

The structural damage by the impact either failed the structure right away or the it brought it past the elastic limit. If it reached a certain point the curve here is actually longer that the portion from 0-the EL, the steel will start to deform plastically, that is bend like taffy. There was zero evidence of this."

AJ, it is not moronic to question everything. That is why we have minds. For every supposed "fact" that is espoused to disprove that explosions brought down the WTC, there are just as many "facts" that prove it. I do not put anything past our tyranical, power hungry government, and, yes, even rich businessmen. There are those in power that would do anything to cause a war because there is money to be made and power over the people to be gained. Follow the money and the power.

I dont listen anymore to our "leaders". They all have hidden agendas. I make my own decisions and rely on them. If I am wrong, so be it, and I pay the consequences. But I am DONE listening to the manipulations of the so called leaders. DONE.

As to this guys tests, I think planes did fly into the building, whether they were set up by the government I wouldnt deny, but I really dont know. I look at the results afterwards- the government was the one that benefited by the whole terror thing- so I am suspicious.

As to the way the building fell, I have never seen a big building fall STRAIGHT DOWN without tipping to one side or the other. That is suspicious also.

As to the pentagon issue, I dont get how the hole in the side of the building is round, while a 757 has wings and engines which should make SOME damage outside of the round hole. Where were the engines anyway? They are hard and big but they disappeared. Very suspicious also.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...

It will not be the first time I was fooled. It will not be the last. It is imperative, however, that I correct my possible mistake by sharing what I have just learned about Rebekah Roth, author of Methodical Deception and Methodical Illusion:
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com...

and this:

https://youtu.be/xziyAGfWB6A

very fine, sir, and Thank You! . there is a world of stuff
which people would know if they watched mister wizard
or whoever still does science things like that. . and this guy
is wonderful -- how did you find him? -- j
.

So straightforward. I liked it.

Here are a few things that need clearing up from 911.
1) it is standard practice since the skyjackings of the 70s to have jets on the wing-tips of of course planes within minutes. It didn't happen this time.

2) The twin towers are the first steel skyscrapers known to have come down from fire. Even when the entire building is on fires for 24 hours. Two of them in one day.

3) weakened steel where the fire is hottest does not account for little or no resistance from the rest of the floors on the way down.

4) The bizarre case of Bldg. 7 that wasn't hit by anything;

5) The President calmly reading a goat story to kids after this started and even after the second hit at a known scheduled location. Odd behavior in the case of an attack.

6) long after we clearly knew we were under attack somehow a commercial plane that disappeared afterwards managed to hit the Pentagon in one of the most heavily defended air spaces in the nation.

These are off the top of my head as I haven't thought about this for a while. But something does not add up here.