Why some people think 9/11 was an inside job
Comments
-
Nanothermite is known to produce UV light when it reacts. Therefore, the presence of the purple light in the video is strong evidence that a reaction occurring there.
It would be helpful if you could explain why the fire would radiate purple, debunkers will ignore it. See the colors of the fire next to it (red and yellow)
Of course, the debunkers probably didn't even watch the full video to see that the purple light went off numerous times and then melting occurred of whatever material was in that location next.
0 -
-
-
A hot fire has never ever collapsed a tall steel-framed building in the way NIST outlines, so this argument is foolish. Name another building around the world that collapsed in freefall due to fire alone. If no other examples exist across the world, it's nonsense to believe all three buildings just fell to fire alone.
NIST mentions it as a fact in their own Q&A that buildings of this type don't collapse due to fire.
https://www.nist.gov/pao/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation
Do you understand what fire known instance means?
Clearly, all the available evidence does not support NIST's conclusion that fires were the only contributing factor to the collapse of the Twin Towers. The use of nano-thermite, for example, is not bunk when you see molten iron droplets in the falling debris clouds, the melted steel talked about by FEMA, and the eyewitness accounts of liquid steel in the rubble. We also melted red/yellow steel leaking through open windows before the collapse. There are also now strange purple haze lights flashing in the area where the fires and melting are taking place. The use of nano-thermite is further supported by the fact that scientists have discovered its presence in the dust from the collapse ( supported by other finds)
There is zero evidence supporting the claim that the collapse was caused by some straining and buckling of the steel. You wouldn't be finding Swiss hole steel if the steel only lost its strength anyway. Losing strength only means the steel bends; it doesn't melt down ( sense). Clearly, FEMA found evidence that chemicals were attacking steel, what you know nanothermite would do the exact same thing reported herein that report. The only difference is that the FEMA report had no actual source material to confirm why it was happening. Years later, we now know why it happened.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
The molten material dripping from the corner of the south tower obviously had something to do with the full collapse that took place twenty seconds later. There has been no official investigation into this molten material, which is shameful.
There is still molten material there ( first screenshot) at the South tower corner that is not yet obscured by the dust cloud, even when viewed from a long distance away. The molten pool is actually massive.
The melting of the building materials, steel, and everything else inside the building caused an imbalance of weight, which was the main cause of the collapse. There is no logic to the official explanation that the cause of collapse was fire alone.
If fire is melting the building, then you should be investigating that.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FEMA's limited WTC Steel investigation found evidence of a phenomenon known as 'eutectic formation', where iron melts at a temperature lower than the melting point of steel.
The eutectic liquid was primarily liquid iron. Those who claim to have seen molten steel at Ground Zero might be right about that.
THERE ARE SO MANY SILLY GAMES PLAYED HERE THAT LIQUID IRON WAS NOT there AT GROUND ZERO
Then maybe you should contact FEMA? Think it's all molten metal, whatever that means in buildings primarily made of steel
Whatever the case, all these facts prove that melting ( short gif of it) led to the collapse of the South Tower. When the leak started to ease off, twenty seconds later, the entire building collapsed. Anyway, I have to get off.
0 -
Advertisement
-
