nist report
point 1.The airplane crash, they fail too see how strong the building was made, since a 747 was only 20% bigger than a 707 it dint do much damage, the damage it did was confined too one area were it wouldnt affect the rest of the building since it dint entirely severe an entire floor
2.they mention the fire proof witch dosent matter since fire or jet fuel fire dosent weaken steel, then they mention how it wasnt pancake and they fail too offer a diferent answer.
3. they point out yet again how the planes sent jet fuel through the buildings floors and dislodged the pointless fireproof seeling, yet they dont realize the airplanes fuel suplie was 70% depleted and 90% of it was lost during the initial explosion, so the ammount of jet fule in the buildings no matter how innefective it could have been wouldnt have done anything.
4.they say that the puffs of smoke are from the collapse,
Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds
this is pretty wrong too say since there was no pressure, if there was pressure on the following floors the buildings would have slowed down a little, but they dint, they just kept falling like nothing was in the way
5.i never read about spikes ergo the nist report could be right
6.they say how a story of the floor couldnt possibly support the falling storys from above(this is excluding the massive ammounts of debrie that was blown away at the start) and that the initial momentum(nearly none) was enough too desecrate everything in its path, even tho the further down the building it went, the thicker the steel got. they fail too mention the core too, and theyre argument sounds good, the problem is theres really no collapse too campare this too.
7/a, they say steel wasnt melted, but that is a lie, molten iron was found in the debrie of ground zero, imposible too be caused by anything mentioned on 911
7/b, they are still stating there was a raging inferno in the trade centers, witch is false and that the ''jet fuel'' was hot enough too somehow weaken the steel(witch is imposible in the smuthering enviroment of the trade centers).
8. apparantly the sprinklers were on, since they lied about the strengh of the fire that should have weakened it even more.
9.they never solved anything here
10.never heard of this so i cant argue.
11.they really avoided this question well, the liquid pouring out was molten iron, like the iron found in the basement.they state it was aluminum from the plane but sometimes the iron pouring out was nowere near the debrie
12/13.question twelve had no answer and question 13, either they did a bad investigation or lied.
14. nothing too argu with, theyre reason of not supporting a controlled demolition
the maine uspport colum in the midle of the building had a firepruf insulent, it was dislogged by the crash and the fire, which balantately can destroy the strngth of the steel did just taht and the building could not withstend the weight and colapsed. its simple and obvioeus
this is a what if answer.
what if jet fuel had actually spread out throughout the building, what if the building did not smuther fire, what if steel weakens at temperatures that jet fuel burns.
all those what ifs dint happen, there was about 1000 gallons that was poured into one floor of the trade centers out of the 23 000 gallons the 747 can carry, the fuel burned at a low temperature since it was being smuthered, and dint last long.
and jet fuel would have burned at 500F at max
The biggest problem with this is that he's only calculating for the jet fuel & none of the other combustible material present.
the science is flawed cuz he was being generous, it would have been less since it was being smuthered and there wasnt alot left.
also say what cumbustible matririals are present that burn hotter then jet fuel(other than nanothermite)
