Hi That19Guy!
First: welcome to the JREF!
Second: Buckle up, cuz it's gonna be a bumpy ride!
Your very first post here has the distinction of getting everything, and I mean everything, without exception, completely wrong. I won't go into all the details, let me just start with the beginning:
If the building was believed to be brought down due to intense fuel fire that reached temperatures over the melting point of steel.
Wow. Your very first sentence here. Well, not.
It isn't even a sentence!
My advice to you: We have a number of smart people here. If you want to impress them, at least try for grammatically correct language and internal coherence.
About the content: You start off with the word "If", which indicates that what follows is the premise of a claim: "If A, then B". Since your grammar is incoherent, it isn't quite clear, but it would seem that the remainder of that first non-sentences is that premise A. So let's see if the premise is true or not:
- "the building was believed to be brought down due to intense fuel fire" - this is true in the strict sense that you use the past tense and are vague about who believed this. Indeed, in the early days, some not-so-competent folks such as journalists believed fuel fire was the reason for collapse - together with the damage done by plane crashes, of course. I think no one seriously thought that fuel fires alone would have brought down the towers, without any initial and extensive damage from the crashes, but yes, it was believed by some many years ago that plane crashes + fuel fires brought down the twin towers. In the meantime, competend investigations have been conducted by true experts that determined, as most competent observers had suspected most of the time, that plane crahes + wide-spread office fires, which were started and accelerated by liquid fuel, lead to collapse initiation. It may sound counterintuitive for you, but the normal office contents of the burning floors (paper, plastics, furniture, people even) contained a LOT more chemical energy, released as heat from burnig, then the few thousand gallons of jet fuel that spilled inside the same floors. So to sum up: It is NOT believed by any competent experts today that jet fuels alone were responsible.
- "fuel fire that reached temperatures over the melting point of steel" - This is not true. Jet fuel can't melt steel, and didn't melt steel, and it isn't even clear if anybody except maybe a few incompetent journalists or other laypeople ever thought this happened. Yes, we are aware that some truther websites quote news outlets from 2001 where some people wrote that "burning jet fuel melted the steel", but either they were simply wrong, or they misspoke, and really meant that the heat softened steel to the point were it deformed under loads. Fact of the matter is, not a single piece of steel from the fire floors, or anywhere else, has been found that showed any signs of having a part of it melted away by temperatures above the melting point steel.
We can safely conclude that the premise layed out in your first (non-)sentence is FALSE.
If the rest of your post is the conclusion, the "B" in "If A then B", we have the following logical situation:
If A then B
Not A
There is nothing we can logically conclude about B. B could be right or wrong.
So it wasn't very smart of you to start off your posting history at the JREF with a false premise.
Of the rest, I only would like to educate you a little on the nature and properties of explosives used in explosive demolitions. But first, the relevant passages of your post:
Most eye witness reports indicate the presence of secondary explosions after the initial impact. Which really indicates that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition...
...
As videos show, the collapse looked too smooth, and the fact that secondary explosions were present (as previously stated) really points to the fact that controlled demolition had taken place. ...
Next, here is a partial list of the things that are wrong, framed in a misleading context, or at least unproven:
- "Most eye witness reports indicate ... explosions" - I call exaggeration. You'd have to present proof that indeed >50% of all eye witness reports do indicate explosions.
- "secondary explosions ... points to ... controlled demolition" - I think you are very unclear about the meaning of the word "secondary". The only meaningful use of "secondary" in connection with "explosions" is that these explosions are an after-effect of something else, such as pressurized containers bursting in the heat of a fire, or the much-feared backdraft when fresh air enters a superheated room with much smoke and soot. Contrary to such "secondary" explosions, the explosions used to demolish buildings are always "primary". So even if witnesses described "secondary" explosions, these would not point to controlles demolition, quite the contrary, it points to uncontrolled events.
- "secondary explosions were present" - this you derive from witness statements. However, this is not true for most witness statements. These usually describe sounds that they liken to that of explosions. However, many things sound like explosions that aren't. For example, several witnesses who reported hearing sounds that they described as "like explosions" referred to people crashing on the ground after they jumped out of the tower 100 floors above. When steel conenctions break, this oftenb releases a strong sharp sound that can be described as "like an explosion". Then there are many things that do in fact "explode" in an expansive building fire. This is known from many many many fires in millions of buildings everywhere, and fully expected. In 99.99% of all cases, such explosions have absolutely nothing to do with controlled demolitions, and almost never anything to do with explosives.
- "explosions after the initial impact" - you point to the timing of the explosive sounds here, and correctly refer to them as "after the impact", which really means "throughout the entire time that fires were raging and the buildings were in the processes of increasing structural failure". This timing is entirely consistent with, well, large fire and increasing structural failure, but not with "controlled demolition". In controlled demolitions, timing is the all-important factor. The really big explosions occur within second, or even only fractions of a second, of collapse initiation. They usually start with a series of preliminary blast that occur some seconds before the main, releasing event, and in principle some of these preliminary blasts could certainly be done minutes or hours earlier, but you can't get around the fact that any theory of controlled explosive demolition must absolutely predict a significant number of very large blasts immediately (fraction of a second) before release, and the number of such witness reports is practically zero.
- "As videos show, ... , and the fact that secondary explosions were present" - you refer to important evidence, namely video, and in the same sentence claim explosions that you think were part of a controlled demolition. You fail to notice a big problem here: If there had been explosions that are consistent in number, timing. loudness and brisance with explosive demolition, these would have been very noticable on most videos taken within a mile of the WTC. What I mean is the awesomely, insanely loud BANG BANG BANG BANG BANGs that are so typical of any and all explosive demolitions of highrises. I invite and urge you to search youtube and other sites for videos of explosive demolitions where the intense explosions right at the beginning of collapse do not stand out above every other sound! They are always much louder than the collapse that follows. I challenge you to find me either one video of such a demo where you can hear the sound of the collapse, but not the sounds of explosions, or one video of the WTC collapses where you can hear the sound of the collapse AND the sound of explosions right at the beginning of collapse. For starters, here a few impressions so you know what kinds of sounds to search for:
Landmark Tower, Fort Worth
Same (notice how the camera is jerked at the first BOOM - the man was shocked by how damned loud that was!)
Some failed building project
Same without music
Midland Savings Bank (notice camera jerk at first explosion)
Key Bank Building (notice how people start jeering when they start hearing the BOOMs - they are mightly impressed by the sound, in spite of it being damped by thick window)
- "controlled demolition had taken place" - this is not the opinion of any controlled demolitions expert in the world. Truthers have only one expert they cite, the late Dutch imploder Danny Jowenko, who is indeed on record as saying that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. What truthers generally do not tell you is that Jowenko also though that the twin towers were NOT controlled demolitions. On WTC7 he is wrong for a simple reason: He didn't know about it, and had incorrect information about it. Yes, without sound, it looks much like a CD, but Jowenko didn't see the video with sound, so he couldn't notice the ominous absence of BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG (such as you can hear in the intro to Jowenko's business homepage). When Jowenko decided on "WTC7 = CD", he didn't know it had been on fire, and thought it was days after 9/11. He didn't immediately change his mind when he learned abou fires and timing, but struggled very much to keep his initial assessment in place.
To summarize:
- There is zero evidence of high explosives going of on 9/11
- There is zero evidence of a controlled demolition on 9/11
- Everything you wrote is wrong in many many many ways
I suggest you start over. We have a section here in the Conspiracy Theories subforum with links to good sources for education on 9/11. I recommend that you click these links a d a few days of intensive reading before you come back. As you can see, it can become very tedious to talk to you if you are so extremely, bizarrely wrong on everything. See how long this post is, even though I commented on only two of the issues that you raised!
Kind regards
Oystein
Holy!.... What? If the fires were hot enoug... Screw it I'm stopping here.
>
