No longer a conspiracy theory, evidence of controlled demolitions on 9/11 resurfacing.

[PeterPilot]

By whom?

Just show your evidence of this so-called "Debunking"

C'mon man, that's old news. You've been living under a rock it appears. I have no obligation to try to educate a person with that worldview. You're conditioned by mainstream media, and that's your problem, not mine.

Kevin Ryan popped the balloon within a week of the event. He worked for Underwriters Labs and pointed out that all the steel met the NY Fire Code. The official story that you still repeat was debunked quickly. Only gullible fools still buy into that stuff.

Dig Within

The blog of Kevin Ryan

digwithin.net

Educate yourself if you dare.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Translation of: "nothing to explain"

"Can't explain anything. Only capable of parroting whatever MSM pours into head."

Wrong

There is no translation as it is straight and to the point

The light poles prove nothing ergo there is nothing to explain

 

[Soupnazi630]

C'mon man, that's old news. You've been living under a rock it appears. I have no obligation to try to educate a person with that worldview. You're conditioned by mainstream media, and that's your problem, not mine.

Kevin Ryan popped the balloon within a week of the event. He worked for Underwriters Labs and pointed out that all the steel met the NY Fire Code. The official story that you still repeat was debunked quickly. Only gullible fools still buy into that stuff.

Dig Within

The blog of Kevin Ryan

digwithin.net

Educate yourself if you dare.

Which is all irrelevant

Meeting the fire code proved nothing

There was never a succesful debunk of NIST

 

[Twisted Gypsy Child]

**** you for making me like one of your posts.

I had the 13 week old clump of cells removed on Monday August 18, 2025. Your ranting and raving about abortion did not change my mind.

 

[Grau]

Do you really still buy into all that NIST psychobabble?

Have you been living under a rock for the last 20 years? The NIST nonsense was debunked decades ago.

As a full time blacksmith for 30 years, I have some experience with different types of steel, cast iron and related metals.

Jet fuel, which is similar to kerosene, heating oil etc is simply not enough to melt the structural steel used in construction.

Even considering office furniture etc is simply not hot enough to corrupt the structural integrity of massive steel used in those buildings.

Just another non engineer's opinion...*

* I've blown up much smaller stuff as a Combat Engineer in the military and explosives seem more likely on 9/11


Thanks,

 

[Soupnazi630]

As a full time blacksmith for 30 years, I have some experience with different types of steel, cast iron and related metals.

Jet fuel, which is similar to kerosene, heating oil etc is simply not enough to melt the structural steel used in construction.

Even considering office furniture etc is simply not hot enough to corrupt the structural integrity of massive steel used in those buildings.

Just another non engineer's opinion...*

* I've blown up much smaller stuff as a Combat Engineer in the military and explosives seem more likely on 9/11


Thanks,

It is not only unlikely but simply an impossibility. There were no contolled explosives.

It is irrelevant how much heat is needed to melt stell because NO ONE claimed that the towers collapsed because of melted steel supports.

 

[PeterPilot]

As a full time blacksmith for 30 years, I have some experience with different types of steel, cast iron and related metals.

Jet fuel, which is similar to kerosene, heating oil etc is simply not enough to melt the structural steel used in construction.

Even considering office furniture etc is simply not hot enough to corrupt the structural integrity of massive steel used in those buildings.

Just another non engineer's opinion...*

* I've blown up much smaller stuff as a Combat Engineer in the military and explosives seem more likely on 9/11


Thanks,

That experience of yours corroborates Kevin Ryan's observations and comments. He worked for Underwriters Labs and quickly saw that the official narrative was complete bullshit. Thank you for speaking out.

As cynical as I am, I am still amazed that so many people still believe the official narrative. It shows how right Goebbels was--if a lie is repeated frequently and long enough gullible people will see it as the truth.

 

[Soupnazi630]

That experience of yours corroborates Kevin Ryan's observations and comments. He worked for Underwriters Labs and quickly saw that the official narrative was complete bullshit. Thank you for speaking out.

As cynical as I am, I am still amazed that so many people still believe the official narrative. It shows how right Goebbels was--if a lie is repeated frequently and long enough gullible people will see it as the truth.

Wrong

It shows that people still fall for grifters like Kevin Ryan

he saw nothing except an opportunity to sell a conspiracy theory with no supporting evidence. Because some people are gullible enough to buy his nonsense.

The experience you refer to is rooted in a massive false hood.

Yes none of the fires were hot enough to melt still which is completely irrelevant. NO ONE EVER claimed the stell in the towers melted causing their collapse

 

[Grau]

That experience of yours corroborates Kevin Ryan's observations and comments. He worked for Underwriters Labs and quickly saw that the official narrative was complete bullshit. Thank you for speaking out.

As cynical as I am, I am still amazed that so many people still believe the official narrative. It shows how right Goebbels was--if a lie is repeated frequently and long enough gullible people will see it as the truth.

I like Mark Twain's observation that it is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.

9/11 is an ideal example.

It's unfortunate that Critical Literacy is not stressed more in our early school years but, better late than never.

Thanks,

 

[Soupnazi630]

I like Mark Twain's observation that it is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.

9/11 is an ideal example.

It's unfortunate that Critical Literacy is not stressed more in our early school years but, better late than never.

Thanks,

Speaking of critical literacy

When and where did anyone claim that the towers collapsed due to melted steel?

 

[Grau]

Speaking of critical literacy

When and where did anyone claim that the towers collapsed due to melted steel?

Isn't that the standard explanation as to why the towers collapsed.

I didn't mean that the steel was completely melted but that their structural integrity was significantly compromised by jet fuel fire.

I have accidentally melted steel that I was using to make parts of wrought iron gates, andirons, wine racks etc that I've designed and made by leaving them in the 2,500 - 3,000 degree coal fire for too long.

That, however, is very different than a topical application of jet fuel.

What makes the tragic incident especially suspicious is the spontaneous collapse of Building # 7.

Finally, I suspect that you are aware that the Empire State building was hit by a B - 17 (?) bomber in the 1940s with minimal damage to the structure.

Thanks,

 

[Soupnazi630]

Isn't that the standard explanation as to why the towers collapsed.

I didn't mean that the steel was completely melted but that their structural integrity was significantlybecai compromised by jet fuel fire.

I have accidentally melted steel that I was using to make parts of wrought iron gates, andirons, wine racks etc that I've designed and made by leaving them in the 2,500 - 3,000 degree coal fire for too long.

That, however, is very different than a topical application of jet fuel.

What makes the tragic incident especially suspicious is the spontaneous collapse of Building # 7.

Finally, I suspect that you are aware that the Empire State building was hit by a B - 17 (?) bomber in the 1940s with minimal damage to the structure.

Thanks,

No it is not the standard explanation. In fact it is NO ONES explanation you cannot find a single instance where ANYBODY has claimed that the towers collapsed because fire melted the steel.

You are now conflating MELTING ths steek with weakening the integrity which is not the same thing.

It does not take nearly as much heat to weaken the intefrityof steel as it does to melt it. The fire were more than hot enough to WEAKEN the steel which is what happened.

Building 7 did not collapse spontaneously it was coming and they knew it well ahead of time due to massive damage and fire.

The incident in WWII was a B25 mitchell and it is irrelevant because it is apples and oranges. A very light prop driven aircraft crashing into the empire state does not compare to a massive modern jet airliner crashing into a different building.

The towers and the empire state building were also vastly different in their methods of construction and materials.

Comparing the two incidents is a failure

 

[Grau]

No it is not the standard explanation. In fact it is NO ONES explanation you cannot find a single instance where ANYBODY has claimed that the towers collapsed because fire melted the steel.

You are now conflating MELTING ths steek with weakening the integrity which is not the same thing.

It does not take nearly as much heat to weaken the intefrityof steel as it does to melt it. The fire were more than hot enough to WEAKEN the steel which is what happened.

Building 7 did not collapse spontaneously it was coming and they knew it well ahead of time due to massive damage and fire.

The incident in WWII was a B25 mitchell and it is irrelevant because it is apples and oranges. A very light prop driven aircraft crashing into the empire state does not compare to a massive modern jet airliner crashing into a different building.

The towers and the empire state building were also vastly different in their methods of construction and materials.

Comparing the two incidents is a failure

It doesn't seem like you read what I wrote very closely.

I wrote that the steel's structural integrity is supposed to have been compromised but I don't believe that jet fuel, office furniture etc would heat the steel enough for it to fail.

Bringing steel to the point that it fails would require a longer and hotter exposure to a more intense fire.

Next, I didn't claim that the bomber was an equivalent airplane either, regardless it's model (B - 17 or B - 25)

There was no " massive damage and fire..." to Building # 7 compared to the towers.
How did it implode precisely on its footprint if not by a controlled demolition?

Finally, do you have experience with heating and shaping structural / mild steel and if not, why do you believe the official explanation?

Thanks,

 

[Soupnazi630]

It doesn't seem like you read what I wrote very closely.

I wrote that the steel's structural integrity is supposed to have been compromised but I don't believe that jet fuel, office furniture etc would heat the steel enough for it to fail.

Bringing steel to the point that it fails would require a longer and hotter exposure to a more intense fire.

Next, I didn't claim that the bomber was an equivalent airplane either, regardless it's model (B - 17 or B - 25)

There was no " massive damage and fire..." to Building # 7 compared to the towers.
How did it implode precisely on its footprint if not by a controlled demolition?

Finally, do you have experience with heating and shaping structural / mild steel and if not, why do you believe the official explanation?

Thanks,

yes you said that but you are wrong it was indeed hot enough to compromise the structural integrity. That is proven.

the fires in the building were more than hot enough.

yes there was massive damage to building seven causing its collapse.

gravity caused it to fall on its own footprint.

You do not have any such experience either. You have repeatedly talked about MELTING steel not heating it enough to cause it to lose its integrity.

 

[Grau]

yes you said that but you are wrong it was indeed hot enough to compromise the structural integrity. That is proven.

the fires in the building were more than hot enough.

yes there was massive damage to building seven causing its collapse.

gravity caused it to fall on its own footprint.

You do not have any such experience either. You have repeatedly talked about MELTING steel not heating it enough to cause it to lose its integrity.

Show where I ever said that the structural steel in the buildings "melted".

I discussed where I had accidentally melted steel in my forge while blacksmithing but never that structural steel in the buildings melted.

 

[Blaster]

 

[Soupnazi630]

Show where I ever said that the structural steel in the buildings "melted".

I discussed where I had accidentally melted steel in my forge while blacksmithing but never that structural steel in the buildings melted.

I never said you did but you did ask if that was not the official explanationand only then went on to discuss structural integrity

You did compare the two as in your experience with MELTING steel is somehow relevant. It is not

 

[Grau]

I never said you did but you did ask if that was not the official explanationand only then went on to discuss structural integrity

You did compare the two as in your experience with MELTING steel is somehow relevant. It is not

Thanks for finally admitting that I never said that structural steel in the towers "melted".

 

[Soupnazi630]

Thanks for finally admitting that I never said that structural steel in the towers "melted".

I never said you did.

You did use it as a basis for comparison however

 

[the other mike]