Pretty sure this is sarcastic, but we do know that jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams and even if it did, the entire building wouldn’t collapse in on itself. “Pancaking” is the same science as masks working.
Steel doesn’t retain its strength all the way up until melting, but steel reinforced concrete isn’t just steel.
Controlled demolition and a hefty insurance policy! Oodles of $$$$$ + a mass ritual blood sacrifice + emotionally traumatizing a population of people, how could ((they)) resist?
Rebar has very little influence on the structural integrity of a skyscraper; almost all the load bearing is done by a steel framework. And if they simply bend out of their triangular setup, you are fucked and an entire floor will just instantly get crunched.
What all you "the planes didn't really bring down the towers" crowd needs to explain is not the physics, but that if some entity has the means and the will to bring the towers down, and knew that crashing jets into them would not be enough of a statement, why wait until most, but not all, people had evacuated? If you are ruthless and want a maximum statement with max casualties, then you would set off your destructive sequence as soon as the planes hit, or soon after. If you are more humane and you just wanted to cause massive damage and disrupt trade and economic activity, but with as few collateral casualties as possible, you would have waited longer until the buildings had been cleared. The timing doesn't make sense.
What all you "the planes didn't really bring down the towers" crowd needs to explain is not the physics
Actually, this is the most important thing that needs to be explained. If the physics don't work (and are not even remotely close), nothing else about a theory of investigation matters.
You are suggesting understanding motivations and being able to read minds is more important than physics. Such thinking is detrimental to investigation. First you determine whether or not a theory is possible (like a little bit of plane fuel melting an entire buildings worth of steel and concrete LOL) then you can try to fit in the motivations.
I don't believe the physics are impossible. The steel frame didn't have to melt. It only needed to soften a relatively little. The molecular movement within the structural elements increases steadily with increased heat, becoming less densely packed and less able to hold the weight it was designed to hold.
It was never about the deaths, it was about the money. You could hear and see when they actually came down way after the planes, there were explosions all the way down.
I don’t know exactly why they waited, but it isn’t right to judge intent without knowing as that can be circumstantial, it’s right to judge the physics and the money that was tied to it.
We do know for certain that more than just a few random people knew about it. Following the money shows that it was well coordinated as far as the money is concerned.
I didn't disagree with the notion that the whole thing could have been orchestrated by interests hoping to achieve monetary and political gains, or to cover something up. They could accomplish those ends and conduct the attacks just as they appeared to be.
I didn't say anything about the official story. We know there is much cover up in there. I'm saying that the actual attack methods did not have to be faked in order for Q theory to work. Not everything is faked. If you are going to blow up some buildings in a terrorist attack, just set explosives and blow them up. Why fly planes into them, if they will not achieve the desired result, but then fake it to make it look like the planes did it? If they knew planes would not do it, just set explosives and do that.
yeah i mean it's not like two of the worlds tallest buildings collapsed right next to it, gouging out a giant chunk of the buildings lower floors... and setting the building on fire. cause that would be crazy if that happened.
but since that never happened it was clearly a controlled demo that took months to setup, cutting holes in walls to access the critical structure, preforming weakening cuts, placing cutting charges, wiring all the charges, running those wires back to a central location, hooking those trunk lines up to a blasting box, then initiating the demo.
all while remaining completely undetected.
these guys are fucking pro's, don't fuck with them, probably all had cloaks of invisibility to remain unseen by the thousands of people working there each day.
i mean it would take dozens of guys a few months to rig a building that size for demo... without them someone surely would have seen the workers, this must be where all our tax dollars went... fucking cloaks of invisibility...
At some point the failing top floors of WTC1/2 would've faced resistance from the in-tact structure beneath it. Nope. Freefall. Totally defies the laws of physics.
massive damage + fires cooking remaining supports = eventually the damaged area can no longer hold up the weight of the building above.
in the towers it was the damaged middle of the building trying to hold up the top... when it failed the top smashed through the bottom.
when 7 failed it just smashed into the ground.
we're talking millions of tons.
once it starts moving it's not going to stop till it settles on the ground.
it's like hitting a fly in the air when you are skydiving... it doesn't slow you down because your mass + inertia far far far outweigh the forces the fly puts on you on impact.
once the supports in a building fail, it's fucking over with.
damage + fires caused failure in all three cases.
not as sexy as invisible ninjas planting explosives undetected... but it's reality.
Haha I understand it is weakened, but the building wasn’t designed to only hold the weight of the floor above it. In fact, it was engineered to be able to withstand impact from an airplane when it was built.
Look at every other building that suffers a fire vs a controlled demolition. Some of them, half the building falls off and the other part is standing when the fire is extremely bad. Their conclusion was that because the jet fuel went down the elevator shaft that it was able to completely melt all the steel reinforcements.
Why are you on here to “debunk” a very proven conspiracy?
the "designed to withstand a plane impact" claims are constantly fucked up so a little clarity:
in 1945 a B-52, lost in fog, low on fuel, looking for the airport, smashed into the side of the empire state building.
got stuck in the building it was actually pretty cool.
when the trade center towers were built they were designed to withstand a similar impact... nothing intentional... an accident...
from a much smaller plane, flying at much slower speeds, low on fuel (not just taking off from the east coast, headed west, with both wings fully loaded.
when you intentionally smash a fully loaded, fully fueled plane into the side of the building at full speed, it's going to do WAY more damage than was designed for.
the crucial damage was structural, the building is designed to carry all that weight evenly distributed... like the guy laying down on the bed of nails doesn't get stuck because the force is evenly distributed.
it's why you are supposed to crawl on all 4's on thin ice.
because when you remove a bunch of the supporting structure... all the remaining supports are now being expected to carry far more stress than they were designed to carry.
not only that, but different stresses.
the design calls for vertical loading, not torsion and pull and shear.... all these supports were now being asked to do far more than they were designed to in ways they weren't designed to... but thats why we try to over-engineer things. for a just in case.
sadly when you add sustained fire to this equation you now have the already over-stressed structural components loosing the lions share of their strength... and under tremendous stress.
eventually the damaged area of the building can no longer support the insane weight of the building above.
again... we are talking millions of tons here... thats a LOT of force.
ever see a steel cable snap? that will slice a person in half, and thats a few thousand pounds... now do millions of tons.
when the building starts to go i't's fucking over. as soon as it starts moving, there isn't a building on earth designed to not rip itself apart in that scenario.
and here's how you know everything i just said is correct...
the first building to fall, got hit second, but it got hit much lower on the tower and the damage was worse because it came in at a goofy angle and compromised more floors worth of supports.
that second building's damaged section is now being asked to hold much more weight than the building that got hit first.
more severely damaged area being asked to hold a lot more weight = more force on the compromised structure = more point loading stresses on the remaining system = it failed much sooner than it's counterpart.
also nobody ever said the steel melted, not one serious person ever said that because it didn't happen.
why are you here to defend a debunked mcguffin/red herring/forum slide/well poisoning?
people like you are the reason i can't ask why the government lied about shooting down the 4th plane... because everyone thinks i'm stupid enough to believe a massive crew of people were able to sneak into some of the worlds largest buildings and do months and months worth of demo prep work overnight without detection.
That was never the issue, the issue was there were eyewitness accounts of "molten, running steel" that persisted for days and, IIRC was corroborated by the USGS satellite thermal imaging data up to a week later via colour matching of incandescent materials.
People mocking people saying "Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams" believe they intended to say "Jet fuel cannot weaken steel beams". It was one of the most finessed red herrings ever. No. The people saying jet fuel cannot melt steel beams are saying jet fuel cannot MELT steel beams. Molten, pooled. flowing "like lava or a foundry" steel. Not that fact it gets soft when heated.
show me the solidified puddle of steel that was craned out of the bottom of that bathtub.
...in case you weren't aware, the towers were built in a "bathtub" to keep the adjacent river out. the molten steel would have pooled at the lowest point in the tub.
when the towers collapsed the entire tub was crammed full of twisted beams, mangled rebar, wires, pipes, etc... etc...
it was smashed down into that hole in the ground so hard it took them months to dig it all out.
how did "eye witnesses" see a molten pool of metal at the bottom of that massive debris pile?
a USGS sat img isn't going to show you molten metal, it will simply show you heat.
there was heat.
show me the metal
show me the massive solidified puddle
there would have been thousands of pictures taken as they craned that out of the hole... there are zero
there was no liquid steel, never happened, prove me wrong. show me. don't show me korey and dylans little film school project claiming there were eye witnesses... show me the molten metal, show me the solidified puddle.
Remember kids, the chair and vice chair of the 911 commission report resigned, citing agencies et al were being - in their view, borderline criminally obfuscating and deceptive when questioned.
yes, because steel retains 100% of it's structural integrity/rigidity right up until just before the melting temp.
everyone knows that.
stays just as strong as it is at room temp, until 1 degree from the melting point... then you've got real problems on your hands.
Pretty sure this is sarcastic, but we do know that jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams and even if it did, the entire building wouldn’t collapse in on itself. “Pancaking” is the same science as masks working.
Steel doesn’t retain its strength all the way up until melting, but steel reinforced concrete isn’t just steel.
Controlled demolition and a hefty insurance policy! Oodles of $$$$$ + a mass ritual blood sacrifice + emotionally traumatizing a population of people, how could ((they)) resist?
Rebar has very little influence on the structural integrity of a skyscraper; almost all the load bearing is done by a steel framework. And if they simply bend out of their triangular setup, you are fucked and an entire floor will just instantly get crunched.
All it needs to do is weaken it.you can evaporate steel with a vacuum and propane.
If you don't think steel can burn light a match under extra fine steel wool
What all you "the planes didn't really bring down the towers" crowd needs to explain is not the physics, but that if some entity has the means and the will to bring the towers down, and knew that crashing jets into them would not be enough of a statement, why wait until most, but not all, people had evacuated? If you are ruthless and want a maximum statement with max casualties, then you would set off your destructive sequence as soon as the planes hit, or soon after. If you are more humane and you just wanted to cause massive damage and disrupt trade and economic activity, but with as few collateral casualties as possible, you would have waited longer until the buildings had been cleared. The timing doesn't make sense.
Actually, this is the most important thing that needs to be explained. If the physics don't work (and are not even remotely close), nothing else about a theory of investigation matters.
You are suggesting understanding motivations and being able to read minds is more important than physics. Such thinking is detrimental to investigation. First you determine whether or not a theory is possible (like a little bit of plane fuel melting an entire buildings worth of steel and concrete LOL) then you can try to fit in the motivations.
I don't believe the physics are impossible. The steel frame didn't have to melt. It only needed to soften a relatively little. The molecular movement within the structural elements increases steadily with increased heat, becoming less densely packed and less able to hold the weight it was designed to hold.
There was no planes! Only chopper 5, some poor compositing and Pinocchio's nose
It was never about the deaths, it was about the money. You could hear and see when they actually came down way after the planes, there were explosions all the way down.
I don’t know exactly why they waited, but it isn’t right to judge intent without knowing as that can be circumstantial, it’s right to judge the physics and the money that was tied to it.
We do know for certain that more than just a few random people knew about it. Following the money shows that it was well coordinated as far as the money is concerned.
I didn't disagree with the notion that the whole thing could have been orchestrated by interests hoping to achieve monetary and political gains, or to cover something up. They could accomplish those ends and conduct the attacks just as they appeared to be.
Are you real? You're simultaneously defending the moon landings and the official 9/11 story. Dude, you're either a shill or brainwashed.
I didn't say anything about the official story. We know there is much cover up in there. I'm saying that the actual attack methods did not have to be faked in order for Q theory to work. Not everything is faked. If you are going to blow up some buildings in a terrorist attack, just set explosives and blow them up. Why fly planes into them, if they will not achieve the desired result, but then fake it to make it look like the planes did it? If they knew planes would not do it, just set explosives and do that.
fuck dude you're right, i completely forgot about the part where gravity and point loading stopped being a thing during fires.
cause millions of tons of skyscraper become weightless like a balloon when you set it on fire.
everyone knows heat rises... duh.
damn dude thanks for setting me straight.
Derp yeah! It was also hot that build 7 fell wi th out even a fire! These people just dont u understand science like you!!!... derp...
They always leave after you mention WTC7. BTFO SHILL
yeah i mean it's not like two of the worlds tallest buildings collapsed right next to it, gouging out a giant chunk of the buildings lower floors... and setting the building on fire. cause that would be crazy if that happened.
but since that never happened it was clearly a controlled demo that took months to setup, cutting holes in walls to access the critical structure, preforming weakening cuts, placing cutting charges, wiring all the charges, running those wires back to a central location, hooking those trunk lines up to a blasting box, then initiating the demo.
all while remaining completely undetected.
these guys are fucking pro's, don't fuck with them, probably all had cloaks of invisibility to remain unseen by the thousands of people working there each day.
i mean it would take dozens of guys a few months to rig a building that size for demo... without them someone surely would have seen the workers, this must be where all our tax dollars went... fucking cloaks of invisibility...
gotta be it.
sneaky bastards.
some next level area 51 shit amirite?
At some point the failing top floors of WTC1/2 would've faced resistance from the in-tact structure beneath it. Nope. Freefall. Totally defies the laws of physics.
LEARN: https://www.ae911truth.org/
yes because commercial buildings are designed to be cut in half, then the lower portion designed to "catch" the falling upper portion.
thats how all buildings are made... to be able to stop millions of tons of building as it falls.
"Water, fire, air and dirt, Fucking inertia, how do they work"
OK I'm intrigued. What would be your explanation for Bldg 7, 45willwinagain?
(upvoted for username)
it's the same formula as the towers.
massive damage + fires cooking remaining supports = eventually the damaged area can no longer hold up the weight of the building above.
in the towers it was the damaged middle of the building trying to hold up the top... when it failed the top smashed through the bottom.
when 7 failed it just smashed into the ground.
we're talking millions of tons.
once it starts moving it's not going to stop till it settles on the ground.
it's like hitting a fly in the air when you are skydiving... it doesn't slow you down because your mass + inertia far far far outweigh the forces the fly puts on you on impact.
once the supports in a building fail, it's fucking over with.
damage + fires caused failure in all three cases.
not as sexy as invisible ninjas planting explosives undetected... but it's reality.
Haha I understand it is weakened, but the building wasn’t designed to only hold the weight of the floor above it. In fact, it was engineered to be able to withstand impact from an airplane when it was built.
Look at every other building that suffers a fire vs a controlled demolition. Some of them, half the building falls off and the other part is standing when the fire is extremely bad. Their conclusion was that because the jet fuel went down the elevator shaft that it was able to completely melt all the steel reinforcements.
Why are you on here to “debunk” a very proven conspiracy?
the "designed to withstand a plane impact" claims are constantly fucked up so a little clarity:
in 1945 a B-52, lost in fog, low on fuel, looking for the airport, smashed into the side of the empire state building.
got stuck in the building it was actually pretty cool.
when the trade center towers were built they were designed to withstand a similar impact... nothing intentional... an accident...
from a much smaller plane, flying at much slower speeds, low on fuel (not just taking off from the east coast, headed west, with both wings fully loaded.
when you intentionally smash a fully loaded, fully fueled plane into the side of the building at full speed, it's going to do WAY more damage than was designed for.
the crucial damage was structural, the building is designed to carry all that weight evenly distributed... like the guy laying down on the bed of nails doesn't get stuck because the force is evenly distributed.
it's why you are supposed to crawl on all 4's on thin ice.
because when you remove a bunch of the supporting structure... all the remaining supports are now being expected to carry far more stress than they were designed to carry.
not only that, but different stresses.
the design calls for vertical loading, not torsion and pull and shear.... all these supports were now being asked to do far more than they were designed to in ways they weren't designed to... but thats why we try to over-engineer things. for a just in case.
sadly when you add sustained fire to this equation you now have the already over-stressed structural components loosing the lions share of their strength... and under tremendous stress.
eventually the damaged area of the building can no longer support the insane weight of the building above.
again... we are talking millions of tons here... thats a LOT of force.
ever see a steel cable snap? that will slice a person in half, and thats a few thousand pounds... now do millions of tons.
when the building starts to go i't's fucking over. as soon as it starts moving, there isn't a building on earth designed to not rip itself apart in that scenario.
and here's how you know everything i just said is correct...
the first building to fall, got hit second, but it got hit much lower on the tower and the damage was worse because it came in at a goofy angle and compromised more floors worth of supports.
that second building's damaged section is now being asked to hold much more weight than the building that got hit first.
more severely damaged area being asked to hold a lot more weight = more force on the compromised structure = more point loading stresses on the remaining system = it failed much sooner than it's counterpart.
also nobody ever said the steel melted, not one serious person ever said that because it didn't happen.
why are you here to defend a debunked mcguffin/red herring/forum slide/well poisoning?
people like you are the reason i can't ask why the government lied about shooting down the 4th plane... because everyone thinks i'm stupid enough to believe a massive crew of people were able to sneak into some of the worlds largest buildings and do months and months worth of demo prep work overnight without detection.
you are why we don't get taken seriously.
stop that.
Yes we all know buildings smash through the path of most Resistance without slowing down.
statements like that make me think you don't understand mass and inertia.
do you have any idea how heavy the upper half of one of the largest buildings on the planet is?
do you not understand that once it starts falling the decapitated lower half of a spancrete floored building isn't going to "catch" that much force.
that much mass, in motion, isn't going to stop falling until it hits the ground.
there isn't a single building on the planet who's lower half can catch it's upper half as it's falling through the damaged area that divides the two.
if you jumped out of a plane, and hit a fly on the way down... how much would it slow you down?
That was never the issue, the issue was there were eyewitness accounts of "molten, running steel" that persisted for days and, IIRC was corroborated by the USGS satellite thermal imaging data up to a week later via colour matching of incandescent materials.
People mocking people saying "Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams" believe they intended to say "Jet fuel cannot weaken steel beams". It was one of the most finessed red herrings ever. No. The people saying jet fuel cannot melt steel beams are saying jet fuel cannot MELT steel beams. Molten, pooled. flowing "like lava or a foundry" steel. Not that fact it gets soft when heated.
show me pictures of this "pool of molten steel"
better yet...
show me the solidified puddle of steel that was craned out of the bottom of that bathtub.
...in case you weren't aware, the towers were built in a "bathtub" to keep the adjacent river out. the molten steel would have pooled at the lowest point in the tub.
when the towers collapsed the entire tub was crammed full of twisted beams, mangled rebar, wires, pipes, etc... etc...
it was smashed down into that hole in the ground so hard it took them months to dig it all out.
how did "eye witnesses" see a molten pool of metal at the bottom of that massive debris pile?
a USGS sat img isn't going to show you molten metal, it will simply show you heat.
there was heat.
show me the metal
show me the massive solidified puddle
there would have been thousands of pictures taken as they craned that out of the hole... there are zero
there was no liquid steel, never happened, prove me wrong. show me. don't show me korey and dylans little film school project claiming there were eye witnesses... show me the molten metal, show me the solidified puddle.
i'll wait.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLjPTHMe3OI
You
type
like
a
shill
Remember kids, the chair and vice chair of the 911 commission report resigned, citing agencies et al were being - in their view, borderline criminally obfuscating and deceptive when questioned.
Steel maintains 70% of it's structural integrity even once it reaches the glowing red stage
And let’s not forget to mention “Factors of safety”.....
WWG1WGA