How’s planes took down the first tower
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (33)
sorted by:
"A building that was specifically designed to withstand such an impact - according to the architect"
Pal, the Titanic's architect said it couldn't sink. And they designed the towers to withstand a high speed deliberate plane impact from a jumbo jet packed with jet fuel? Pretty sure they wouldn't consider that, they would probably plan around accidental plane crashes from small crafts like the one that hit the Empire State Building. Also, the planes that hit the towers literally did not exist when the towers were built so how could they have possibly planned for that?
"Those buildings had steel exoskeletons; an aluminium plane would have been cut into pieces"
I repeat my question: have you ever seen a water jet saw cut through steel? This is simple physics.
"And a third building that had no aircraft hit it also collapsed at freefall speed into its own footprint."
WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, that is true, but it was hit by a collapsing skyscraper that was on fire. The gash from the flaming north tower debris was about ten stories high and it also burned all day. Someone might even say that it would be miraculous that a building would not collapse under those conditions. Crazy huh?
Waterjets ... it is NOT the water cutting the steel, it is the abrasives put into the water stream. It is extreme high pressure on a very narrow front on a relatively slow time frame and is not in any way applicable to the impact forces experienced by either the plane's body nor indeed the building itself.
Planes are ridiculously weak in a structural manner to impact forces as they are designed for tension. I recall some brits consulting with their american AF counterparts on simulating bird strikes using supermarket chickens in their "bird cannons". The problem was, the birds were going straight through the plane windows and nose sections and smashing hell out of the plane. The brits knew we were doing testing in the same way and wanted to know what they were doing wrong. The response sent back to them was, "Thaw chickens first." Can YOU understand what is happening? A small and relatively hard object was destroying an airplane at moderate speeds. Now imagine how that aluminum reacts to STEEL that is INCHES thick, far harder, far far stronger, and THOUSANDS of times the mass. That aluminum mass is widely spread out not concentrated. Aluminum does not beat steel in this configuration. THIS IS SIMPLE PHYSICS.
Your annecotes are bullshit, your facts are bullshit, your call to "physics" is nothing but smoke for your BS narrative. Glow harder somewhere else you shill.
I guess you just forgot the planes exploded at 500+ MPH? Fireballs HUNDREDS of feet high? Might have something to do with the damage than just impact alone?
Jee-zus, and calling me a glowie shill? First time that happened on here but not the first time for me ever. Once upon a time I would have discussions with 9/11 twoofers and they called me a shill back then too. I was in HIGH SCHOOL. Get fucking real! Now I'm a security guard from South Dakota and I've been on here since before the inauguration. But the one time I go "hey those planes were doing some pretty insane shit I could see how that would cause catastrophic damage" I'm a shill? Fuck off!
Yes a shill ... or just a normie who knows nothing about steel, physics and how it all interacts with mass, inertia, or heat. Or perhaps you do not possess the bare bones will to research it. You don't have to spend 20 years doing steel work like I have or spent a number of years in the AF to understand these basic things. After all, THIS IS SIMPLE PHYSICS. So yes, you are either a shill or willingly ignorant and misinforming people. Oh ... a security guard. Ok then, your own words convict you. Allow me to elucidate.
Giant fireballs are impressive to the normie who knows NOTHING about steel an physics. Fireballs are nothing but heat spread out over THOUSANDS of square feet. You think, "wow impressive", problem is the heat and energy is spread over thousands of square feet not all concentrated in an area 1/4" wide where it would do anything. Actually doing anything to steel that is INCHES thick requires MASSIVE force, ie explosives IN CONTACT with the steel or a minutes long concentrated stream of fuel in balance with the oxygen input to achieve maximum heat and THEN, when it was at the melting point, another additional input of oxygen to set the steel itself (in the local area [1/4"]) on fire. NONE of those conditions were present. The burning fuel producing smoke as black as it was indicates a massive shortfall of oxygen. While the fire would be hot to a person, or the surrounding furnishings, it wouldn't even phase a steel beam. In fact you could burn that gas there for hours or even days and not have any real impact. So, no the fireballs had nothing to do with the structural integrity of the building.
The plane had NO concentrated mass to do any true damage to the bones of the structure. A previous poster in this thread already mentioned an empty coke can as an analogy which is exactly what this is. There is no structural integrity in an airplane to do that kind of damage to massive steel beams, NONE. An airplane is not built to survive impact. The wings are built just strong enough to support the body, and the body is built to be in tension against atmospheric pressure changes. The only thing that would have a chance of doing any real damage would be the engines, but again the structure there is not massive concentrated weight but distributed structure necessary to holding and controlling the components to produce thrust. Again, insufficient force to accomplish the damages that occurred.
It's really very simple. Planes did not bring the buildings down. They were merely the distraction. If you aren't a shill, at least do some basic homework before embarrassing yourself. I am not even talking about the planes stuff, I am instead referring to building 7. Two options, shill or ignorant. If #2, education is the remedy, do some digging.
You worked with steel for twenty years (supposedly) right?
How do you shape steel? You get it hot and it bends. This is what (supposedly) happened on 9/11. The steel was not "melted", it merely softened until it snapped like toothpicks. At least, that's the "official story".
So you're referring to building 7... Okay. Do you seriously think that a building with a ten story gash from a collapsing skyscraper that burned for an entire day wouldn't weaken its structural integrity? To the point of, say, a collapse? You're the self proclaimed steel expert here, not me.
And ease up on the insults, champ. It's pissing me off.