Last year very few people here did. I am hoping its changed now. Lets see.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (344)
sorted by:
Aluminum tube going THROUGH a cement/steel building is my hangup...
With enough speed and force, even a piece of straw can be lodged in a tree.
Editing Note, i did not say go through, I said lodged, as in partly stuck into.
here is your piece of straw hitting just a concrete wall https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4CX-9lkRMQ
Remember that the world trade towers were made out of huge pieces steel and concrete.
you are forgetting that it wasn't a solid block of concrete the plane hit, but was more like a cage with glass, not to mention that aged concrete, unless treated gets brittle with exposure to the elements, especially with how old the towers were at the time.
No sir, the same fuel that burns in a jet engine and doesn't melt it can not melt that steel. Sorry.
The architect built it to withstand being hit by planes. That structural steel would have held up.
Concrete gets stronger with time not weaker. Fun fact the Hoover Dam is still curing after decades and if there were not cold water pipes running through it the surface would be hotter than the ambient temperature.
The interview with Trump at the time, he said the facade of the buildings were steel, that was why the windows were so thin in width.
No. Twin towers were designed to take a hit from jumbo jer passenger aircraft.
The only part of a plane that has enough density to crash through the structural steel would be the engines.
Everything else is aluminum, very thin sheet aluminum. It's just too soft.
That is incorrect.
Mass x acceleration = force, so an an object with little mass will not carry much energy regardless of its velocity / acceleration.
Density also plays a part here. If a low density object impacts a high density object with force, the low density object will fragment or even vaporize.
Vstablegenius45 shared a video demonstrating this.
The video misses a point though, the towers were not solid like that block they fired the jet at there, they had gaps between for windows. Now I'm not saying that the damge was greater than it should have been. Heck even I can tell something's fishy with just the way the towers fell..
True, the towers were not the same density as a brick wall. The principle is the same though.
An aircraft fuselage would be mostly disintegrated after passing through the outer wall of the towers. And IIRC, the vertical 'striping' of the towers was designed to make them withstand accidental aircraft impacts.
I say this as someone who despised 9/11 "truthers" back in the day. Time has made me less emotional and more open-minded. The facts are all there if we allow ourselves to see them.
Doesn't mean it will collapse
Never said it would. The collapse looked more like an implosion.
Prove it
I shouldn't have to say that Mother nature and her wrath are nothing to sneeze at. https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/weathermatrix/tornadoes-put-straw-through-poles/90369
Planes flying well passed VMO with no visible structural damage.
Bingo... plane was flying way too fast for that altitude.
physics has entered the chat. There was some wonky stuff about 9/11. Pentagon damage did not look that bad, tower 7 etc. With the temperature jet fuel wreckage burns at, no it will not straight up MELT steel, but it WILL weaken it at least 50% leading to WTC collapse. I do believe that huge ass airline jets were flown into those towers, and they were flown by a bunch of extremist muslims, most of which from Saudi Arabia...
That's what it takes, belief, because it sure as shit doesn't add up.
Here's a clip of the "plane" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SQnnlzz8lk - Notice anything? Like the wing disappearing behind the building?
Physics? You wan't to talk about physics? You ever seen a fighter jet crash into a cement wall? The plane disintegrates. No aluminum wings are going to slice through steel and cement. Un-fucking-believable.