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:
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.
Never said anything about the fires fren. I was speaking of only the impact itself.
Basically kerosene, which has very low volatility. What was the source of immediate ignition for the Hollywood-esque fireball?
The architect built it to withstand being hit by planes. That structural steel would have held up.
Have you ever seen the nose of an aircraft after hitting a bird? There is no way an aluminum aircraft went through the last massive steel structure…
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.
Might want to tell that to some of the old concrete buildings around where I live. They are just as old, if not older, and are crumbling.
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.
I would guess that there were spaces like windows and framed walls that would succumb to large jet engines traveling at 500kts hitting them and allow them to pass from one side of the building out the other, including the fireball from the jet fuel. I doubt the structural steel and masses of strengthened concrete were all that much impacted. So I don't see an argument about the jet passing into the building and being largely contained by the steel and concrete being useful for discussion purposes. Clearly the biggest argument for this being a planned event is building 7 collapsing into it's own footprint at free fall speed from random paper fires. This is impossible, the University of Alaska engineering dept studied it for 4 years and said the same. So if just one incident of that day can be proven to be planned, like wiring a building for demolition, then the whole 9/11 attack by terrorists is a contrived false flag, regardless of the presence of terrorists flying planes or not. We don't need to get bogged down with some of the non-supporting evidence for that conclusion. If building 7 was brought down by demolition then the 9/11 public narrative is false, which it is. Now the question is who is responsible, clearly this goes to the highest levels of our gov't and is on par with the Covid scamdemic. So it's likely done by the same group of people. That's just a guess, I'm open to alternative theories.
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