I watched a surprisingly good quality YouTube (couldn't believe they left it up) of several Ground Zero FireFighters clearly, emphatically & repeatedly telling a camera crew about all the multiple explosions they personally heard, saw, witnessed.
yeah the fight scene could just like totally start with a cool cinematic cut scene where the passport is on the plane moving 600 MPH and then the plane slams into a building and blows out the other side, and then all that shit that was inside the plane and even chunks of the plane itself flies out of the "exit wound" of the building it impacted and out into the open air in front of the fireball made out of the aerosolized jet fuel and then all that mostly barely got touched by the fire stuff begins to freefall onto the pavement below and thus was never even in a fire for more than a few seconds which is nowhere near the time it would take to significantly damage said passport beyond identification...
Lol Yea, because that was totally just raw fuel droplets and magic "rocket paper" sheets blasting through the plate glass windows on the opposite side of the lol "enclosed space". Don't believe your lying eyes when you see the fireball clearly blowing out the plate glass: that was raw fuel and magic rocket papers, propelled allll the way out of the passenger compartment, through the nose of the aircraft, through an entire floor of the building, finally exiting in one perfect, unsullied piece through plate glass (twice) propelled entirely by 600mph of enertia before landing perfectly intact inside a stories-high pile of rubble that burned for days. 😆
did you not see a giant fireball and bunch of debris fly out of the other side of the building during the impact?
like you admit that happened right?
you don't think it's possible that some of the stuff in the plane made it out of the building? because we know that happened because they found a bunch of luggage and plane shit on the street outside.
"WTF are you talking about?" Oh, was it invisible on your end? Here ya go: "Lol Yea, because that was totally just raw fuel droplets and magic "rocket paper' sheets blasting through the plate glass windows on the opposite side of the lol 'enclosed space'. Don't believe your lying eyes when you see the fireball clearly blowing out the plate glass: that was raw fuel and magic rocket papers, propelled allll the way out of the passenger compartment, through the nose of the aircraft, through an entire floor of the building, finally exiting in one perfect, unsullied piece through plate glass (twice) propelled entirely by 600mph of enertia before landing perfectly intact inside a stories-high pile of rubble that burned for days. 😆"
Folks, I'd like to make an appeal to be more critical of your own critical theories. This "jet fuel doesn't melt steel" meme has been amplified since the get go... and I'd place good money that was on purpose: to discredit reasonable inquiries into the official narrative. Everyone gets so hung up on the more fantastical theories of the HOW, that the "who" and the "why" are similarly treated with sloppy hole-ridden research, if the arguments ever even get to that.
It was never really controversial prior to this, that steel loses 50% of it weight bearing capacity long before its melting point, and loses 90% at temperatures created by normal office fires without any jet fuel or the impact of a plane hitting it.
If we do some relevant research and had the opportunity to speak with certain folks who would know, say for example old time New Yorkers with some knowledge of large building construction and who remember the original construction of the Twin Towers, I think that would force a revision of these kinds of memes.
The main one being that before the sheets went up on these towers, it was obvious that the girder system they used not only allowed for the buildings to go up and completed in such a short period of time (a modular "stacking oreo cookies" type build), but it also meant that the strength of the towers were wholly at their peripheries and NOT at the core center. THAT's why the 1993 bombing in the basement was a complete fail, because it attempted to compromise the core center instead of the periphery.
So yes plane impacts at just one or two floors of the periphery would be more than enough to get the girders structurally weak from the heat, and would give way to the weight of the upper floors. What we originally thought we saw on 9/11 is what we would expect to see in that regard.
Unfortunately, if I or others point out these kinds of incongruencies with the 9/11 truther narratives, we get labeled shills for the government coverup narrative. See how that works? Almost no rational arguments or thorough journalistic inquiries about 9/11 have been possible for 20 years. Instead we get only either the 9/11 Commission Report or "Loose Change", nukes + no plane theories etc. That imho is the real ongoing tragedy piled on top of the original tragedy.
Note: I personally have no opinion on whether explosives were also planted on site prior to the attacks. I am just highlighting the rationality that what folks thought they saw on the morning of 9/11 was what they did in fact see. There is no reason to push the very weak theory that something like a Deep State David Blane had coordinated pulling a fast one over the masses, using fake passenger planes or some other easy complicated claim that is pretty much non-falsifiable.
Show me pictures of the glowing pool or the hardened puddle of all this molten metal.
Video would be way cooler but i'll settle for a picture.
The metal would have poured down the building, or down through the rubble pile, and collect in the lowspot of "the bathtub" that the towers were built in...
That puddle of molten metal would have solidified when it cooled.
Where is it? why are there zero pictures of it?
...why can't you find any?
Isn't it at all possible that you are just unintentionally regurgitating something you were told by an idiot or a liar?
The reason people make fun of "truthers" with the "can't melt beams" meme... is because it's so blatantly false on multiple levels.
Aside from the zero evidence that it did happen, there's zero evidence anyone important ever claimed it did. The only people who ever claimed there was molten metal or melting at all are the community of easily psyopped tryhards who regurgitate COINTELPRO well poisoning designed to distract the public from looking into the 4th plane and how it was obviously shot down by the 180th ANG out of toledo ohio (swanton actually).
They inserted dozens of ridiculous claims into the conspiracy forums in the weeks/months even years following the attacks. whenever people started talking about the 4th plane a new theory would emerge to cause fighting within the community, and turn rational people against anyone who discussed any theories that conflict with the official narrative.
Once you can get a group of people to believe something silly, you can use that planted belief to attack all of their other ideas by association.
All the attention was direct at the towers, 7, missiles, "melting beams"...
Remember "nano thermite"? how about the passenger swaps theory?
...At this point you should understand that it's highly possible that a bunch (all) of that is coming from the people who never want to have to sit in front of a microphone and say our military shot down that plane.
Seriously though... how does that convo go? "yeah so like sorry for totally shooting down a plane full of our own citizens but it was headed twords the whitehouse so like we kinda-sorta-had-ta... my bad"
Jet fuel is flammable yes or no?
Assuming yes, next question: when you aerosolize a bunch of fuel by slamming it into a giant metal mesh building at 500-600 mph... does it "burns up real gooder"?
(yep sure does, it's essentially a fuel air bomb at that point).
So just so we are clear... It's not possible that the jet fuel could have melted them at all, because all (lets be nice and say "most") of the fuel was expended in the giant fireball during the impact.
The "official story" is:
The fuel fireball set multiple floors on fire
That fire spread (couldn't fight the fires no sprinkler system)
The longer the fires cooked the more this heated up the structure of the towers causing weaking and loss of structural integrity of the "radically designed" zigzag truss open floors
Truss softening caused the truss/pan/tensioned crete floors to sag
That sagging placed lateral tension on the connections to the exterior walls
As each link in the structure failed this placed an increasing load on the entire system
Eventually this incremental increase of load cycle will cascade and cause a runaway failure (collapse)
Ever wonder why the tower that got hit second fell first?
Thats because the plane struck lower on the tower... meaning the damaged area had to hold more weight... which speed up the process i outlined above.
Nothing had to melt for the towers to fall exactly as they did, and nobody real ever said anything melted.
thank you and yeah i'm expecting a bunch of hollerin from the hoax hogs.
i probably could have been less of a prick about it but i've had it with this shit.
there are plenty of questions about that whole situation, but it has always struck me as odd how inverted the attention needed to attention given ratios are.
all the most useless, fake, and discrediting bullshit is all anyone ever seems to talk about.
pisses me off TBH.
look at the debris pattern in shanksville... thats not a ground impact, that is something breaking apart in the air and raining back down to earth.
"let's roll" is straight out of hollywood, they could make a movie about it...
oh thats right, they did.
good luck getting anyone to attack that sacred cow when there is so much other low hanging poisoned fruit ripe for the picking.
i haven't seen that but lets assume you are correct...
i'm telling you either that is a lie from them, or they were repeating a lie they were told.
don't believe that? cool, so where is the picture montage or video of the removal of the worlds largest hardened T2 puddle?
you'd think it would have been a rather momentous occasion what with it being the very last thing they would have been able to gain access to and crane it out of there. they probably would have made a monument with it and encouraged the public to prostrate to it.
Show me the selfies of people at the 9/11 memorial standing in front of the evidence you claim so obviously exists.
if that were a thing we'd be able to buy commemorative "patriot puddle" coasters and wall clocks (made in china).
You're somewhat mishmashing several things together here, makes it harder to decipher your point.
As far as the molten metal, there were reports and video of debris being lifted out of the pile where they would hit molten material. It ties in well with the thermite, which was analyzed as 'nano-aluminum'. It frustrated me because there are some here that think if you spill iron rust dust on aluminum and add heat that you'll get a thermitic reaction (realistically, you might get spots that react, but it won't be the whole). The smaller the aluminum particles the better surface contact with the iron oxide, which means a better chemical reaction.
The reports of that came from people who had collected dust samples and tested them.
I actually agreed when it came to lasers from space (or whatever Judy Wood was selling) among others as tainting the well.
It really did amaze me how this topic seems to have dropped the whole forum down to reddit tier the past few days. You'd think there could at least be some common ground, where can debate on the evidence of what DID happen, but we should all at least be in agreement that what did NOT happen was the "official story".
As far as the molten metal, there were reports and video of debris being lifted out of the pile where they would hit molten material.
pictures, i can has them?
any pictures or video of things melting during the fire are going to be melting plastic... but i've never seen pictures of molten steel or the resulting pools of solidify molten steel.
ever
It ties in well with the thermite, which was analyzed as 'nano-aluminum'. It frustrated me because there are some here that think if you spill iron rust dust on aluminum and add heat that you'll get a thermitic reaction (realistically, you might get spots that react, but it won't be the whole).
yikes...
so thermite is a 1:3 composition of aluminum powder and iron oxide powder. you get the composition hot enough with a stepped ignition (i like setting a magnesium ribbon on fire with a torch) until you are able to reach temps high enough to cause the aluminum to actually burn. the aluminum burns at a lower temp than the iron oxide but it is able to strip the oxide, using it as an oxidizer thus intensifying the burn and giving you one hell of an exothermic reaction.
the result is molten iron.
we used to use two flower pots, a small one inside a large one, with an insulative layer of perlite between the two. The smaller one acts as a crucible. When the reaction burns it way to the paper plug at the bottom the stream of molten iron flows out the bottom of the pot... it's pretty cool.
The smaller the aluminum particles the better surface contact with the iron oxide, which means a better chemical reaction.
you don't need special aluminum, any old powdered aluminum will work i've even used painters flake but it sputtered a lot...
either way you certainly do not need thermite to cause the towers to fall and you certainly don't have a giant puddle of molten steel to show it was used on that day.
just in case you don't agree... please explain how exactly do you prevent all these magic thermite charges from being initiated when a 600 MPH plane slams into them?
also when those planes hit... what happens to the network of the required control wires needed to initiate ignition of all these devices? i mean they would have either used det cord or blasting wire... and it they used blasting wire we seem to be missing evidence of the giant trunk of wires cascading down the central staircase back to the blasting box where the computer is controlling the ematches/squibs.
see... all these theories are a lot of fun until you're trying to convince a guy who's been working with profession explosives and demolition since he was a kid.
i put on one hell of a fireworks show too couple-tree times a year.
Not to be shitty, I haven't really debated the topic in 10+ years, my archive of photos and videos is probably on a computer I no longer have, and would require some extensive digging to find copies online today.
you don't need special aluminum, any old powdered aluminum will work i've even used painters flake but it sputtered a lot...
Exactly, you don't NEED anything special to generate a reaction, but the finer the aluminum powder the more intense the reaction, with the nano-aluminum powder mix it becomes almost explosive. That's why the tech gets used for tasks like rocket separation.
just in case you don't agree... please explain how exactly do you prevent all these magic thermite charges from being initiated when a 600 MPH plane slams into them?
God I hate that deboonker speak where you use words like "magic" to pretend like the position is stronger than it is.
The answer is speculation; either a) you don't care because any charges started early are in the damaged area where they won't be needed further, or b) knowing the segment that the collision was intended you know it's the opposite side that needs the cuts.
The area that needed to be removed to allow collapse is the core columns and elevator shafts, and even NIST analysis shows that those areas would not be impacted even in their worst case.
Remember, they were renovating the elevators right before 9-11, the crew even set up a light show in the weeks before.
The fact is that it is physically impossible that the top 1/3 of the structure punched through the bottom 2/3 of solid structure while only losing about 20% of gravity. Look up videos of demolition failures to see what would have been a more likely outcome.
without doing a multicut cause this is getting boring and you're getting snarky so this will go to shit fast (lol at REEEE about "magic")
i want to quote one thing in particular:
The fact is that it is physically impossible that the top 1/3 of the structure punched through the bottom 2/3 of solid structure while only losing about 20% of gravity. Look up videos of demolition failures to see what would have been a more likely outcome.
take a model of the building, cut the top 1/3 of it off, remove 3 or 4 floors, drop it back onto the opened top building.
each tower weighed 1,500,000 tons
how hard do you think it is for ANYTHING other than the earth to "catch" 500,000 tons and stop it from moving?
You don't remember the articles, the satelite imagery showing thousand degree temperatures up to 6 months later?
Again, it's not "could it collapse" but "could it collapse AS IT COLLAPSED". If the 110 floors took 2-3 minutes instead of the ~40 seconds, then you would be making a strong point.
Projecting steel several blocks laterally, pulverized concrete from every floor, AND maintaining about 80% of gravity. That's not enough energy, even if you dropped the top 1/3 from 20 stories up.
And more, there was no "shock" a reduction in acceleration when the top block collided with the lower block.
BTW- it is reddit tier form to act shitty and then act hard done by when it's called out.
You don't remember the articles, the satelite imagery showing thousand degree temperatures up to 6 months later?
no
Again, it's not "could it collapse" but "could it collapse AS IT COLLAPSED". If the 110 floors took 2-3 minutes instead of the ~40 seconds, then you would be making a strong point.
Projecting steel several blocks laterally, pulverized concrete from every floor, AND maintaining about 80% of gravity. That's not enough energy, even if you dropped the top 1/3 from 20 stories up.
And more, there was no "shock" a reduction in acceleration when the top block collided with the lower block.
it 100% did collapse exactly like that though... why do you assume it's impossible even after you've had it explained to you.
once the upper 500,000 tons begins to freefall the broken topped bottom isn't able to "catch" the weight and it just unzipped those walls as the canteleverd floors blew apart in a cascade all the way down.
it looked like a piece of chalk in a press crumbling from the tip down to the ground... it's been modeled 100's of times it behaves exactly as it's supposed to when you actually account for the forces and weights and physics involved.
the building was mostly air, it's actually a feature in the design, one of the first of it's kind experimental open floors. due to the construction when you break the floors you break what is holding the walls pinned to the core
it's 500,000 tons, 1 Trillion pounds... in freefall as it falls through the failing damaged area. i mean come on man did you really expect 2/3 of a skyscraper to catch 1/3 of a skyscraper? it's impossible.
BTW- it is reddit tier form to act shitty and then act hard done by when it's called out.>
i wasn't complaining, i was laughing. you bitched about a sprinkle of sarcasm like it tore out a little chunk of your ass so much that you had to address it. it was awkward so i laughed.
You're mistaken, that's why. It's impossible because the energy of pulverizing concrete and projecting steel beams outward requires energy, the ONLY energy available is 9.8m/s^2. That 500k tons had to crush through ~1500k tons, and it did so using only about 2m/s^2 of that energy.
If there was a 'pancake collapse' you have a collision of 2 floors, then the floor breaks, drops, then collide with the next, break, drop, collide, break, drop. That would appear on video in a noticeable and measureable feature of collapse.
Then the simulations, the simulations were garbage, they didn't go from start to end because they ALL diverge from the video, the worst was WTC 7, where the simulation couldn't even get to 7 seconds before being noticeably different from the video.
"...but we should all at least be in agreement that what did NOT happen was the "official story"."
Absolutely agreed. It's awfully hard to find the real story when the "evidences" against the "official story" are just plain stupid. Discredits the entire search.
One of the best tools I've found for debunking the official story is to use the NIST and other reports.
Physics knowledge is enough, from various angles, to show the collapses as captured are not physically possible without extra energy input (ie; explosives).
What I'm saying is that there is viable evidence of malfeasance on 9/11. We shouldn't be focusing on "fire doesn't melt steel" and "45 degree angle cuts." That sort of obviously refutable "evidence" just makes the people trying to expose the viable evidence look like lunatics.
Which I'm sure absolutely elates the people responsible.
It's really a matter of trauma induced cognitive dissonance. People have a mental block from being able to see any of that evidence, that really isn't refutable when you know what you're looking at.
Iron has two different crystal structures at atmospheric pressure: the body centered cubic (bcc) and the face centered cubic (fcc). In the ground state the bbc α-phase is stable, and at the temperature T=1671 F (A3 point), α-Fe transforms into fcc α-Fe, which is stable up to 2537 F K(A4 point).
The Body-Centered Cubic (BCC) unit cell can be imagined as a cube with an atom on each corner, and an atom in the cube’s center. It is one of the most common structures for metals. BCC has 2 atoms per unit cell
The Face-Centered Cubic (FCC) unit cell can be imagined as a cube with an atom on each corner, and an atom on each face. It is one of the most common structures for metals. FCC has 4 atoms per unit cell
This means, that as the jet fuel burns at 1, 517 F, and heat is contained (such as in a building), as the iron/steel beams are heated, they at first expand - due to thermal heating. But, when the temperature of the iron/steel beams exceeds 1,671 F; the iron SHRINKS BY HALF
This PULLS the building down, melting is unnecessary.
No one said that the iron cannot, or did not melt.
What I said, was that as you heat iron/steal from normal ambient temperatures through 1,671 F, on the way to the melting point (2,800 F), the crystalline configuration of iron changes. Iron/steel will undergo normal and expected expansion from room temperature and up, but when it crosses above 1671 F - it will SHRINK by half, as the atomic crystalline structure changes. No force on earth can stop it. It's done at the atomic level.
As you continue to heat the iron, beyond the face centered cubic phase (A4 point), eventually it will melt into a liquid. This is an area of metallurgy called Materials Science. Something most engineers learn.
Howd they convince those steel beams throughout the entire building to all shrink within the same 10 seconds? And thrice on one day and never before or again after ?
The change in crystalline structure doesn't require ALL of the steel beams to buckle at the same time. If you have a single 8 ft section of beam, that decides to become a 4 ft section of beam; it will pull the floor above it down. When you have an area about the size of a 747 all burning, you have sufficient heat to affect the central pillars. Then you start a pancake collapse.
The location of the impact, was designed for precisely this type of failure. Too high, and you don't have sufficient mass to create the pancake failures, too low and the impact will not begin the chain reaction.
Based on your 'pancake' theory I should be able to stand a school bus on end and drop a Volkswagen bug from say 10/20 feet above the front of the bus from the top end. What I should witness is the bug 'pancake' the bus all the way to the bottom end or ie, completely flattened the bus top to bottom. I sincerely hope you have nothing to do with civil engineering.
Good grief. Your knowledge of physics is matched my your understanding of crystalline structures. When you collapse a pancake cement layer structure, the potential energy above the failure point, cascades into the surfaces below the failure point, with more energy than the original failure. Have you never see. A controlled demolition? Ever wonder why they simply don’t blow out the bottom level?
So you are saying the twin towers were destroyed via controlled demolition. Got it. No need to keep droning on about muh crystalline structures and other crap you have zero understanding of.
What you are missing is the fact that the jet fuel was merely an accelerant. There were thousands of tons of petrochemicals and wood in those buildings in the form of carpet, vinyl, adhesives, furniture, paper, etc. Plenty of stored chemical energy to soften steel to the point where it can no longer bear the thousands of tons on top of it.
Then explain why the Grenfell Tower did not collapse? 24 story tower, fire breaks out on 4th floor, burns for 60 hours....60 HOURS. Let me guess....no jet fuel. Your soften steel argument is BS kiddo.
was a fully loaded passenger jet intentionally slammed into the Grenfell Tower at 600 MPH causing massive damage to multiple floors before the fire started?
Was the Grenfell Tower built using standard rigid box style riveted girder construction?
...or was it constructed with a "radical design" of a cantilevered open floor concept that bridged the central core to the outer skin facade using horizontal zig zag trusses which held metal pans to hold concrete with pretensioned wires inside?
don't you think it's fair to admit that you can design a building to withstand a fire, and you can design it to withstand an impact... but good luck designing it to survive an impact that destructive and a fire that burned that long at the same time.
You're just not being realistic/honest at all in your comparison and you're either doing it on purpose or it was done to you on purpose.
barely-below-the-surface investigation makes your assertions sound silly.
The Twin Towers were designed to easily withstand multiple airline impacts. An aluminum can smashing into the most advanced building of its time would not have done shit to the structural integrity. Collaborate with your low iq shills here and try again....
The Twin Towers were designed to easily withstand multiple airline impacts
Wow it's amazing how ridiculous this hollow rebutal has gotten over time... first it was just "a plane" then it became "the same exact plane that hit it" now it's "multiple planes"
It's just fascinating.
They were designed to survive the impact of a smaller plane moving at a much slower speed, light on fuel. This is "a thing" because of the bomber which was low on fuel and lost in a fog looking to land at LaGuardia which then crashed into the side of the empire state building.
July 28, 1945
A United States military plane crashes into the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, killing 14 people. The freak accident was caused by heavy fog. The B-25 Mitchell bomber, with two pilots and one passenger aboard, was flying from New Bedford, Massachusetts, to LaGuardia Airport in New York City.
holy shit the hyperbole is strong with you, you have a real bad habit of making ridiculous hot takes even worse by exaggerating them. you should work on that.
planes aren't beer cans
an empty12 oz beer can weighs 0.033 pounds
all up weight on a Boeing 757 is 255000 Lb, a Boeing 767 weighs more
which do you think has more mass?
which do you think is going to do more damage at 600 MPH?
did you not see the video of the impacts?
are you actually claiming that the impacts/explosions/shit flying out the other side was faked?
before you answer that... please remember that half of new york and new jersey was in person standing in the streets or looking out their windows watching the fire of the first tower burn when the second plane hit...
are you seriously suggesting that the thousands and thousand of eyewitnesses who watched a plane fly into the second tower... the videos these people took... all fake?
the most advanced building of its time
no it wasn't, it was considered "radical" because it was a cantilevered floor design and MANY architects warned that it was unsafe for this exact reason... (susceptible to collapse due to damage combined with sustained fire)
would not have done shit to the structural integrity.
you can see the giant holes in the side of the building, the holes alone are literally damaging the structural integrity because part of the design was to pin the floors to the outer perimeter walls.
the zig zag trusses and pretensioned concrete floors pinned the structure together, when the floors sagged and failed there was nothing left holding the walls to the central core... allowing bowing.
without floors you have no stability control over torsion forces on the exterior.
Collaborate with your low iq shills here and try again....
So an airplane with tanks full of jet fuel will instantaneously combust, or will there be a large impact, the vaporized jet fuel make a large plume; while the remaining fuel pours out into the burning fire. A fully loaded 747 will carry several hundred gallons of fuel
cut the buulshit, hodar.... iron will not shrink in half.... that's the dumbest thing i've heard all day... go make yourself a dikdok video or something.
They are engineered to take the heat load they're exposed to. Try tossing a barbecue into an accelerated inferno, then pile a few hundred pounds on top. See how that structural integrity works out.
Good grief. The only way to build a building economically is to engineer it to BARELY stand. If you exceed the structural tolerances, IT FALLS. It doesn't matter what it's made of.
"The only way to build a building economically is to engineer it to BARELY stand." Kek "Good grief". No: low-cost leader is definitely not the only marketing method. Also, no: not every building has been engineered to "barely stand". That particular building was definitely not engineered to barely stand. What nonsense. Quick! Grab your thesaurus and find a new slippery escape route.
Oh, ok, so they built a bunker 110 stories tall. Cool.
You have to minimize materials and construction costs or you never make a profit. You could build your house so that it would resist me if I rammed it with a bulldozer, but I'd be willing to bet your house would topple like it was made of paper. BECAUSE YOUR HOUSE IS BUILT ECONOMICALLY.
ok so we know that with enough force you can just bend metal right?
and if you want to make the job easier you apply heat.
and the more you heat it the less force you need to bend it right?
after impact the buildings are essentially two structural systems divided by a damaged system... like the DMZ dividing N and S Korea. the damaged area is now able to hold far less weight than it was optimized to hold before it got compromised. the weight from the undamaged building above the impact zone is now being carried by far fewer structural elements...
aka "less shit to hold up shit".
now set all of that shit on fire and let it cook for a long time, getting hotter and hotter... getting softer, getting weaker.
as the fires burned you could see floors sagging, you could see trusses hanging there and dropping down between floors... it was fucking dicked.
you could see deformation of the outside skin as the inside floors sagged and pulled (lateral tension) on the sides of the building from the inside.
i have no idea what dude is talking about with crystalline structures and expanding and contracting... all i know is the floors got hot, they sagged, it pulled the walls inward till the top of the building was too heavy then it failed...
we are talking about the top 1/3 or 1/4 of one of the largest structures on the planet... how much do you think all that shit weighs?
more importantly, once the damaged area can't hold the top anymore and all that shit starts falling down the only thing stopping all of that mass in motion is going to be the planet.
no worries, i'm actually shocked i've been able to bite my tounge this much cause i really hate these people. i'm fading fast i don't think i can deal with these people much more tonight it's really depressing.
The top of the building would have toppled over ,it wouldn't have imploded into its own footprint.
While your at it explain bldg 7 and no airplane wreckage at the pentagon
The top of the building would have toppled over ,it wouldn't have imploded into its own footprint.
buildings aren't trees, they don't "topple over" like that when this type of damage and failure occurs. it's actually quite complicated to get a building to fall over to the side, it requires months of careful planning and strategic charges placed in all the right places going off in a pattern to allow the building to fall the way you want it to.
some do begin to fall that way, but once it starts to lean everything just explodes from the tension and unless it has something to pivot on or there are precisely timed charges to sever foundational links where the tension would be... it drops straight down (cause gravity).
in fact, if you watch the collapse, you can see the antenna on top of the tower leaning to the side before it does exactly what i just described... starts to lean then accelerates downward.
While your at it explain bldg 7
same exact "damage + fires = collapse" that caused the first two to drop.
WTC7 had massive damage done to it by the collapse of the other two, there were also multiple fires that started all over that area when it got damaged. those fires heated up the damaged area until the damaged area was no longer able to carry the weight of the building above.
no airplane wreckage at the pentagon
out of all the things you said this is the most embarrassing one and the one you should probably stop saying the most. there are plenty of pictures showing wreckage, even part of an engine and landing gear...
shortly after the attack someone posted a whole slew of pictures they took from the road, on the other side of the fence, that had obstructed views due to the grass berm they were behind.
a bunch of disinfo assholes started saying "oh look there's no plane parts" and people ran with it.
you can just google img search "pentagon plane wreckage" and you'll see how debunked this particular one is.
...perhaps ask yourself how exactly did you come to believe this without ever checking into it yourself and how that might also be true about other things you believe.
wow, you're probably the biggest faggot in this thread
Thousands of engineers and architect's disagree.
a fringe minority of dumb people with a dumb opinion.
No fireproof steel building in the world ever collapsed into its own footprint until 9 11 when 3 did
they weren't "fireproof" (god damn you are stupid for saying that, lol) 1 + 2 were radical open floor plan design, and no building on the planet has been intentionally rammed at 600mph by a fully fueled passenger jet.
There wasn't any airplane wreckage at the Pentagon and YOU don't have any pictures 9f it
wrong faggot, here's literally first three things that come up in an image search for "pentagon plane crash":
Hundreds of NYC Firefighters heard the explosives going off
first off prove that (you literally can't you're just making up "hundreds" cause you're a faggot), secondly yeah lots of loud noises happen during building collapses
faggot.
why would i keep calling you a faggot you might be wondering? well, only a glowfag faggot would say all this easily debunked bullshit and then follow it up with a faggoty line like this:
Have a nice day Rabbi
= faggot
you're the reason people come here and call us "antisemites", people like you either don't belong here at all (cause you're such a massive faggot) or you're a plant doing this stupid faggot shit on purpose to make everyone here look bad.
Stick a piece of rebar in a good coal bed for half an hour. You'll be able to bend it. If you want to shape it you'll need a hammer and some sweat, but that's not what we're talking about.
"Coal" isn't a "campfire" and burns much hotter than wood. Now, add the other required non-campfire implements. Heck, move the goal posts all the way over to the blacksmith shop.
"For Pete's sake", your use of equivocation renders pretty much every claim that you make meaningless. The thesaurus is not Vaseline for slippery escapes. "Coal" is not wood cinders. I've never once seen a "coal" campfire. Perhaps you meant 'a bed of hot coals', but that's not what you said. The entire claim is silly to begin with.
Respectfully... bologna. You can put aluminum stock under a "campfire" and have a tough time getting it to melt, if anything at all... and I grew up throwing copper wire in the fire pit: it's still there after the cinders are cold. If you could melt steal in a "campfire", with no apparatus such as bellows, you would've changed the course of human history.
and respectfully... the upper 1/3 of one of the tallest buildings on the planet pressing down on the heated metal is able to exert considerably more force on that metal than you can while sitting around a campfire making smores
It was a very large building, with A LOT of material. I'm sure we could selectively highlight convenient and discard inconvenient physical properties all night... like rapid heat distribution through an unusually massive external steel structure.
"I said nothing about melting." What TF do you think "soften" means? Get a thesaurus. No, you aren't melting, loosening, liquifying, thawing, unhardening or "softening" steel in a "campfire". It's a silly claim.
Not even steel beams, the tower was a fukn exoskeleton. Should been fine
I watched a surprisingly good quality YouTube (couldn't believe they left it up) of several Ground Zero FireFighters clearly, emphatically & repeatedly telling a camera crew about all the multiple explosions they personally heard, saw, witnessed.
I'll try to find & post.
Hahaha Round two is Blast Furnace Fire vs Passports. 😆
yeah the fight scene could just like totally start with a cool cinematic cut scene where the passport is on the plane moving 600 MPH and then the plane slams into a building and blows out the other side, and then all that shit that was inside the plane and even chunks of the plane itself flies out of the "exit wound" of the building it impacted and out into the open air in front of the fireball made out of the aerosolized jet fuel and then all that mostly barely got touched by the fire stuff begins to freefall onto the pavement below and thus was never even in a fire for more than a few seconds which is nowhere near the time it would take to significantly damage said passport beyond identification...
that would be so cool...
Lol Yea, because that was totally just raw fuel droplets and magic "rocket paper" sheets blasting through the plate glass windows on the opposite side of the lol "enclosed space". Don't believe your lying eyes when you see the fireball clearly blowing out the plate glass: that was raw fuel and magic rocket papers, propelled allll the way out of the passenger compartment, through the nose of the aircraft, through an entire floor of the building, finally exiting in one perfect, unsullied piece through plate glass (twice) propelled entirely by 600mph of enertia before landing perfectly intact inside a stories-high pile of rubble that burned for days. 😆
WTF are you talking about?
did you not see a giant fireball and bunch of debris fly out of the other side of the building during the impact?
like you admit that happened right?
you don't think it's possible that some of the stuff in the plane made it out of the building? because we know that happened because they found a bunch of luggage and plane shit on the street outside.
lol, seriously wtf are you talking about?
also WTF is rocket paper?
hahahaha you're a mess.
"WTF are you talking about?" Oh, was it invisible on your end? Here ya go: "Lol Yea, because that was totally just raw fuel droplets and magic "rocket paper' sheets blasting through the plate glass windows on the opposite side of the lol 'enclosed space'. Don't believe your lying eyes when you see the fireball clearly blowing out the plate glass: that was raw fuel and magic rocket papers, propelled allll the way out of the passenger compartment, through the nose of the aircraft, through an entire floor of the building, finally exiting in one perfect, unsullied piece through plate glass (twice) propelled entirely by 600mph of enertia before landing perfectly intact inside a stories-high pile of rubble that burned for days. 😆"
i assume english isn't a 1st language, eh?
Folks, I'd like to make an appeal to be more critical of your own critical theories. This "jet fuel doesn't melt steel" meme has been amplified since the get go... and I'd place good money that was on purpose: to discredit reasonable inquiries into the official narrative. Everyone gets so hung up on the more fantastical theories of the HOW, that the "who" and the "why" are similarly treated with sloppy hole-ridden research, if the arguments ever even get to that.
It was never really controversial prior to this, that steel loses 50% of it weight bearing capacity long before its melting point, and loses 90% at temperatures created by normal office fires without any jet fuel or the impact of a plane hitting it.
https://www.steelconstruction.info/Fire_damage_assessment_of_hot_rolled_structural_steelwork
If we do some relevant research and had the opportunity to speak with certain folks who would know, say for example old time New Yorkers with some knowledge of large building construction and who remember the original construction of the Twin Towers, I think that would force a revision of these kinds of memes.
The main one being that before the sheets went up on these towers, it was obvious that the girder system they used not only allowed for the buildings to go up and completed in such a short period of time (a modular "stacking oreo cookies" type build), but it also meant that the strength of the towers were wholly at their peripheries and NOT at the core center. THAT's why the 1993 bombing in the basement was a complete fail, because it attempted to compromise the core center instead of the periphery.
So yes plane impacts at just one or two floors of the periphery would be more than enough to get the girders structurally weak from the heat, and would give way to the weight of the upper floors. What we originally thought we saw on 9/11 is what we would expect to see in that regard.
Unfortunately, if I or others point out these kinds of incongruencies with the 9/11 truther narratives, we get labeled shills for the government coverup narrative. See how that works? Almost no rational arguments or thorough journalistic inquiries about 9/11 have been possible for 20 years. Instead we get only either the 9/11 Commission Report or "Loose Change", nukes + no plane theories etc. That imho is the real ongoing tragedy piled on top of the original tragedy.
Note: I personally have no opinion on whether explosives were also planted on site prior to the attacks. I am just highlighting the rationality that what folks thought they saw on the morning of 9/11 was what they did in fact see. There is no reason to push the very weak theory that something like a Deep State David Blane had coordinated pulling a fast one over the masses, using fake passenger planes or some other easy complicated claim that is pretty much non-falsifiable.
You can argue about jet fuel until you're blue in the face and it doesnt get anywhere.
Why were cell phones working on the flight?
Why doesnt the timeline match up for the hijacking?
Why is there no plane debris?
Wouldnt the planes bounce off the towers?
The jet fuel arguement is pretty dumb too, the fuel burned off when the planes hit. It's low temp office fires and black smoke.
As for the arguement itself, under ideal conditions how many gallons of jet fuel would you need to damage one steel beam?
You ever burn carpet? That's not a low-temp fire.
Show me pictures of the glowing pool or the hardened puddle of all this molten metal.
Video would be way cooler but i'll settle for a picture.
The metal would have poured down the building, or down through the rubble pile, and collect in the lowspot of "the bathtub" that the towers were built in...
That puddle of molten metal would have solidified when it cooled.
Where is it? why are there zero pictures of it?
...why can't you find any?
Isn't it at all possible that you are just unintentionally regurgitating something you were told by an idiot or a liar?
The reason people make fun of "truthers" with the "can't melt beams" meme... is because it's so blatantly false on multiple levels.
Aside from the zero evidence that it did happen, there's zero evidence anyone important ever claimed it did. The only people who ever claimed there was molten metal or melting at all are the community of easily psyopped tryhards who regurgitate COINTELPRO well poisoning designed to distract the public from looking into the 4th plane and how it was obviously shot down by the 180th ANG out of toledo ohio (swanton actually).
They inserted dozens of ridiculous claims into the conspiracy forums in the weeks/months even years following the attacks. whenever people started talking about the 4th plane a new theory would emerge to cause fighting within the community, and turn rational people against anyone who discussed any theories that conflict with the official narrative.
Once you can get a group of people to believe something silly, you can use that planted belief to attack all of their other ideas by association.
All the attention was direct at the towers, 7, missiles, "melting beams"...
Remember "nano thermite"? how about the passenger swaps theory?
...At this point you should understand that it's highly possible that a bunch (all) of that is coming from the people who never want to have to sit in front of a microphone and say our military shot down that plane.
Seriously though... how does that convo go? "yeah so like sorry for totally shooting down a plane full of our own citizens but it was headed twords the whitehouse so like we kinda-sorta-had-ta... my bad"
Jet fuel is flammable yes or no?
Assuming yes, next question: when you aerosolize a bunch of fuel by slamming it into a giant metal mesh building at 500-600 mph... does it "burns up real gooder"?
(yep sure does, it's essentially a fuel air bomb at that point).
So just so we are clear... It's not possible that the jet fuel could have melted them at all, because all (lets be nice and say "most") of the fuel was expended in the giant fireball during the impact.
The "official story" is:
Ever wonder why the tower that got hit second fell first?
Thats because the plane struck lower on the tower... meaning the damaged area had to hold more weight... which speed up the process i outlined above.
Nothing had to melt for the towers to fall exactly as they did, and nobody real ever said anything melted.
Excellent comment. Now watch the downvotes roll in.
thank you and yeah i'm expecting a bunch of hollerin from the hoax hogs.
i probably could have been less of a prick about it but i've had it with this shit.
there are plenty of questions about that whole situation, but it has always struck me as odd how inverted the attention needed to attention given ratios are.
all the most useless, fake, and discrediting bullshit is all anyone ever seems to talk about.
pisses me off TBH.
look at the debris pattern in shanksville... thats not a ground impact, that is something breaking apart in the air and raining back down to earth.
"let's roll" is straight out of hollywood, they could make a movie about it...
oh thats right, they did.
good luck getting anyone to attack that sacred cow when there is so much other low hanging poisoned fruit ripe for the picking.
Firemen interviewed that day said there was streams of molten metal running down stairwells.
i haven't seen that but lets assume you are correct...
i'm telling you either that is a lie from them, or they were repeating a lie they were told.
don't believe that? cool, so where is the picture montage or video of the removal of the worlds largest hardened T2 puddle?
you'd think it would have been a rather momentous occasion what with it being the very last thing they would have been able to gain access to and crane it out of there. they probably would have made a monument with it and encouraged the public to prostrate to it.
Show me the selfies of people at the 9/11 memorial standing in front of the evidence you claim so obviously exists.
if that were a thing we'd be able to buy commemorative "patriot puddle" coasters and wall clocks (made in china).
You're somewhat mishmashing several things together here, makes it harder to decipher your point.
As far as the molten metal, there were reports and video of debris being lifted out of the pile where they would hit molten material. It ties in well with the thermite, which was analyzed as 'nano-aluminum'. It frustrated me because there are some here that think if you spill iron rust dust on aluminum and add heat that you'll get a thermitic reaction (realistically, you might get spots that react, but it won't be the whole). The smaller the aluminum particles the better surface contact with the iron oxide, which means a better chemical reaction.
The reports of that came from people who had collected dust samples and tested them.
I actually agreed when it came to lasers from space (or whatever Judy Wood was selling) among others as tainting the well.
It really did amaze me how this topic seems to have dropped the whole forum down to reddit tier the past few days. You'd think there could at least be some common ground, where can debate on the evidence of what DID happen, but we should all at least be in agreement that what did NOT happen was the "official story".
pictures, i can has them?
any pictures or video of things melting during the fire are going to be melting plastic... but i've never seen pictures of molten steel or the resulting pools of solidify molten steel.
ever
yikes...
so thermite is a 1:3 composition of aluminum powder and iron oxide powder. you get the composition hot enough with a stepped ignition (i like setting a magnesium ribbon on fire with a torch) until you are able to reach temps high enough to cause the aluminum to actually burn. the aluminum burns at a lower temp than the iron oxide but it is able to strip the oxide, using it as an oxidizer thus intensifying the burn and giving you one hell of an exothermic reaction.
the result is molten iron.
we used to use two flower pots, a small one inside a large one, with an insulative layer of perlite between the two. The smaller one acts as a crucible. When the reaction burns it way to the paper plug at the bottom the stream of molten iron flows out the bottom of the pot... it's pretty cool.
you don't need special aluminum, any old powdered aluminum will work i've even used painters flake but it sputtered a lot...
either way you certainly do not need thermite to cause the towers to fall and you certainly don't have a giant puddle of molten steel to show it was used on that day.
just in case you don't agree... please explain how exactly do you prevent all these magic thermite charges from being initiated when a 600 MPH plane slams into them?
also when those planes hit... what happens to the network of the required control wires needed to initiate ignition of all these devices? i mean they would have either used det cord or blasting wire... and it they used blasting wire we seem to be missing evidence of the giant trunk of wires cascading down the central staircase back to the blasting box where the computer is controlling the ematches/squibs.
see... all these theories are a lot of fun until you're trying to convince a guy who's been working with profession explosives and demolition since he was a kid.
i put on one hell of a fireworks show too couple-tree times a year.
Not to be shitty, I haven't really debated the topic in 10+ years, my archive of photos and videos is probably on a computer I no longer have, and would require some extensive digging to find copies online today.
Exactly, you don't NEED anything special to generate a reaction, but the finer the aluminum powder the more intense the reaction, with the nano-aluminum powder mix it becomes almost explosive. That's why the tech gets used for tasks like rocket separation.
God I hate that deboonker speak where you use words like "magic" to pretend like the position is stronger than it is.
The answer is speculation; either a) you don't care because any charges started early are in the damaged area where they won't be needed further, or b) knowing the segment that the collision was intended you know it's the opposite side that needs the cuts.
The area that needed to be removed to allow collapse is the core columns and elevator shafts, and even NIST analysis shows that those areas would not be impacted even in their worst case.
Remember, they were renovating the elevators right before 9-11, the crew even set up a light show in the weeks before.
The fact is that it is physically impossible that the top 1/3 of the structure punched through the bottom 2/3 of solid structure while only losing about 20% of gravity. Look up videos of demolition failures to see what would have been a more likely outcome.
without doing a multicut cause this is getting boring and you're getting snarky so this will go to shit fast (lol at REEEE about "magic")
i want to quote one thing in particular:
take a model of the building, cut the top 1/3 of it off, remove 3 or 4 floors, drop it back onto the opened top building.
each tower weighed 1,500,000 tons
how hard do you think it is for ANYTHING other than the earth to "catch" 500,000 tons and stop it from moving?
other than that...
where is the giant puddle monument?
show it to me.
You don't remember the articles, the satelite imagery showing thousand degree temperatures up to 6 months later?
Again, it's not "could it collapse" but "could it collapse AS IT COLLAPSED". If the 110 floors took 2-3 minutes instead of the ~40 seconds, then you would be making a strong point.
Projecting steel several blocks laterally, pulverized concrete from every floor, AND maintaining about 80% of gravity. That's not enough energy, even if you dropped the top 1/3 from 20 stories up.
And more, there was no "shock" a reduction in acceleration when the top block collided with the lower block.
BTW- it is reddit tier form to act shitty and then act hard done by when it's called out.
no
it 100% did collapse exactly like that though... why do you assume it's impossible even after you've had it explained to you.
once the upper 500,000 tons begins to freefall the broken topped bottom isn't able to "catch" the weight and it just unzipped those walls as the canteleverd floors blew apart in a cascade all the way down.
it looked like a piece of chalk in a press crumbling from the tip down to the ground... it's been modeled 100's of times it behaves exactly as it's supposed to when you actually account for the forces and weights and physics involved.
the building was mostly air, it's actually a feature in the design, one of the first of it's kind experimental open floors. due to the construction when you break the floors you break what is holding the walls pinned to the core
it's 500,000 tons, 1 Trillion pounds... in freefall as it falls through the failing damaged area. i mean come on man did you really expect 2/3 of a skyscraper to catch 1/3 of a skyscraper? it's impossible.
i wasn't complaining, i was laughing. you bitched about a sprinkle of sarcasm like it tore out a little chunk of your ass so much that you had to address it. it was awkward so i laughed.
all good man.
You're mistaken, that's why. It's impossible because the energy of pulverizing concrete and projecting steel beams outward requires energy, the ONLY energy available is 9.8m/s^2. That 500k tons had to crush through ~1500k tons, and it did so using only about 2m/s^2 of that energy.
If there was a 'pancake collapse' you have a collision of 2 floors, then the floor breaks, drops, then collide with the next, break, drop, collide, break, drop. That would appear on video in a noticeable and measureable feature of collapse.
Then the simulations, the simulations were garbage, they didn't go from start to end because they ALL diverge from the video, the worst was WTC 7, where the simulation couldn't even get to 7 seconds before being noticeably different from the video.
"...but we should all at least be in agreement that what did NOT happen was the "official story"."
Absolutely agreed. It's awfully hard to find the real story when the "evidences" against the "official story" are just plain stupid. Discredits the entire search.
How do you mean?
One of the best tools I've found for debunking the official story is to use the NIST and other reports.
Physics knowledge is enough, from various angles, to show the collapses as captured are not physically possible without extra energy input (ie; explosives).
What I'm saying is that there is viable evidence of malfeasance on 9/11. We shouldn't be focusing on "fire doesn't melt steel" and "45 degree angle cuts." That sort of obviously refutable "evidence" just makes the people trying to expose the viable evidence look like lunatics.
Which I'm sure absolutely elates the people responsible.
It's really a matter of trauma induced cognitive dissonance. People have a mental block from being able to see any of that evidence, that really isn't refutable when you know what you're looking at.
That said, I agree, thanks for clarifying.
Iron has two different crystal structures at atmospheric pressure: the body centered cubic (bcc) and the face centered cubic (fcc). In the ground state the bbc α-phase is stable, and at the temperature T=1671 F (A3 point), α-Fe transforms into fcc α-Fe, which is stable up to 2537 F K(A4 point).
The Body-Centered Cubic (BCC) unit cell can be imagined as a cube with an atom on each corner, and an atom in the cube’s center. It is one of the most common structures for metals. BCC has 2 atoms per unit cell
The Face-Centered Cubic (FCC) unit cell can be imagined as a cube with an atom on each corner, and an atom on each face. It is one of the most common structures for metals. FCC has 4 atoms per unit cell
This means, that as the jet fuel burns at 1, 517 F, and heat is contained (such as in a building), as the iron/steel beams are heated, they at first expand - due to thermal heating. But, when the temperature of the iron/steel beams exceeds 1,671 F; the iron SHRINKS BY HALF
This PULLS the building down, melting is unnecessary.
That explain the molten metal months after?
No one said that the iron cannot, or did not melt. What I said, was that as you heat iron/steal from normal ambient temperatures through 1,671 F, on the way to the melting point (2,800 F), the crystalline configuration of iron changes. Iron/steel will undergo normal and expected expansion from room temperature and up, but when it crosses above 1671 F - it will SHRINK by half, as the atomic crystalline structure changes. No force on earth can stop it. It's done at the atomic level.
As you continue to heat the iron, beyond the face centered cubic phase (A4 point), eventually it will melt into a liquid. This is an area of metallurgy called Materials Science. Something most engineers learn.
Howd they convince those steel beams throughout the entire building to all shrink within the same 10 seconds? And thrice on one day and never before or again after ?
The change in crystalline structure doesn't require ALL of the steel beams to buckle at the same time. If you have a single 8 ft section of beam, that decides to become a 4 ft section of beam; it will pull the floor above it down. When you have an area about the size of a 747 all burning, you have sufficient heat to affect the central pillars. Then you start a pancake collapse.
The location of the impact, was designed for precisely this type of failure. Too high, and you don't have sufficient mass to create the pancake failures, too low and the impact will not begin the chain reaction.
Based on your 'pancake' theory I should be able to stand a school bus on end and drop a Volkswagen bug from say 10/20 feet above the front of the bus from the top end. What I should witness is the bug 'pancake' the bus all the way to the bottom end or ie, completely flattened the bus top to bottom. I sincerely hope you have nothing to do with civil engineering.
Good grief. Your knowledge of physics is matched my your understanding of crystalline structures. When you collapse a pancake cement layer structure, the potential energy above the failure point, cascades into the surfaces below the failure point, with more energy than the original failure. Have you never see. A controlled demolition? Ever wonder why they simply don’t blow out the bottom level?
So you are saying the twin towers were destroyed via controlled demolition. Got it. No need to keep droning on about muh crystalline structures and other crap you have zero understanding of.
Did the 45° cuts help or hurt?
The photos of 45 degree cuts that I've seen were fresh. No rust = those cuts were made in place, after the whole area was sprayed with water.
Therefore, the 45 degree cuts neither helped nor hurt.
What you are missing is the fact that the jet fuel was merely an accelerant. There were thousands of tons of petrochemicals and wood in those buildings in the form of carpet, vinyl, adhesives, furniture, paper, etc. Plenty of stored chemical energy to soften steel to the point where it can no longer bear the thousands of tons on top of it.
Then explain why the Grenfell Tower did not collapse? 24 story tower, fire breaks out on 4th floor, burns for 60 hours....60 HOURS. Let me guess....no jet fuel. Your soften steel argument is BS kiddo.
was a fully loaded passenger jet intentionally slammed into the Grenfell Tower at 600 MPH causing massive damage to multiple floors before the fire started?
Was the Grenfell Tower built using standard rigid box style riveted girder construction?
...or was it constructed with a "radical design" of a cantilevered open floor concept that bridged the central core to the outer skin facade using horizontal zig zag trusses which held metal pans to hold concrete with pretensioned wires inside?
don't you think it's fair to admit that you can design a building to withstand a fire, and you can design it to withstand an impact... but good luck designing it to survive an impact that destructive and a fire that burned that long at the same time.
You're just not being realistic/honest at all in your comparison and you're either doing it on purpose or it was done to you on purpose.
barely-below-the-surface investigation makes your assertions sound silly.
The Twin Towers were designed to easily withstand multiple airline impacts. An aluminum can smashing into the most advanced building of its time would not have done shit to the structural integrity. Collaborate with your low iq shills here and try again....
Wow it's amazing how ridiculous this hollow rebutal has gotten over time... first it was just "a plane" then it became "the same exact plane that hit it" now it's "multiple planes"
It's just fascinating.
They were designed to survive the impact of a smaller plane moving at a much slower speed, light on fuel. This is "a thing" because of the bomber which was low on fuel and lost in a fog looking to land at LaGuardia which then crashed into the side of the empire state building.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/plane-crashes-into-empire-state-building#:~:text=A%20United%20States%20military%20plane%20crashes%20into%20the,Massachusetts%2C%20to%20LaGuardia%20Airport%20in%20New%20York%20City.
holy shit the hyperbole is strong with you, you have a real bad habit of making ridiculous hot takes even worse by exaggerating them. you should work on that.
planes aren't beer cans an empty12 oz beer can weighs 0.033 pounds all up weight on a Boeing 757 is 255000 Lb, a Boeing 767 weighs more
which do you think has more mass?
which do you think is going to do more damage at 600 MPH?
did you not see the video of the impacts?
are you actually claiming that the impacts/explosions/shit flying out the other side was faked?
before you answer that... please remember that half of new york and new jersey was in person standing in the streets or looking out their windows watching the fire of the first tower burn when the second plane hit...
are you seriously suggesting that the thousands and thousand of eyewitnesses who watched a plane fly into the second tower... the videos these people took... all fake?
no it wasn't, it was considered "radical" because it was a cantilevered floor design and MANY architects warned that it was unsafe for this exact reason... (susceptible to collapse due to damage combined with sustained fire)
you can see the giant holes in the side of the building, the holes alone are literally damaging the structural integrity because part of the design was to pin the floors to the outer perimeter walls.
the zig zag trusses and pretensioned concrete floors pinned the structure together, when the floors sagged and failed there was nothing left holding the walls to the central core... allowing bowing.
without floors you have no stability control over torsion forces on the exterior.
most ironic L of the day.
Take a break and light off some firecrackers 'explosive expert'....you guys are not having a good night....
Couldn't tell ya. I'm just applying some common sense here.
Actually no, you aren't....
I am. Allow me to demonstrate:
This level of reasoning appears to be beyond your ability, but that's ok. I have extra crayons you can eat.
You don't and haven't demonstrated anything bendy/chemical/soft/whatever metal. I have a bag of dicks you can eat.
So an airplane with tanks full of jet fuel will instantaneously combust, or will there be a large impact, the vaporized jet fuel make a large plume; while the remaining fuel pours out into the burning fire. A fully loaded 747 will carry several hundred gallons of fuel
That explain the building that wasn’t hit?
This says nothing more, or anything less than the atomic crystalline nature of iron/steel.
cut the buulshit, hodar.... iron will not shrink in half.... that's the dumbest thing i've heard all day... go make yourself a dikdok video or something.
I yield to the uneducated - who apparently has no clue how to use the internet, but would rather insult, than take a second to learn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotropes_of_iron
https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/bcc-fcc
https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_4/backbone/r4_2_2.html
https://www.princeton.edu/~maelabs/hpt/materials/mater_39.htm
https://nitter.net/bobby_network/status/1569074292452737025
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=1976&v=mYGE_HOsmEw&feature=youtu.be
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HXYswf3lzU8&feature=youtu.be
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it
Dank
You Win...
Perfect
Nah, this game is FINISH HIM.
I'm afraid to ask.... has Mortal Kombat changed to "FINISH THEM" yet? I hope not..............
This is fantastic.
No, in reality it's pretty stupid.
The winner all depends on whether that beam has to hold up thousands of tons while hot.
A good campfire will soften steel enough to bend by hand.
I know, right?
That explains all those Bar-B-Ques spontaneously collapsing
They are engineered to take the heat load they're exposed to. Try tossing a barbecue into an accelerated inferno, then pile a few hundred pounds on top. See how that structural integrity works out.
"They are engineered to take the heat load..." Yes, by being constructed of steel and iron. 🙂
Good grief. The only way to build a building economically is to engineer it to BARELY stand. If you exceed the structural tolerances, IT FALLS. It doesn't matter what it's made of.
"The only way to build a building economically is to engineer it to BARELY stand." Kek "Good grief". No: low-cost leader is definitely not the only marketing method. Also, no: not every building has been engineered to "barely stand". That particular building was definitely not engineered to barely stand. What nonsense. Quick! Grab your thesaurus and find a new slippery escape route.
Oh, ok, so they built a bunker 110 stories tall. Cool.
You have to minimize materials and construction costs or you never make a profit. You could build your house so that it would resist me if I rammed it with a bulldozer, but I'd be willing to bet your house would topple like it was made of paper. BECAUSE YOUR HOUSE IS BUILT ECONOMICALLY.
I'm done arguing with willful idiots. Later.
people literally have to heat it in forges till it's glowing and hit it with heavy hammers to get it to stretch and bend small amounts.
ok so we know that with enough force you can just bend metal right?
and if you want to make the job easier you apply heat.
and the more you heat it the less force you need to bend it right?
after impact the buildings are essentially two structural systems divided by a damaged system... like the DMZ dividing N and S Korea. the damaged area is now able to hold far less weight than it was optimized to hold before it got compromised. the weight from the undamaged building above the impact zone is now being carried by far fewer structural elements...
aka "less shit to hold up shit".
now set all of that shit on fire and let it cook for a long time, getting hotter and hotter... getting softer, getting weaker.
as the fires burned you could see floors sagging, you could see trusses hanging there and dropping down between floors... it was fucking dicked.
you could see deformation of the outside skin as the inside floors sagged and pulled (lateral tension) on the sides of the building from the inside.
i have no idea what dude is talking about with crystalline structures and expanding and contracting... all i know is the floors got hot, they sagged, it pulled the walls inward till the top of the building was too heavy then it failed...
we are talking about the top 1/3 or 1/4 of one of the largest structures on the planet... how much do you think all that shit weighs?
more importantly, once the damaged area can't hold the top anymore and all that shit starts falling down the only thing stopping all of that mass in motion is going to be the planet.
Thanks for having the patience to explain it in more detail than I did. I don't expect it'll do any good, but good comment.
no worries, i'm actually shocked i've been able to bite my tounge this much cause i really hate these people. i'm fading fast i don't think i can deal with these people much more tonight it's really depressing.
The top of the building would have toppled over ,it wouldn't have imploded into its own footprint. While your at it explain bldg 7 and no airplane wreckage at the pentagon
yikes
buildings aren't trees, they don't "topple over" like that when this type of damage and failure occurs. it's actually quite complicated to get a building to fall over to the side, it requires months of careful planning and strategic charges placed in all the right places going off in a pattern to allow the building to fall the way you want it to.
some do begin to fall that way, but once it starts to lean everything just explodes from the tension and unless it has something to pivot on or there are precisely timed charges to sever foundational links where the tension would be... it drops straight down (cause gravity).
in fact, if you watch the collapse, you can see the antenna on top of the tower leaning to the side before it does exactly what i just described... starts to lean then accelerates downward.
same exact "damage + fires = collapse" that caused the first two to drop.
WTC7 had massive damage done to it by the collapse of the other two, there were also multiple fires that started all over that area when it got damaged. those fires heated up the damaged area until the damaged area was no longer able to carry the weight of the building above.
out of all the things you said this is the most embarrassing one and the one you should probably stop saying the most. there are plenty of pictures showing wreckage, even part of an engine and landing gear...
shortly after the attack someone posted a whole slew of pictures they took from the road, on the other side of the fence, that had obstructed views due to the grass berm they were behind.
a bunch of disinfo assholes started saying "oh look there's no plane parts" and people ran with it.
you can just google img search "pentagon plane wreckage" and you'll see how debunked this particular one is.
...perhaps ask yourself how exactly did you come to believe this without ever checking into it yourself and how that might also be true about other things you believe.
Thousands of engineers and architect's disagree.
No fireproof steel building in the world ever collapsed into its own footprint until 9 11 when 3 did
There wasn't any airplane wreckage at the Pentagon and YOU don't have any pictures 9f it
Hundreds of NYC Firefighters heard the explosives going off
The truth is coming out and you're in a panic, ts so much fun to watch. Have a nice day Rabbi
wow, you're probably the biggest faggot in this thread
a fringe minority of dumb people with a dumb opinion.
they weren't "fireproof" (god damn you are stupid for saying that, lol) 1 + 2 were radical open floor plan design, and no building on the planet has been intentionally rammed at 600mph by a fully fueled passenger jet.
wrong faggot, here's literally first three things that come up in an image search for "pentagon plane crash":
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/F321/production/_95414226_9-11pentagondebris.jpg https://drop.ndtv.com/albums/NEWS/pentagon_photos/2.jpg https://images05.military.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/2021-09/pentagon-911-1200-1.jpg?itok=59V_9kAk
first off prove that (you literally can't you're just making up "hundreds" cause you're a faggot), secondly yeah lots of loud noises happen during building collapses
faggot.
why would i keep calling you a faggot you might be wondering? well, only a glowfag faggot would say all this easily debunked bullshit and then follow it up with a faggoty line like this:
= faggot
you're the reason people come here and call us "antisemites", people like you either don't belong here at all (cause you're such a massive faggot) or you're a plant doing this stupid faggot shit on purpose to make everyone here look bad.
either way die in a fire faggot.
911 Truther LOL. Good one rabbi
u/#q916
Try harder rabbi Saving Isreal for last
Stick a piece of rebar in a good coal bed for half an hour. You'll be able to bend it. If you want to shape it you'll need a hammer and some sweat, but that's not what we're talking about.
"Coal" isn't a "campfire" and burns much hotter than wood. Now, add the other required non-campfire implements. Heck, move the goal posts all the way over to the blacksmith shop.
For Pete's sake, you don't even know what campfire coals are? I'm astounded at how cocksure ignorant people can be.
"For Pete's sake", your use of equivocation renders pretty much every claim that you make meaningless. The thesaurus is not Vaseline for slippery escapes. "Coal" is not wood cinders. I've never once seen a "coal" campfire. Perhaps you meant 'a bed of hot coals', but that's not what you said. The entire claim is silly to begin with.
Respectfully... bologna. You can put aluminum stock under a "campfire" and have a tough time getting it to melt, if anything at all... and I grew up throwing copper wire in the fire pit: it's still there after the cinders are cold. If you could melt steal in a "campfire", with no apparatus such as bellows, you would've changed the course of human history.
and respectfully... the upper 1/3 of one of the tallest buildings on the planet pressing down on the heated metal is able to exert considerably more force on that metal than you can while sitting around a campfire making smores
It was a very large building, with A LOT of material. I'm sure we could selectively highlight convenient and discard inconvenient physical properties all night... like rapid heat distribution through an unusually massive external steel structure.
Reading comprehension is a good thing. I said nothing about melting.
"I said nothing about melting." What TF do you think "soften" means? Get a thesaurus. No, you aren't melting, loosening, liquifying, thawing, unhardening or "softening" steel in a "campfire". It's a silly claim.
Friggin' moron. You must be trolling, nobody is this stupid. Later.