A Picture Says a Thousand Words.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (22)
sorted by:
This is a bit very misleading photo. I personally watched ground Zero as well there's cut ground support beams to bring down unstable columns of steel to the ground.
This however comment in no way whatsoever detracts from the fact that ate plutonium-based nuclear weapons charges were used to bring down the WTC.. fucking FIGHT me
Ok, I will!
9/11 was an inside job, but the idea of thermite gel and all the other wild stuff was purposefully spread. 9/11 was allowed to happen by all involved, and the patriot act would have been drawn up and passed regardless of whether the towers fell or not. We already had the video of people jumping out of the windows, the people on Flight 93 fighting the hijackers, and so on. The justifications were already there before the towers fell. Their falling was just the icing on the cake.
As someone who plays with metal, including the molten kind, I can tell you that jet fuel doesn't need to melt steel beams. But jet fuel does burn at 1400-2700 degrees Fahrenheit, which can easily melt the aluminum skin of the plane, turning it into a molten puddle that can burn through the flooring and settle on those steel beams. Steel beams which were carrying the extra load created by a now compromised central support structure, carrying the weight of a six-inch thick concrete and rebar roof spanning nearly an acre. Jet fuel alone isn't enough to melt steel beams and cause a collapse. A jet fuel fire and molten aluminum are enough to further weaken steel beams already under high tension though.
;b
I'm mostly talking out of my ass, except for playing with metal.
I think that was the point most normies take right around it melting or not melting the beams. But you would think that unless all the beams were melted simultaneously and instantly all the way down, wouldn't the towers be way more likely to fall over rather than straight down. Heated metal bends before it crumples.
Even controlled demos aren't perfect
Not all the beams all the way down, no.
So the footprint of a tower was roughly 208ft x 208ft. The roof was a concrete slab 6 inches thick—likely reinforced with rebar, and of course the large antenna on top. No real way to calculate all of it together, but assuming the concert's density alone was 133 lbs/ft3, then you're looking at about 800 cubic yards of concrete, which would weigh roughly 1600 tons capping off the top of these buildings.
For reference, a fully-loaded 747 weighs 442 tons.
I think the case could be made that 1600 tons sitting at the tippy top is a lot of weight. The support structures designed to hold weight up vertically (and sway with the wind) were compromised at the points of impact by a plane crashing into the building, and the surrounding structure left now had to shoulder not only vertical load but shear load as well. Add fire, molten aluminum, and maybe even wind creating sway to the mix, and I do think you have a situation where taken all together, it was enough to weaken the remaining structure near the plane, and the 1600-ton roof did the rest.
And I will stress this again, I do think 9/11 was an inside job, I just disagree with the premise that it was done via a very elaborate plan involving undercover maintenance crews and slathering thermite gel everywhere.
Bring it on jap. I want to fight you.
You have a point in that we don’t know when it was cut. The perfect 45 degree cut is suspect depending on when though.
Edit: thank you for keeping me honest.