Really makes you think

Really makes you think

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-5y8PtfKA14
metabunk.org/debunked-wtc7-vs-chechnyas-tallest-building-fire-grozny-city-complex.t1804/
youtube.com/watch?v=re3OnSVEWok
youtube.com/watch?v=8qv_sr8SBvg
youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUA
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

there wasn't any jet fuel.

It also didn't have a fucking plane slam into it.

This

It wasn't in dire need of repairs and owned by Larry Silverstein though.

It was made with Chechen Reinforced Steel from the 2nd war. Doesn't count.

It was 1/5th the WTC size
It didn't have a 747 slam into it
It wasn't built by americunts

ITZ A CONSPEEEERAAACYYY

>no impact damage
>still should collapse

huuuurrrrrrrrrr

No jet fuel to melt the beams.

It didn't have steel beams.

And they had Allah on their side.

don't forget.

I could show you a case of a small private jet hitting a small house and failing to demolish it.

الرد على هذه الوظيفة أو أمك هي ستعمل يموت بينما لها هو النوم هذه الليلة

!!!

Did a commercial airliner smash into it?

...

It had no beans to melt xDD

god isn't real leafbro

Sounds like quite the false equivalence to me.

youtube.com/watch?v=-5y8PtfKA14

also, everyone should see this.
~ 40 seconds youll have some laughs

how do you even know thats from sandy hook?
It just looks like a zoom in of a muddy picture

This. 2 planes brought down 3 towers. Muslim magic.

> what is Building 7

are you trolling or just stupid?

metabunk.org/debunked-wtc7-vs-chechnyas-tallest-building-fire-grozny-city-complex.t1804/

youtube.com/watch?v=re3OnSVEWok

sandy hook was one of the biggest fuckups in decades.

Sorry I don't speak German

THIS

It's not like there's a broad sample of planes hitting buildings.

But generally when planes hit buildings, they don't completely destroy the fucking things.

You are either stupid or trolling

kek

>extreme fire
>in the basement

Neither

It wasn't hiding something....

That was Al-Andalus-ish though.

jet fuel melted the beams

you conspiracy truther fucktard

a building that had another building fall on top of it
1.a dumb fat american cop is not rare archetype

2.someone that works at a newspaper googled "swat guys" and selected a picture that some other newspaper already used

cmon son, the flat earthers bring out better arguments

youtube.com/watch?v=8qv_sr8SBvg

you can watch that solid documentary if you actually give a shit. nothing about sandy hoax makes any sense whatsoever.

this

They also didn't have any charges of termite placed to cut the steel beams.

Will do, I haven't watched a good comedy in a while, can't wait for the inevitable illuminati references

In the mean time you my friend might want to read up on cognitive disonance

If heard the argument that the towers were designed with planned failures. Sort of like how a car has designated points that will bend/crush first to protect the driver. No clue the validity of the claim though

Did it also get hit by tons of steel at high speed?

especially not when a small plane hits a house that has very little load compared to a FUCKING SKYSCRAPER

cessna < 767
grandma's house < world trade center

I can't read german, could you please repeat that in a civilized language?

you do that bud

Anyone who's been browsing pol for more than 10 minutes has heard the term cognitive dissonance a billion times you argumentless faggot

They didn't pull it

Mods, please remove these the_donald-tier threads.

Sage, report and hide these threads.

Because of superior Chechen engineering

>everyone is telling me I am wrong
>it must mean Im a genius!

Russian steel is superior comparing to yours

This is Sup Forums
There should always be conflict.

he says answer to this post or your mother will die in her sleep

>Argumentum ad populum

>argumentum a contrario

Commies made stuff to last.

probably because a plane didnt crash into it

Russian technology, m8

what is millions of tons of steel heat and pressure on an already weakened support system

It was a grease fire. Look away!!!

Also, me on the left.

No building is designed to fail or collapse. That's a myth, as is the "designed to survive a plan impact" since there was no way to predict/simulate that kind of stuff back when the WTC was built.

>argumentum a retardo

>argumentum americano *dun dun dun*

>Argumentum a contrario
>Just because something has yet to be disproven, doesn't make it correct
>Also not always fallacious, rather a logical device
>Also has nothing to do with what I posted

CAPTCHA: Jeudis frei

I said private jet, not a cessna, so that would involve the jet fuel which of course apparently has the properties of thermite.

Jet fuel has very little to do with it. That stuff burned away within a few minutes after impact. The real fires inside were just the contents of the building.
The real problems were that the plane destroyed the structural system of outer columns and the inner core, destroyed the fire sprinkler system, and stripped the fireproofing off the trusses on the floors/ceilings.
This happened on about 5 floors of Tower 1 and around 8 floors of Tower 2.

Unprotected (bare) steels does not need very much heat before it loses its strength. It won't met and liquefy, but it will sag. That is obviously a problem when it's a part of a larger system and expected to hold a load.

>non-engineers trying to talk about structural failure

why didn't you immediately do it though?

oy vey shut you down!

>Really makes you think

Main reason:

The Twin Towers didn't have support beams throughout the interior like every other building does. It was deemed too expensive. So the walls were created as the main load-bearing structures, with only a handful of beams in the center of the buildings, which was hollow elevator shafts.

When the planes hit the buildings, they compromised 2 of 4 sides, and burning jet fuel ran down the elevator shafts like water down a hose. The jet fuel softened (not melted, but SOFTENED) the few beams there, and when they lost structural integrity, the two walls left over were not enough to support the section above the gaping "wounds".

When the mostly whole top section fell into the bottom section, it peeled the building like a banana from the inside out at almost free fall speeds.

I saw the finite element analysis, I know exactly how it went. It's all scientific and nothing out if the ordinary.

youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUA

>hey, this is our buddy Mark, you saw the whole thing didn't ya
>duuuude.... I saw the whole thing, yeah... epic
American journalism

Temperature that kerosene AKA jetfuel burns at: 430-815C. The top end being burned as efficiently as possible, say in an engine. Not just a general fire. The flame is blue at that point.

Temperature that steel starts to lose structural integrity: 550C

Catches fire but didn't have a fucking jet flown into it.
Go fuck yourself OP.

kek. wonder if there is a correlation between jewish ownership of buildings and collapsing during fires.

>support beams
you know how I know you're not an engineer?

>29 hours
It was 8 hours and controlled.

>The Twin Towers didn't have support beams throughout the interior like every other building does.

flacidly incorrect (pic related)

the tower behind it looks taller

So it should bend not turn to dust mid air top to bottom leaving little to non rubble. Heated up steel bends. But I agree 99% of truthers got it wrong.

It was also built like 40 years after the Trade Center towers.

I know this might come as a shock, but we have made some improvements in building design over the last ~half a century.

you realize your pic proves him right?

It kept standing with the power of Allah.

Nearly all the fuel was burned away in the initial explosion. The flash that appeared right after impact and then quickly went away. Pretty much a fuel-air bomb.
550 degrees C (Roughly 1,020 F) is not hard to attain with that kind of fire fuel-load. Added to with a steady source of air.
Even though the fire was not burning efficiently, as evidenced by the huge amount of black smoke.

>Icebergs didn;t sink the titanic, it was controlled explosions
>my uncle's yacht hit some ice and didn't sink, that's how I know

It wasnt laced with c4 and wired to blow, hence it still stands.

Anyone who thinks 9/11 wasnt a controlled demolition is fucking retarded.

No, the steel itself has to reach that temperature.

Just being beside a fire that might have reached that for an instant isn't enough. You need a sustained, very hot fire.

The WTC didn't have a 747 slam into it either.

That is fucking disgusting. His hook nose and her hairy tits. Kill them all

Are you suggesting that fire can't melt steel beams?

I don't they used hutchison effect weapon, tell me you didn't hear about it.

I should add that everything below the first line of that post is talking about the actual fires fueled by the contents of the building. The things actually burning for prolonged periods of time and that were weakening the trusses. .

This
probably

Maybe because a fucking plane didn't crash into it and damage the internal structure

>The real fires inside were just the contents of the building.
>Unprotected (bare) steels does not need very much heat before it loses its strength. It won't met and liquefy, but it will sag.

So we have arrived at printer paper melts steel beams.

767*

2 planes, 3 buildings

You're right a plane didn't hit WTC7. Two towers literally fell all around it fucking everything up.

>paper
>carpet
>furniture
>plastics
>suspended ceiling tiles
>painted coatings

3 stories of burning offices weaken steel supports which already has to support upper floors
not MELT, weaken

wtc 7 had shit from other buildings fall on it

Planes can't fly at full speed at that altitude - air density.

And what the fuck do you think happens when entire floors of office furniture and equipment are going to do in that scenario? Just sit there and NOT burn?