How does an aluminum plane destory a steel building?

how does an aluminum plane destory a steel building?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/Pia2wu_QqTg
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

because, physics, nigga.

Lots of force.

Enough mass accelerated to a certain speed hitting certain steel beam shaped parts of a building results in the US invadin Iraq.

Plane didn't do 99% of the damage. The prolonged heat weakened the main supports which failed allowing the floors above to fall. Which in turn broke the loose the floors below from their supports. Stored potential energy released. Not really that hard to understand unless there's some chromosomal issues at hand.

Deus vult.

"Its science bitch"

and to this day I still dont give a fuck

I wonder how much gass u need to do enough dmg to foundations. Is 1/4 tank enough?

There is an answer to that. But because it can't fit on a bumper sticker, many people can't grasp it.

>Not really that hard to understand unless there's some chromosomal issues at hand.
Maybe OP is just kiddo?

you were too young, from another country, or youre stupid and edgy

Velocity.

Motherfucking jet fuel

People say that Jet Fuel can't melt steel beams.

Yea well, fuck them people.

jet fuel

They say the same thing about you.

What if 911 was insurance fraud?

I bet the World Trade Center complex was an asbestos nightmare. Just sayin'.

"How sadly fortunate the problem was removed"

So cp jetfuel = kJ kg / K
Structure breaks xz energy?

Here, for bumper sticker.

+kinetic e

aluminum planes cant steel jet beams meldted

People say that. But the fire was high up a skyscraper. When i first saw that i wondered why they didn't fly to the bottom of the building. But now i think it was more effective where they hit. There's more wind up there. When you supply wind to all that burning jetfuel and other fuels. It likely had a stoking/bellows effect. This produces a very hot fire.

I would kinda doubt it had asbestos. The reason they used to use that shit is because it worked so well. Maybe with asbestos no collapse?

Sounds like official 911 report

They don't, few people actually believe they did.

You mean the one done by people who know their shit and have all possible information, rather than random faggots on the internet with next to no info?

Stop pretending that you know anything about physics or material science. It takes about 2 or 3 undergraduate engineering courses to understand how something like this happens, and it's really nothing spectacular. If you really want to convince people that the government is responsible for 9/11, an idea I am not opposed to, you need to do it without ignoring the fundamentals science.

No. That's not how it was done. The planes that hit were clearly military planes painted military gray. Not commercial white with red or blue patches. Those military planes were strapped with a bomb on the under belly. Something that is never on a commercial flight. Just look for yourself. I can't convince anyone. You have to see the truth for yourself.

by weighing a lot and going really fast

Jet fuel can't melt steal beams.

Over and out

I feel for the True Americans who have to make such Difficult Decisions. They knew angels would be lost in the aftermath. I truly feel for them.

Momentum

>clearly military planes painted military gray
>with a bomb on the under belly

ummm no, dumbass. they weren't.

Uh yes it was. I see them all the time I know the difference between the two. I seen the second plane with my own eyes riding down the Hudson River. Just look for yourself or believe what the media and W Bush tells you, cause American media don't lie to it citizens. Right?

youtu.be/Pia2wu_QqTg

Go to 1:19 and tell me you don't see the explosions several floors below where the actual collapse is happening.

Look closely at the corner or the tower, again several floors below.

Sorry. Don't hate me cause you are lied to.

Holy fuck. I've never seen that clip.

im dumber for having watched that

That's not explosions. That is a stack collapse pushing air and debris out between the floors while the top is pancaking floors on the down.

buildings worked like a giant blast furnace.

Bad bait

it was a controlled demolition

the jet fuel was made from diamonds, all the big diamond syndicates were in on it. THIS IS THE TRUTH THEY DONT WANT U TO KNOW

what is funny is how US didnt see such a risk coming
those jets can go 700mph
imagine you standing on a highway and a car hitting you
jet going 10x that fast and far more masive, and laoded with high test fuel
then do some exptrapolation

Proof. Just because something can be explained by practical science, doesn't mean that's actually what happened. You're being just as ignorant by claiming that.

There's a clip around of the architect of the towers talking about the possibility of planes hitting them, before 9/11 happened. He talked about how he built them to withstand whatever the precious Boeing model was, since that was the biggest baddest airplane around, but during construction they made the 747. He was concerned. kek

Then why are the explosions straight vertical lines? There's more then enough space for pressure to escape from different solitary windows, ya know, not aligned in a straight line?

And you're being an idiot. If a building can be destroyed by ONLY flying a plane into it, why would anyone go through the trouble of also rigging the whole building with bombs that could jeopardize the secrecy of the operation?

>precious
Previous

Good point, well made

Mass x acceleration = force.

...

>Those military planes were strapped with a bomb on the under belly. Something that is never on a commercial flight.

You don't say?

>prolonged heat
like the jet fuel that burned up quickly
or muh office fires

We gotta ask the real question
>How can a plane hit a building at the speed it was going alongside the wind catching the building as it should sway ever-so-slightly, if designed properly and the WTC still collapses in on itself

Whut

I'm a structural engineer and you're a fucking retard if you think an architect knows fucking anything about the loads structures can take.

Where did he say you could only destroy the towers by jet?

I see no one arguing against this.

>architect
>how he built them to withstand

Pretty sure thats an engineer not an architects job Doesn't the architect make it look nice and the engineer makes it stay standing?

It doesn't... Unless the U.S. government puts explosives in the building. Building 7. How does No airplane blow up a building?

He didn't say it, physics does

yeah right like the htermodynamics that dont allow for jet fuel to melt steel wires thats what happened or more precisesly didnt happen.

fucking moreon sheeple wake up an d go outside and see the world around ou there arent governmetns out there there are just stores and cows and forests.

wake up!!!!!

>implying that in the entire construction of the twin towers the architectural firm in charge of designing them didn't once consult engineers on structural integrity
>implying they even needed too and didn't have their own on-site engineering team

No sir, you are the one who is retarded.

KE = 0.5 x mv2.

A lot of v.

specifically a lot of v, filled with C12H26 and assorted other carbon-chains.

C12H26 combined with O2.

All of which is not a friend of g=9.807 m/s²

A good way to think about it is that the building is a movie and the lead architect is the director. He's ultimately in charge of everything and has final say, but he probably doesn't know how to keep the cameras running, get the sets built, etc. so he delegates that out to people who are experts in those things. Doesn't mean he doesn't have a good idea about how the set was built and what it was meant to do from talking to the guy who built it.

Weight and velocity. A piece of splintered wood can spear through concrete at high speeds, I don't see how an aluminium plane couldn't do the same to a steel building

...

They didn't have to melt it, just soften it up a bit. The building was a stressed skin construction, much like aircraft and modern cars. It's primary strength is in it's -shape-, the materials used are strong enough to hold the -shape- under most stresses. Deform the -shape- of the structure and most of it's strength is gone. Tear a big whole in two sides of it and it was just a matter of time before it fell. The fire reduced what strength was left, hastening the process.

...

Jet Fuel Stupid!!!!

Better question. How does nothing destroy a building. Wtc7 folks

When big chunks of another building tear a gash 30 feet wide and several floors long down the back side of the building. That's how.

see

With mass and energy.

/thread

bretty gud

While it is true that jet fuel cannot melt steel, it did not need to. At a much lower temperature that jet fuel burns at, structural steel loses more than 50% of its strength. it didn't need to melt it

I guess everyone over at engineers911 are wrong, stupid engineers.

...

There are two painted stripes on the underbelly. Hooray.

If it was in color you'd see it was paint, but noooo.

You clearly dont understand how construction works. Architects dont know what the fuck a kN is. Site engineers dont know detailed design either, they more make sure the rebars are put in the correct position.

Regardless if the architect sat down with an engineer and asked them to make sure the building could take a plane impact, it doesnt mean shit coming from their mouth. Get a structural engineer to tell you that building wasn't meant to collapse. No credible str eng will.

I am an engineer

top kek

Then explain how the rest of the lower half collapse? I mean tower 1 (I think) was struck near the top or the tower. How did the bottom half lose strength, when it wasn't even effected by the fire.
We all know heat rises.

See

is it weird that i used to see videos of how they were made all the time on the history channel /modern marvels, but now cant find a single one?

Its the ALUMINATI

...

...

WARNING! Carry on reading! Or you will die, even if you only looked at the word warning! Once there was a little girl called Clarissa, she was ten-years-old and she lived in a mental hospital, because she killed her mom and her dad. She got so bad she went to kill all the staff in the hospital so the -government decided that best idea was to get rid of her so they set up a special room to kill her, as humane as possible but it went wrong the machine they were using went wrong. And she sat there in agony for hours until she died. Now every week on the day of her death she returns to the person that reads this letter, on a monday night at 12:00a.m. She creeps into your room and kills you slowly, by cutting you and watching you bleed to death. Now post this in another thread, and she will haunt someone else who doesn't.

This isn't fake. apparently, if u copy and paste this to three threadsin the next ten minutes u will have the best day of ur life tomorrow. u will either get kissed or asked out, if u break this chain u will see a little dead girl in your room tonight. in 53 mins someone will say i love you or I'm sorry

elevator shafts run the height of the entire building. explosions can run down the shaft, destroying other parts of the building without being directly hit

...

10 second long free fall is 490 m.

WTC was 417 m tall. So it fell slightly more slowly than free fall. What's your point?

And that's enough force to weaken the entire lower half. Through an elevator shaft?

Please.

using a large passenger plane dummy

This tbh.

shows how good north american infrastructure is doesnt it.

>stupd tinfiols ...both have wings...mustbe the same plane lel

> I mean tower 1 (I think) was struck near the top or the tower. How did the bottom half lose strength,

By the top 20-odd floors falling onto floor 80, crushing it. which then falls onto 79. then onto 78, then 77, 76,75, etc. theres thousands of tonnes of the upper floors, and when it gives way, that's a VAST amount of momentum, enough to just keep going down through the undamaged parts, like a deck of cards.

>this thread