Jet fuel can't melt steal beams

Jet fuel can't melt steal beams.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=2-9TD3oQq3g
bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

"caught fire" and "having a plane crash into it" are two different things m8

>Jet fuel can't melt steal beams.

But they sure can bend them!

Who has tested this hypothesis

But it didn't have a plane crash into it...
These kinds of threads are fucking retarded.

OP you're retarded. Did a plane crash into the tower? Did jet fuel light the fire?

The towers were designed to catch a plane, lmao

Honestly, if I had enough money to toss away, I'd create to-scale replicas of each of the twin towers with all wiring, get a hold of scaled down working versions of each of the planes, and see what happens when I recreate the crashes.

It should be illegel to make these threads.
Instant 5 year sentence.

This guy genuinely thinks towers are made with the idea of "catching places" in mind.

Building was heated with natural gas. Methane (natural gas) burns at double the melting point of steel.

suckit.jpeg2000

planes* im dabbed but still smarter than that guy

Bet that tower didn't have a fucking plane slam into it.

...

To save money the towers were made of Lego's. That is why it caught fire and collapsed.

>Jet fuel can't melt steal beams

But Allah's will can

But in the time that they were built, the only planes that existed were smaller than the ones that actually hit them

That's why noone could fly near them. The towers could extend to grab the plane and eat it.

/thread

A plane got lost in the fog and hit the empire state building in the 40s and WTC was designed with this in mind. It wasn't designed for 747s to deliberately slam into them with such force.

Olympus tower did not burn for 29 hours. It was more like 8 hours.

I was also an electrical fire, which implies it burnt at not nearly a high temperature as the WTC..

when blunt force strikes an object and that object cannot handle the force being applied, it shatters from the point of impact.

>not from the ground floor

>ground floor
Did you even take a glance at the videos?

...I watched it live when it happened, kid. How old are you?

It all makes sense now

21!

The penetration of the buildings isn't what made them collapse, it was that combined with the burning. Tower 7 also collapsed after being hit by debris from the towers and hours of burning.

Sure I believe you dude.

So you take your old memories more seriously than all the videos on the web combined?

You don't have to. I don't have a prove a damn thing to you. I watched as it happened, I saw the raw footage that aired on September 11th 2001, NOT the doctored footage you can see now AFTER the fact.

so blunt force, combined with fire, is what made a skyscraper fall on top of itself? your entire stance used to imply that the structure wasn't designed to handle the impact. NOW your stance is "it wasn't the impact alone, it was the impact AND the fire it caused".

in order for a buildings structure to fail to the point of collapse, the fire had to damage the part thats actually ON fire.
>the ground floor

Why was there a fire ON THE GROUND FLOOR that compromised the entire structure to the point of collapse...when the impact hit the MIDDLE of the building? what exactly do you think caught on fire? hopes and fairy dust? did the jet fuel magically trickle down to the base of the building and suddenly ignite itself?

Better than taking daddys dinner rants as solid fact.

Are you a structural engineer? Or just a psudoscientific fuckup with no brain?

...

...

You can't even spell "pseudo-scientific" properly, let alone judge others for their intelligence. Compared to yours, I'm a fucking Einstein.

>747s
> It wasn't
767's
they weren't

fixed it for ya

We have a fucking retard on our hands here.

>NOT the doctored footage you can see now AFTER the fact.

>thank you for believing

these suckers will believe anything, hehehehe, huh? mike? who's mike? oh.

...

...

so has anybody figured out how the bbc was able to know WT7 fell an hour before it happened?

Neither did the 3rd tower (2 planes, 3 buildings). The 3rd building was pretty far away. Supposedly a little debris did went really far to the 3rd tower, and caused a fire, which caused a 3rd collapse. It also didn't happen to any of the other surrounding buildings.

Boeing 747 - 1969
World Trade Center - 1973

You're literally the first one that mentioned the fire on the ground floor. Your autism is too high, it makes you see things. Have you seen Bruce Willis?

yeah, in the fog, a plane will go 40mph max.

>bbc

you're in the wrong thread faggot the cuck thread is here

Boeing 767 are the ones who hit the tower mate

Very good point and trips confirms

>designed to catch a plane

Nope, for a plane as big as this, ~20 knots is not enough to keep lift on the wings.
(If sarcasm, my autism prevents me from detecting it)

...

...

Top to the kek to you

/thread

Most of the other WTC complex buildings were destroyed when the twin towers fell on them. 7 was hit with quite a bit debris, burned for the day, then fell.

Firefighters were pulled from the building shortly before it fell because they knew it was about to collapse. Word got around that it was going to collapse, if it hadn't already.

Man I love Freud!

that's just what they want you to think

...

why did they use the term "pull it"in reference to the building? a term used by demolitionists?

I was replying directly to the idea that "we're not saying that fire alone collapsed a building, since they also had a plane hit them".

Building 7 supposedly did exactly that (fire, no plane).

Or do they want you to think that this is what they want you to think?

Why did you post Socrates?

claim was there were no large planes at the time of the WTC construction. 747 predated the towers and the smaller 767. you can't reading comprehension. mate.

This image is better

is that you pete?

I thought you were trying to validate the fact that 747 existed before the twin towers, my bad.

Firefighters were pulled from the building, that's the "pull it" reference. Why the fuck would Larry Silverstein go on television and say "pull it" in reference to demolishing his own buildings?

Firefighters knew the building was very likely to collapse hours before it came down, because it has massive damage from another, much larger building collapsing on top of it....you dumb fucking nigger. Christ I hate autistic 9/11 truther faggots. I thought you cunts gave this shit up 10 years ago.

0bama did Benghazi.

...

False, Plato did not speak english.

firefighters are an "it"?

maybe he was confused.

in any case. they have tried to get rid of the towers for decades because of a dispute with the port authority. and the building was losing money. ironic that the buildings that were totally destroyed were the money guzzling twin towers and the accounting building of tower 7.

and ironic that the day before 9/11 the government "misplaced " and" lost" several billion dollars.

but muh terrists. gotta go fight them right?

It didn't speak at all. It was just flour, water, and food coloring.

yeah, except it started collapsing at the impact point you retard.

youtube.com/watch?v=2-9TD3oQq3g

Why is there a montage of James Cameron?

kek

The cause of the WTC collapse wasn't about melting beams. It was about a truss and girdle architecture that relied on each other to maintain the structural strength of the building. All that had to happen for the WTC to collapse for the steel truss to heat enough to become soft. At that point the steel trusses sagged, pulling in the buildings girdle. Now you have the weight of 1/4th of a building on a bent in surface, which snapped and once those thousands of tons slammed into the trusses below they broke free from the girdle, and that is why the building fell inward the way it did. Truss by truss the floors collapsed pulling the girdle in as it went down.

The plane that hit ESB was a bomber yet the building stands. Either they started building shitty skycrapers or bush made spectacular fireworks.

He's gonna try to bullshit you that the videos were "doctored" (his word)

Can't wait for Jan. 20th

>in any case. they have tried to get rid of the towers for decades because of a dispute with the port authority

Muslims had been trying to get rid of the towers for a long time too ya know

Best receipe for a piñata!

Can confirm, am architect Mr. Lego

Since like 450 before Christ, at least!

yes you have the official story memorized. both buildings fell exactly the same way from the same damage with no variation at all.

and tower 7 fell even neater with less damage and "fire" damage. i5t was just so lucky that it hit the right spot that the building fell so neatly.

thankfully the other buildings weren't too badly damaged as expected from 3 monstrous buildings collapsing randomly onto its own footprint.

Actually yes. Down the elevator shafts.

he started #pizzagate with this photo of Bette Midler

holy shit all those demo charges going off one after the other.

>Muslims
lol not a fan of them either but they are a nice boogey man to have to control the masses.

mmm Elio's

>truss and girdle
>pulling the girdle in as it went down.

I'm diamonds

Who the fuck is Bette Midler? (Ignorant fuck here)

what does pete carrol have to do with 911 lol... i haven't been informed of this meme

...

You misspelled James Cameron

7 did not fall from fire alone

it fell from seismic and kinetic shock of having 2 of the worlds tallest buildings fall across the street in an explosive manner in addition to an uncontrolled gas fire across all floors. (yeah.. watch the footage again.. they didn't fall like a controlled det).

There are few shots of the side of 7 facing the twin towers after the collapse due to the smoke, but you see it in a few chopper shots.. it was completely demolished and ablaze.

bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html

do you even google nigger

>it fell from seismic and kinetic shock
the other buildings must have not been paying attention.

...