Explain how these bottom sections of the towers also came down, even if the top parts had melted

Explain how these bottom sections of the towers also came down, even if the top parts had melted.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/mNlG-HMEBGI
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Maybe because half the buildings landed on them

FPBP
BTFO Conspiritard!!

Because when the supports failed the tops of the buildings fell through empty space before slamming into the ceiling of the intact parts of the tower. Shit's pretty heavy.

Jet fuel, bro. Jet fuel.

...

Earth is flat.

Jesus. Sup Forums really has become full of bootlickers in the past few months. Are you sure you all know what you're doing, voting for Trump? It sounds like Hilldawg or the Berniebro will be more your speed. Americans voting for Trump prefer FREEDOM, particularly to investigate the truth, no matter its source.

Gravity.

Explain how the bottom half of the snow fell down, even if the top half was disturbed

seems unlikely

Because it was in the script

Snow isn't made of reinforced steel.

Steel that is set to hold a certain amount of force coming from straight above it doesn't do so well when yanked sideways and then hit with a stronger vertical force.

buildings are heavy you limey bastard

I dunno britbonger, why not take an engineering class and learn the basics of thermodynamics? Oh right, because you're an idiot, nevermind.

They were barely designed well enough to withstand normal wind load. Why do you think Lucky Larry never visited his towers on windy days like 9/11?

>pointless tinfoil-tier bickering
why do you bother with these threads?

But it`s also not reinforced steel, that falls on snow.

correct. whats your point, neanderthal?
and no the building did not fall due to a pancake effect snowballing effect as the floors fell one by one. dont .even . just

Because he was not just "jew", but an anglo fabian "jew".

mfw they designed and created them from day one to collapse one day when required to easily.

>open thread
>literally everyou response is retarded

Wow pol has been surrendered to the absolute lowest tier of intelligence.

>people trying to justify the laughable official story
>20fucking16

Official version of the structure fall is technically accurate. The shit storm is made to cover up the backstory.
> alquaeda created by USA and anglo
> anglo jews where not present on the job during the collapse
> the war costed trillion dollars and did not solved anything
> the only proofs of osama dead is poorly made photoshop and obamas administration claims

You can actually see the top of one tower tipping over radically, right at the start of it's collapse. But then it decides to stop doing that,and instead falls straight down into it's own footprint, through the path of greatest resistance.
Just like the other tower.
And building 7.
Government asskissers are so fucking stupid. You'd have better luck trying to talk sense into a creationist.

gravity
u fucking retard

>and instead falls straight down into it's own footprint

no it didnt.

how did debris get all over the city?

>Official version of the structure fall is technically accurate.
No it isnt. Not by a long shot. If a relatively mild fire is able to fully collapse a structure like a twin tower, not a single high floor structure could still be considered or deemed safe.

It's absolutely ridiculous that the fires that raged at the twin towers are claimed to have brought down not one but BOTH towers in such a way a professional demolition team would pat themselves on the back.

And thats not even mentioning WTC7.

Please show me the devastation caused by 15 floors of skyscraper falling almost a thousand feet and wiping out a section of Manhattan NEXT to the world trade centre.
I'll wait.

it didn't
there should have been something like a million tonnes of rubble but we did not see this..
(please dont post pic of rubble)

some videos even show what 'appears' to be a steel girder turn to dust in mid air
most of the building blew away in dust form by the looks of it.

World Trade Center 7

Wind Hello!

>being this fucking retarded

Neither was the WTC flooring. Each floor could only hold the furniture and people.

The Taliban were created in 1994, so how could Reagan have met them in 1985?

Also, two of the men in that picture were assassinated by the Taliban (one on Sept. 10th 2001). The woman on the extreme right was forced into exile and the guy in the middle in white is an ethnic Uzbek leader who spent most of the 1990s and early 2000s leading Northern Alliance forces against the Taliban. The guy second from the right is a Tajik who died in combat in the late 1990s in Pul-i Khumri trying to stop a Taliban advance.

So, yeah. Not really seeing what you're hoping to gain by posting lies.

>a million pounds crashing into the side of it at hundreds of miles an hour
>mild fire

>Relatively mild fire
>Relatively mild fire
>Discounting location of fire and thus heat gradients
>Discounting heat related fatigue and yield level stress

>Demo teams would pat themselves on the back for a job like this!
>A fall that threw rubble and asbestos several blocks away
Mmm yes good goy, keep falling for the poisoned water of the well, ignoring the relevance of an attack on the towers, the pentagon, and numerous other planned attacks by the israelis, just to focus on the fall of the towers.

RT fags btfo

Does it then collapse at freefall too?

7-11 was a part time job

it isn't accurate in the slightest and anyone with a basic understanding of metallurgy and gravity should have no question that there was other forces at work on those buildings than the plane impacts

...

Either twin tower was designed to receive MULTIPLE 'million pounds @ hundreds m/ph'...nor does the official report even mention the plane crash to be the catalytic factor in the collapse of EITHER tower... what are you talking about?

>Relatively mild fire
Yes... it was by any standard really mild considering what other buildings have endured.

>Discounting location of fire and thus heat gradients
>Discounting heat related fatigue and yield level stress
AHA, These factors you can't really justifiably argue for the simple fact that if you would actually take them into consideration you would inevitably expose the ridiculousness of both towers collapsing in a almost identical way when both towers sustained completely different damage.

What i'm trying to say is, is that when you want to try to bring technical correctness into your camp you're gonna have the explain that shit as well...

good luck with that...

>A fall that threw rubble and asbestos several blocks away
Yeah... how the fuck do you explain that shit by just the building collapsing?
It literally pulverized nearly all the asbestos and concrete in either towers.

sort your life out. I'll wait

>the basics of thermodynamics

That's a weird way of saying statics.

they were design to withstand the forces of an airplane crash actually

Dude WEED, lmao

>You can actually see the top of one tower tipping over radically, right at the start of it's collapse. But then it decides to stop doing that,and instead falls straight down into it's own footprint, through the path of greatest resistance.

So much this

Welp I'm gonna go ahead and slide off the building to the right.

Nah, just kidding. I'm going straight down.

>the ridiculousness of both towers collapsing in a almost identical way
But they didn't collapse in an almost identical way, you doofus. You're trying to extrapolate from pushing down your block towers to pushing down a tower that is hundreds of feet tall. No matter what the horizontal velocity of such a tall tower is, it will end up falling straight down in a "pancake" fashion from the perspective of the observer.

Many "truthers" seem to be morons who unironically believe, just like the Al-Qaeda goons apparently did, that you could get skyscrapers to fall over domino-style. Calculate how fast the top story of the building would have to be moving horizontally in order to move the same distance horizontally and vertically.

It was the power of the memes

Even ignoring the fact that the FBI rented hotel rooms to the hijackers and were followed by the CIA for years , Even ignoring the fact that even Clinton was warned about this during his presidency how do you explain them falling at the rate they did? Falling down in a "pancake" fashion from 1 plane is unlikley not to mention it happened twice.

When a statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, bad shit happens.

Thermite.

>built to fall

let me state an obvious. Any section of any building is strong enough to support the rest of the building above it. Even if it has some momentum.

The building took onl~9 seconds to fall.

Acoording to kinematics, that is only possibly through the accelaration of gravity, meaning that no speed had to be lost.

D = vi(t) + (1/2)(a)(t)^2

D = displacement (m)
vi = initial velocity (mps)
a = accelaration (mps^2)
t = time (s)

D = 0mps(~9s) + (1/2)(-9.8mps^2)(~9s)^2= ~-396.9m

The tower was 415m tall. This equation proves that the top of the tower had to take only ~9 seconds to go from its maximum height to the ground, since the only force acting on it is the force of gravity.

If what you said were true, the building would take over 1min to fall. Too much speed would be lost if the floor would collapse under the weight of the floors above it.

Only way the towers falling was possible is if the building collapsed as a whole. In controlled demolitions, the bottom of the tower is blown up so that the direction of the blast can be better controlled. If the bottom is destroyed, the tower is in free fall, and thus the only force acting upon it is the force of gravity.

because they're not connected together with steel bolts and welding?

youtu.be/mNlG-HMEBGI

Minoru Yamasaki, the architect of the buildings, was scared of heights. There was a secret clause in his will that required the twin towers to be destroyed so future generations wouldn't be burdened with a fear of heights.

>barely designed well enough to withstand normal wind load.
>windy days like 9/11?

where do you even get crazy shit like this?

>in hurricane alley, and video of smoke barely moving.

>the floors were too weak to stay connected to the walls
>they were connected so well they pulled the supporting structure down
>wipes brow

They were designed to withstand small plane crashes.

>Even if it has some momentum.

>some
>.....??????????????????????

...

EXPLAIN HOW THE ENTIRE FUCKING WTC7 BUILDING LITERALLY IMPLODED WHEN IT WASN'T EVEN TOUCHED BY AN AIRPLANE OR FALLING DEBRIS.

people are still arguing about this? hasn't it been established for 10 years that it was a controlled demolition?

no