europhysicsnews.org
Scientific publication say 09/11 is an inside job
(go page 21)
09/11 confirmed inside job
Kayden Campbell
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtube.com
youtu.be
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
911research.wtc7.net
bbc.co.uk
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Isaiah Gomez
la chancla
Wyatt Bell
IN a toof thrat!
Screen Cap This!
Zachary Richardson
Reading
bump
Matthew Lewis
if anyone still wonders why WTC 7 was destroyed, the reason is it was the op HQ
Alexander Evans
...
Jack Ross
Wasn't there turkish embassy?
Grayson Anderson
ON THE PHYSICS
OF HIGH-RISE BUILDING COLLAPSES
In August 2002, the U.S. National Institute of Stand
ards and Technology (NIST) launched what would
become a six-year investigation of the three building
failures that occurred on September 11, 2001 (9/11):
the well-known collapses of the World Trade Center
(WTC) Twin Towers that morning and the lesser-known
collapse late that afternoon of the 47-story World Trade
Center Building 7, which was not struck by an airplane.
NIST conducted its investigation based on the stated
premise that the “WTC Towers and WTC 7 [were] the
only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise
buildings where fires played a significant role.”
Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused
the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has
any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985
Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office
building. Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of
collapsing such buildings completely has been by way
of a procedure known as controlled demolition, where
-by explosives or other devices are used to bring down a
structure intentionally. Although NIST finally concluded
after several years of investigation that all three collapses
on 9/11 were due primarily to fires, fifteen years after
the event a growing number of architects, engineers, and
scientists are unconvinced by that explanation.
Jeremiah Rodriguez
Preventing high-rise failures
Steel-framed high-rises have endured large fires without
suffering total collapse for four main reasons:
1) Fires typically are not hot enough and do not last long
enough in any single area to generate enough energy to
heat the large structural members to the point where
they fail (the temperature at which structural steel loses
enough strength to fail is dependent on the factor of safety
used in the design. In the case of WTC 7, for example, the
factor of safety was generally 3 or higher. Here, 67% of the
strength would need to be lost for failure to ensue, which
would require the steel to be heated to about 660°C);
2) Most high-rises have fire suppression systems (water
sprinklers), which further prevent a fire from releasing
sufficient energy to heat the steel to a critical failure state;
3) Structural members are protected by fireproofing ma-
terials, which are designed to prevent them from reaching
failure temperatures within specified time periods; and
4) Steel-framed high-rises are designed to be highly re-
dundant structural systems. Thus, if a localized failure
occurs, it does not result in a disproportionate collapse
of the entire structure.
Kevin Taylor
Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises
are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires;
none of those led to a total collapse. Countless other steel-
framed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting
fires without suffering either partial or total collapse (see,
for example, Fig. 1a and 1b) [1].
In addition to resisting ever-present gravity loads and
occasional fires, high-rises must be designed to resist
loads generated during other extreme events—in particu-
lar, high winds and earthquakes. Designing for high-wind
and seismic events mainly requires the ability of the struc-
ture to resist lateral loads, which generate both tensile and
compressive stresses in the columns due to bending, the
latter stresses then being combined with gravity-induced
compressive stresses due to vertical loads. It was not until
steel became widely manufactured that the ability to resist
large lateral loads was achieved and the construction of
high-rises became possible. Steel is both very strong and
ductile, which allows it to withstand the tensile stresses
generated by lateral loads, unlike brittle materials, such
as concrete, that are weak in tension. Although concrete
is used in some high-rises today, steel reinforcement is
needed in virtually all cases.
Blake Evans
To allow for the resistance of lateral loads, high-rises
are often designed such that the percentage of their col-
umns’ load capacity used for gravity loads is relatively
low. The exterior columns of the Twin Towers, for exam-
ple, used only about 20% of their capacity to withstand
gravity loads, leaving a large margin for the additional
lateral loads that occur during high-wind and seismic
events [2].
John Thompson
Because the only loads present on 9/11 after the impact
of the airplanes were gravity and fire (there were no high
winds that day), many engineers were surprised that the
Twin Towers completely collapsed. The towers, in fact,
had been designed specifically to withstand the impact
of a jetliner, as the head structural engineer, John Skilling,
explained in an interview with the Seattle Times following
the 1993 World Trade Center bombing: "Our analysis in-
dicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the
fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building.
There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would
be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be
there." Skilling went on to say he didn’t think a single
200-pound [90-kg] car bomb would topple or do major
structural damage to either of the Twin Towers. "How-
ever," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied
explosives—shaped explosives—of that magnitude could
not do a tremendous amount of damage.... I would im-
agine that if you took the top expert in that type of work
and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings
down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."
In other words, Skilling believed the only mecha-
nism that could bring down the Twin Towers was con-
trolled demolition.
Lincoln Robinson
Techniques of controlled demolition
Controlled demolition is not a new practice. For years it
was predominantly done with cranes swinging heavy iron
balls to simply break buildings into small pieces. Occa-
sionally, there were structures that could not be brought
down this way. In 1935, the two 191-m-tall Sky Ride tow-
ers of the 1933 World’s Fair in Chicago were demolished
with 680 kg of thermite and 58 kg of dynamite. Thermite
is an incendiary containing a metal powder fuel (most
commonly aluminum) and a metal oxide (most com-
monly iron(III) oxide or “rust”). Eventually, when there
were enough large steel-framed buildings that needed to
be brought down more efficiently and inexpensively, the
use of shaped cutter charges became the norm. Because
shaped charges have the ability to focus explosive energy,
they can be placed so as to diagonally cut through steel
columns quickly and reliably.
Carson Clark
bump.
Oliver Thomas
In general, the technique used to demolish large build-
ings involves cutting the columns in a large enough area of
the building to cause the intact portion above that area to
fall and crush itself as well as crush whatever remains below
it. This technique can be done in an even more sophisti-
cated way, by timing the charges to go off in a sequence so
that the columns closest to the center are destroyed first.
The failure of the interior columns creates an inward pull
on the exterior and causes the majority of the building to
be pulled inward and downward while materials are being
crushed, thus keeping the crushed materials in a somewhat
confined area—often within the building’s “footprint.” This
method is often referred to as “implosion.”
Austin Moore
Shut this down.
Tyler Baker
>it's fucking real
holy shit, this is the happening of the year
Juan Lewis
"Pull it" - Lucky "double the insurance, double the fun" Larry
Samuel Turner
The case of WTC 7
The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown
in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the sig-
nature features of an implosion: The building dropped
in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its de-
scent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its
transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring
in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically
straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dis-
membered and deposited mostly inside the building’s
footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into
tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring
in less than seven seconds.
Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation
adhering to the scientific method should have seriously
considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not
started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a
preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began
with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was
caused by fires.
Jackson Gutierrez
Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was
apparently difficult. FEMA’s nine-month study concluded
by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how
they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at
this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises
contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis
has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST, mean-
while, had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report
from mid-2005 to November 2008. As late as March 2006,
NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as
saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble
getting a handle on building No. 7.”
John Bailey
So this publication gives controlled demolition the highest probability? NEAT
Dylan Nguyen
...
Hunter Butler
All the while, NIST was steadfast in ignoring evi-
dence that conflicted with its predetermined conclusion.
The most notable example was its attempt to deny that
WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about that
matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed
it by saying, “[A] free-fall time would be an object that
has no structural components below it.” But in the case
of WTC 7, he claimed, “there was structural resistance
that was provided.” Only after being challenged by high
school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics
professor Steven Jones (one of the authors of this article),
who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowl-
edge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report. Yet
NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall,
nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have
had “no structural components below it” for eight stories.
Mason Ward
wait until goyim hears about this
Logan Watson
Barry" Escaped the Collapse and his whole family was dissapeared months later" Jennings.
youtube.com
Remote Controlled Fuse Inspection
youtube.com
Nathan Hill
>select all the pictures with skyscrappers
Daniel Hernandez
Instead, NIST’s final report provides an elaborate sce-
nario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the
thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoin-
ing girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder
then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor
failures, which, combined with the failure of two other
girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left
a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to
buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated
the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the
exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior col-
umns then allegedly buckled over a two-second period
and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3].
NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omit-
ting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its
computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these
errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably
impossible. Yet even with errors that were favorable to
its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model
(see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead
showing large deformations to the exterior that are not
observed in the videos and showing no period of free
fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation,
less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse.
Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be
independently verified because NIST has refused to re-
lease a large portion of its modelling data on the basis
that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.”
Xavier Diaz
Police Scanner for the Day (not full)
>but has them arresting people armed with explosive weapons, As they attack the bridge and civilians fleeing.
youtube.com
Mossad Mural Van
youtube.com
"The Van exploded!"
youtube.com
Jack Hernandez
The case of the Twin Towers
Whereas NIST did attempt to analyze and model the col-
lapse of WTC 7, it did not do so in the case of the Twin
Towers. In NIST’s own words, “The focus of the investi-
gation was on the sequence of events from the instant of
aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tow-
er....this sequence is referred to as the ‘probable collapse
sequence,’ although it includes little analysis of the structur-
al behaviour of the tower after the conditions for collapse
initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.”[5]
Thus, the definitive report on the collapse of the Twin
Towers contains no analysis of why the lower sections
failed to arrest or even slow the descent of the upper
sections—which NIST acknowledges “came down essen-
tially in free fall” [5-6]—nor does it explain the various
other phenomena observed during the collapses. When a
group of petitioners filed a formal Request for Correction
asking NIST to perform such analysis, NIST replied that
it was “unable to provide a full explanation of the total
collapse” because “the computer models [were] not able
to converge on a solution.”
Hunter Johnson
However, NIST did do one thing in an attempt to sub-
stantiate its assertion that the lower floors would not be
able to arrest or slow the descent of the upper sections in
a gravity-driven collapse. On page 323 of NCSTAR 1-6,
NIST cited a paper by civil engineering professor Zdeněk
Bažant and his graduate student, Yong Zhou, that was
published in January 2002 [7] which, according to NIST,
“addressed the question of why a total collapse occurred”
(as if that question were naturally outside the scope of
its own investigation). In their paper, Bažant and Zhou
claimed there would have been a powerful jolt when the
falling upper section impacted the lower section, causing
an amplified load sufficient to initiate buckling in the
columns. They also claimed that the gravitational energy
would have been 8.4 times the energy dissipation capacity
of the columns during buckling.
In the years since, researchers have measured the de-
scent of WTC 1’s upper section and found that it never
decelerated—i.e., there was no powerful jolt [8-9]. Re-
searchers have also criticized Bažant’s use of free-fall ac-
celeration through the first story of the collapse, when
measurements show it was actually roughly half of gravita-
tional acceleration [2]. After falling for one story, the meas-
urements show a 6.1 m/s velocity instead of the 8.5 m/s
velocity that would be the result of free fall. This difference
in velocity effectively doubles the kinetic energy, because
it is a function of the square of the velocity. In addition,
researchers have demonstrated that the 58 × 10 6 kg mass
Bažant used for the upper section’s mass was the maxi-
mum design load—not the actual 33 × 10 6 kg service load
[10]. Together, these two errors embellished the kinetic
energy of the falling mass by 3.4 times. In addition, it has
been shown that the column energy dissipation capacity
used by Bažant was at least 3 times too low [2].
Ryder King
In January 2011 [11] Bažant and another graduate
student of his, Jia-Liang Le, attempted to dismiss the
lack-of-deceleration criticism by claiming there would
be a velocity loss of only about 3%, which would be
too small to be observed by the camera resolution. Le
and Bažant also claimed conservation-of-momentum
velocity loss would be only 1.1%. However, it appears
that Le and Bažant erroneously used an upper section
mass of 54.18 × 10 6 kg and an impacted floor mass of
just 0.627 × 10 6 kg, which contradicted the floor mass
of 3.87 × 10 6 kg Bažant had used in earlier papers. The
former floor mass is representative of the concrete floor
slab only, whereas the latter floor mass includes all the
other materials on the floor. Correcting this alone in-
creases the conservation-of-momentum velocity loss by
more than 6 times, to a value of 7.1%. Additionally, the
column energy dissipation has been shown to be far more
significant than Bažant claimed. Researchers have since
provided calculations showing that a natural collapse over
one story would not only decelerate, but would actually
arrest after one or two stories of fall (see Fig. 4) [2, 10].
Zachary Evans
>mfw I'm a civil engineering student, was always really skeptical about the official story, and this makes much more sense
Also, why the fuck do normies laugh at people who say that jet fuel + fire could not ruin the structure?
Brody Hernandez
> Yet experiments have shown that molten aluminum,
even when mixed with organic materials, has a silvery appearance—thus
suggesting that the orange molten metal
was instead emanating from a thermite reaction being
used to weaken the structure
Fugggg
Andrew Jenkins
Other evidence unexplained
The collapse mechanics discussed above are only a frac-
tion of the available evidence indicating that the airplane
impacts and ensuing fires did not cause the collapse of
the Twin Towers. Videos show that the upper section of
each tower disintegrated within the first four seconds of
collapse. After that point, not a single video shows the up-
per sections that purportedly descended all the way to the
ground before being crushed. Videos and photographs
also show numerous high-velocity bursts of debris being
ejected from point-like sources (see Fig. 5). NIST refers
to these as “puffs of smoke” but fails to properly analyze
them [6]. NIST also provides no explanation for the midair
pulverization of most of the towers’ concrete, the near-total
dismemberment of their steel frames, or the ejection of
those materials up to 150 meters in all directions.
NIST sidesteps the well-documented presence of
molten metal throughout the debris field and asserts that
the orange molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2 for
the seven minutes before its collapse was aluminum from
the aircraft combined with organic materials (see Fig. 6)
[6]. Yet experiments have shown that molten aluminum,
even when mixed with organic materials, has a silvery ap-
pearance—thus suggesting that the orange molten metal
was instead emanating from a thermite reaction being
used to weaken the structure [12]. Meanwhile, unreacted
nano-thermitic material has since been discovered in
multiple independent WTC dust samples [13].
Connor Price
ayeee thanks for the tl;dr, you're alright
Nicholas Flores
As for eyewitness accounts, some 156 witnesses, in-
cluding 135 first responders, have been documented as
saying that they saw, heard, and/or felt explosions prior
to and/or during the collapses [14]. That the Twin Towers
were brought down with explosives appears to have been
the initial prevailing view among most first responders.
“I thought it was exploding, actually,” said John Coyle, a
fire marshal. “Everyone I think at that point still thought
these things were blown up” [15].
Conclusion
It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total
collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11.
Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate
times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which
attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to per-
suade a growing number of architects, engineers, and
scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly
to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed
by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching impli-
cations, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be
the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation
by responsible authorities.
Cameron Phillips
Here is video evidence of there being NO PLANES.
Anthony Howard
I'm done
tl;dr It was fucking blown up
Austin Butler
Here's a picture of WTC7 burning. Eventually the heat compromised the steel inside, not melting it but weakening it. This caused a total collapse.
It lit on fire due to the intense heat from the towers.
Yeah you can say that they're the only three buildings to ever do a full structural collapse, but the circumstances in this case were unique.
The only way to test to find out what would happen is to crash two jetliners into similar skyscrapers.
Xavier Johnson
it was blown up in such an intricate way only God's Chosen could've done it to carry out His Holy Plan
Cooper Baker
You replied to a post that disproves your own one.
Isaac Foster
Okay now you're being a little bit wacky even for Sup Forums
I remember the planes
Charles Cook
>It lit on fire due to the intense heat from the towers.
No, it lit on fire after being hit with a few thousand tons of burning rubble.
Benjamin Russell
Planes or no planes, can we agree explosives bought down all three buildings?
Planes or no planes is a distraction.
Carter Foster
on tv or irl?
Josiah Perez
Actually, I have a feeling that even if the masterminds go on TV to admit, nothing would happen
Noah Flores
On TV but...it was the same day
A psyop as big as this could not have colluded with media giants
Brody Cook
check out
>trained demolition experts where apprehended with semtex,Rockets and flamethrowers.
They where then paraded on USA national Television.
take a look at the footage people in the footage on the ground in new york are saying there where no planes and they saw the whole thing.
Thay did.
youtu.be
Hunter Flores
oh because the media has been so honest recently right?
>watch the damn footage, theres people interviewed on the streets that saw it start to finish and say no plane in the damn footage you are calling me crazy for referencing.
Chase Robinson
>Det. Greg Semendinger
>Detective Semen
Landon Gray
>Lucky Larry
I keked
Samuel King
>oh because the media has been so honest recently right?
No, because not even money could keep an inside job like this under the lid. There is no way anyone but the bush administration and participating three letter agencies were intended to know about this. Almost 3,000 people died. Reporters would have had to have been in on it. You can't trust low-level individuals like that.
That footage is quite edgy and has the planes shopped out
Tyler Gutierrez
Samuel James
You fucking retards.
Planes hit the towers. Then they collapsed.
youtube.com
Skip to 21:44.
The buildings collapse right where you expect them to and tip to the side.
Dumb bastards. All of you.
t. Old fag who saw everything.
Oliver Mitchell
>It lit on fire due to the intense heat from the towers.
Did this sentence seriously just come from a fucking keyboard in Canada, with a goddamn Canadian as the author?
WEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWW, LAD.
Jordan Lopez
Does Sup Forums get so caught up in 9/11 conspiracy theories that they forget February 26, 1993?
Bentley Martin
Watch the Barry Jennings interview in full.
He was inside WTC7 at the time and said there were explosions INSIDE the building going off at the time he was in there.
William Bailey
he says as we are discussing the evidence.
Introduction.
The iconic twin towers of downtown Manhattan's World Trade Center were a triumph of human imagination and will. Completed in 1973, the towers stood at 110 stories each, accommodating 50,000 workers and 200,000 daily visitors in 10 million square feet of space.
over 200,000 daily visitors (not including workers) and you are telling me only 3000 people died.
You are sick.
I like how wtc 7 collapses completely when one floor and only a quarter of the building is on fire.
Larry did say :
youtube.com
>did you even watch your own video you posted?
Bentley White
You remember holograms. There were no planes.
Charles Long
>200,000 daily visitors and workers
I didn't know all 200,000 visited at 9 in the morning.
Zachary Cooper
nice work fudging and being obvious about it shit head.
>you just walked into a trap.
You know the hijackers are still alive right?
youtube.com
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
Eli Richardson
DELET THIS
Parker Carter
youtube.com
TRANSCRIPT: On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.
These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.
Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidence literally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.
Aaron Hall
One question, how do you get a symmetrical collapse of an asymmetrical building?
WTC7 collapse was symmetrical but the building was asymmetrical.
A symmetrical collapse of a asymmetrical building through structural failure as described by NIST simply defies physics.
John Foster
and how their ID fell out of the plane and where totally un burned
>and how they are "survived".
Anthony Phillips
Reminder we have a wonderful One World Trade Center that you should visit!
Angel Cooper
He also says they had to step over bodies IN THE LOBBY when they got down the stairs. The firefighter said "don't look down, you don't want to see this" and Jennings said he looked anyway and was stepping over dead people.
Why were there dead people in the lobby? WTC7 hadn't collapsed yet and the people jumping from the other towers weren't landing in the fucking lobby of WTC7. Who were they?
Speculators think they were the bomb crew who were trying to get out after setting the bombs to go off - they were gunned down as they came out the stairwell door.
Others say they were the team who got the gold out then after done, were killed by gov agents as they tried to exit WTC7.
I say tear down the FBI and CIA headquarters along with the Pentagon to put an end to this once and for all. Classified reports on this shit have to exist somewhere.
Hunter Allen
>"NO ITS DEFINENTLY THEM EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE STILL ALIVE"
The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.
911research.wtc7.net
bbc.co.uk
Gavin Sullivan
Firefighters talking about the bombs
youtube.com
Jose Edwards
Multiculturalism is a blessing. God has blessed us with the Gift Of Dead Heathens.
I shudder to think of a World Without 9/11.
A tragedy.
Hunter Harris
you have autism
Elijah Rodriguez
According to the official truth, muricans are shitty engineers unable to build fire resistant skycrapers.
According to the non believers, muricans are shitty engineers unable to determine how a skycraper can collapse because of a fire.
Whatever, muricans are shitty engineers.
Cooper Kelly
Agreed. We will enrich them my brother.
Carson Nelson
Well now that europhysicsnews finally reported on it, I'm convinced.
Camden Young
American Publications can name us Chosen if you let in the Muslims.
Lucas Mitchell
Memes aside
Steel melting point is 1500°C
Kerosene heat produced when burning is 250°C.
It's obviously that they used bombs on the big pillars
B-25 bomber crashed into the empire state building.
Left 14 deads.
Brody Sullivan
you wanted to arguement semantics while I post evidence, which you cannot refute and resort to petty insults.
>who is the autistic one here?
Me who believes people when they say they are alive.
Or you who looks at the hijackers alive and well and thinks they are dead.
Gavin Sanchez
do you actually believe their passports where recovered out of the rubble?
youtube.com
Henry Turner
Molten aluminium heated at 1000 degrees add water and boom, considering there were thousands of tons of aluminium from the planes in the buildings this explains the explosions and how insulated steam beams can fail.
Joshua Peterson
Yep, some of them (if not all) are still alive and back in the ME. No planes so no need for hijackers.
Jordan Scott
If only November 8 were to come quicker. Not long now. Remember: A vote for Hillary is a Vote For A UNITED States!
Thomas Davis
That's enough shitposting for one day son. Give it a rest.
Sebastian Rivera
why was more than half of the towers were empty?
it was not holiday, it was not off hours, it was 9am and some firms did not even have one employee.
Christian Green
The question is, wtf do we do about this? This farce did actually end up killing innocent people and allowed the US to topple nations for no real reason. If anyone talks about this stuff to normies, it instantly discredits you. I mean as long as people have their welfare, their entertainment, and they boil the frog for more control instead of instantly boil most people won't wake up until it's too late.
Xavier Barnes
>Also, why the fuck do normies laugh at people who say that jet fuel + fire could not ruin the structure?
I'm not entirely sure, senpai. My hypothesis is it's part of the herd instinct brainwashing. They are taught to ridicule any such claims and be aggressive toward people that propose such a things. It's a blue pill thing.
I would also want to thank this great man for fighting captcha so valiantly!
Isaiah Myers
written by a 12yo? this is republican bs for the idiots
Nathaniel Perry
This is the funniest bullshit of the whole story.
Jetfuel can melt steelbeams, but it can't burn passports that can immediately be linked to the hijackers.
SUUUUUURE America, sure.. everything will be fire
Michael Sullivan
At what temperature is steel weakened from heat?
You don't have to liquefy a steel bar in order to induce structural failure.
Luke Jackson
>Scientific publication
no doubt !
Thomas Hill
The planes were holographic projections.
Cameron Robinson
Sometimes it's hard to tell if someone is unironically retarded or not. Nigger, a lot of shit including seats were intact because they didn't become trapped inside the building with the bulk of the plane.
Brandon Rodriguez
It was such a raging inferno the woman in pic related was literally incinerated instantly
Adrian Gutierrez
fire is not water.
They have a dossier about what to say to 911 truthers.
see
Can melt steal but not fabric.
Jaxon Bailey
I will make it clear to all the bitching Godless degenerates who still care about a Nation long dead.
There is no stopping us. Trump is going according to plan. There is no choice in the coming election.
There will never be a significant choice in any of your lives. You are insignificant.
Try anything and we will kill you.
Ethan Hernandez
That was insanely hot. The color of the fire in the videos on 9/11 don't seem to burn that intensely. Also, collapsing the top 1/4 while the bottom 3/4 to half of the building are still structurally sound, wouldn't cause it to free fall IMO. Once you see how they plan out the charges for even collapsing old buildings it should tell you at least that. I think we'd still have more of a structure left and shit would fall everywhere.
Ryan Nelson
>why the fuck do normies laugh at people who say that jet fuel + fire could not ruin the structure?
Because they value "authority" above all else including truth.
This will be tossed around endlessly just like details about the JFK assassination still are - and the end result is always the same. The masses are clueless and the guilty never pay for their crimes.
Jordan Rodriguez
>d-delet this my theory wont survive with your video !
Adam Hill
(((Science)))
Wyatt Jackson
Steel is a conductor.
>yet you are still telling me the dispensed heat weakened the basement supports.
>did a plane crash into the basement too ?
see
Landon Campbell
exactly. all opposition, critical thinking have been silenced, pacified, worldwide. Turkey for example, has experienced one of most feeble-minded political charade yet noone questions anything. only careers, salaries matter. the most horrifying thing for millenials is to get separated from their cell phone and cash and shopping malls.