Some sciencefags on the collapse of the world trade center, and that they think it was an controlled demolition:

some sciencefags on the collapse of the world trade center, and that they think it was an controlled demolition:
europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

i'm not into conspiracy theories, but it's interesting to read.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/xFXgnYlkqH0
youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
youtube.com/watch?v=aoYXihwcp8c
youtube.com/watch?v=IXTJlH7g0tw
youtube.com/watch?v=hXXyN4kdSQo
youtu.be/877gr6xtQIc
youtube.com/watch?v=4GY0yWXGaKs
lmgtfy.com/?q=wtc7 collapse
youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Jet Fuel can melt steal beams

hmm

If it was controlled it wouldn't have damaged the surrounding buildings so much. You know, because it would be controlled.

No it can't. Nor can an asymmetric building collapse symmetrically due to structural failure alone.

What if some of those buildings were meant to be damaged?

youtu.be/xFXgnYlkqH0

What was the point of the aircraft? If you could take the building(s) down with explosives why not just have that as the attack?

i think it's pretty unbelievable, that some terrorfags manage to implant explosives like it's done in controlled demolitions. just putting a bomb in a car doesn't take a building down.

everything that raises flags and is labeled a conspiracy is the real truth , when will you fucking retard understand that ?

Its quite a bit more dramatic to see something so brutal like a plane crash into a giant building then smolder and smoke for a long period of time than "hey, that building just came down." Tons of footage, tons of attention, and a long enough event that every news channel in the world was running it live.

It is obvious. Ask a professional.
AE911TRUTH.ORG

the towers were brought down with tactical nukes under the buildings.

youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I

that also explains the thyroid cancer in first responders.


-the thermite and controlled demo shit are red herrings. (only building 7 was controlled dem).

kek. stay real please. most conspiracy theories are retarded bullshit. but whatever, this thread is only about WTC and in this case the official report and the analysis from NIST does not convince me.

Shock and awe.

Then why was there no EMP or seismic activity? or any residual radiation at all?

It were the tallest buildings in america completely surrounded by other buildings. they did their best, I think only one building got hit critically from the demolition debris, everything else sustained flesh wounds

>no it can't
Why does it need to? Steel starts weakening at 800 degrees, and weakening a structure that was hit by a plane and set on fire is fair grounds for collapse.
>an asymmetrical building can't collapse symmetrically due to structural failure alone
We're not talking about a shitty Jenga tower here, we're talking about literal tons of material falling here. Inertia exists, and the forces acting for lateral motion consisted only of wind. It wasn't going to fall anywhere else. Basic physics man. Stuff you could Google in 5 minutes. Unless there's a conspiracy including ALL of physics and chemistry, you're shit out of luck.

>aircraft
Kek. The ones that went 500+ mph without falling apart at the low altitude dense air where max speed is 280 mph or so? The ones that aluminum "flew" strait through concrete and steel to dissappear then people could be seen standing in the hole? The ones that were obviously edited into the low definition videos, sloppily, looking like a ball and even having the nose accidently going all the way through the building in one clip? The ones that they found the wrong engine on the ground in a store afterwords? The ones that somehow allowed people to call from cell phones when they were supposedly thousands of feet above signal?

Trump knows the Truth. He builds building and has an IQ of 156. His message is coded - power and heat brought the towers down.
youtube.com/watch?v=aoYXihwcp8c

there was.

The most persuasive study confirming a link between the exposure and cancer was published in April 2013 in Environmental Health Perspectives. The World Trade Center Health Program study examined nearly 21,000 WTC rescue and recovery workers and found a 15 percent overall increased risk of cancer compared to the general population. However, the increased risk for some cancers was as follows:

Thyroid cancer (239 percent)
Soft-tissue cancers (226 percent)
Blood and lymph cancers (36 percent)
Prostate cancer (21 percent)

Thyroid cancer (239 percent)********
-Causes of Thyroid cancer -
. Radiation exposure is a proven risk factor for thyroid cancer. Sources of such radiation include certain medical treatments and radiation fallout from power plant accidents or nuclear weapons.

going to read that, thanks for the info

But there was no radiation, lower Manhattan would've been uninhabitable for a year at least even with a small nuclear device. And you'd have had every school and college in New York over there with Geiger counters if there was even a rumor of radiation.

WTC 1&2 were designed specifically to withstand aircraft crashing in to them. Read the article linked in the first post.

The asymmetric building I'm speaking about is WTC 7 the third building to collapse that day. Pic related

youtube.com/watch?v=IXTJlH7g0tw

>the towers were brought down with tactical nukes under the buildings
btw another big problem with this explanation is, that the towers 1 and 2 collapsed from the top, not from an explotion at the bottom.
i'm not going to watch that 4 hours yt video you provided now, maybe you have some shorter ones or other links for that thesis?
because it seems highly implausible for me at them moment

were not talking about detonating The Fat Man bomb. these are tiny devices used for tactical reasons.

if there was no radiation, explain the 239% increase in thyroid cancer.

Explain the complete lack of literally every other marker of a nuclear device. No thermal pulse, no EMP, no shock wave. And the fact the buildings didn't collapse from the bottom.

here ya go bruv

youtube.com/watch?v=hXXyN4kdSQo

dust n sheit n asbertoes

that explains lung cancer, not thyroid.

The cancer is because of asbestos and a bunch of other carcinogenic chemicals being in the tower that were pulverized and turned into giant dust clouds that people inhaled.

The nukes is bullshit pushed by Veterns Today. What probably happened is that nano-thermite was used, there was a study published in a peer-reviewed journal showing it in the dust.

As you can see in this pic WTC 7 was an asymmetic building. Official story is it was hit buy rubble from the towers that ignited a diesel fire inside the building which weakened the structure and let to a total collapse as shown it the pic here Listen to an expert on controlled demolition when shown the collapse of WTC 7 youtu.be/877gr6xtQIc

asbestos doesn't cause thyroid cancer. ONLY RADIATION DOES.

nano-thermite is the red herring.

Forgot pic

sorry, not convinced from that.
i dig into that topic, maybe i'll find a computer simulation based on good mathematical models.
what he explains in this video and how the tower become pulverized seems not plausible to me. but yes, if some sciencefag could explain and simulate this in more detail, i would look into it.

word. it makes the most sense to me. we may never know. -imagine what would happen if it's found that the U.S. government used nuclear weapons on it's own people?

Its interesting that whenever troofers show a picture of WTC7, it's always of the side facing away from WTC 1&2.

They tried that first in the 90's

Read the article for yourself. Even a 10 year old will comprehend it was a controlled demo.

I have a related classic physics STEM degree.

i cannot imagine the outcome if that would be true.
but for whatever the fuck reason, most people don't care anymore on what happened back then.
the highly unconvincing report from NIST was just accepted.
pretty fucked up story if you ask me

>why not just have that as the attack?

because the bullshit about planes into the pentagon was the key

hmm what? i read it and i don't deny it was controlled

there are dozens of chemicals used in construction and office furniture that are carcinogenic you retard, usually they are safe but when they are turned into dust and inhaled they are not

the nuke thing is probably a psy-op designed to distract people from demanding a new investigation of the collapse. Even A&E911 Truth is somewhat respectable and is covered by some MSM but if they began to talk about nukes everyone would just rolls their eyes and laugh.

Fpbp. It was all a ploy by Osama Bin Laden who was operating out of Afghanistan so we invaded Iraq to secure the weapons of mass destruction and bring democracy to those oppressed by Saddam.

Case closed faggots.

>, lower Manhattan would've been uninhabitable for a year at least even with a small nuclear device.

nah it would just kill a ton of people over the next 60 years, and nobody cares if faggots in NYC die anyway

not saying there were nukes, just saying if there were who gives a shit?

Lets say for arguments sake the side facing the towers was completely destroyed by the falling towers. It still does not explain the uniform collapse. It goes against physics.

Did you watch this video? youtu.be/877gr6xtQIc

>demanding a new investigation of the collapse.

how are they going to investigate melted steel beams shipped to China and used to make toyotas over a decade ago?

Science isn't opinionated. It's factual. Any engineer or physicist can't deny the fact that the buildings were demolished.

The NIST was bought by the Bush administration.

Top kek

>how are they going to investigate melted steel beams shipped to China and used to make toyotas over a decade ago?

i think it's still possible to investigate this case with help of computer simulations, videos and the constructional drawing of WTC.

for a group of unbiased experts it should be possible to come to a conclusion if or not it is possible that the WTC buildings crashed without a controlled demolition

surely science is not opinionated. but there were no scientifict and unbiased investigation so far. if you really have a scientific education you should realize, that your arguments are pointless. just saying that every kid sees, that it was controlled, is no scientific workstyle.
again: i also think it was a controlled demolition. and i also do have a scientific education (but in another area, not physics), i would love to see a proper report on this case.

By forcing agencies like NIST to investigate videos of the collapse and other things like first-responders reports to analyze whether the towers were detonated with explosives. In the investigation of the collapse that they did NIST didn't actually investigate at all the question of explosives.

You can just use physics and the science of how buildings are built and fall to show just from the videos that its virtually impossible for them to have fallen without explosives, A&E911 Truth has already done this but its important that a government agency has the chance to investigate the same question without political interference. That will open the door to investigating more into who was responsible once the gov. is forced to admit there were likely explosives used.

9/11 was inside job is the gayest conspiracy theory I have ever heard, and proof people are absolutely fucking retarded.

Amazing how far some people go out of their way to delude themselves when to footage of the airplanes crashing into the buildings can be looked up on Youtube.

as i said in my first post, i'm usually not into conspiracy theories.
WTC is a different case. there are to many open questions and unplausible explanations.

so you could further spread your ad hominems, or try to explain the collapse of WTC 7 for example.

nobody (ok, that one faggot) denies that ariplanes crashed into the buildings.

Everyone has know it's a controlled demolition for years.

>surely science is not opinionated. but there were no scientifict and unbiased investigation so far

Suspicious don't you think?

youtube.com/watch?v=4GY0yWXGaKs

Also, if you read the article you'll find out that what happened to WTC7 was a controlled demolition but the simple fact that you can't find any sample in the World (3rd world countries with poor regulations included) that fell to an office fire.

>.05 cents have been deposited into your accounts

no. the article is interesting, but not a proof.

Structural engineer here, and I work on evaluating design specifications for large buildings just like WTC.

I specifically remember a time in an upper-level class (structural mechanics or advanced structural systems, I think) and we specifically covered a "pancaking floor" collapse scenario and why it's impossible due to modern design specifications. WTC was such a huge elephant in that room, I wanted to ask the question so bad but I didn't.

Oh, and by the way, that early-2000's Popular Mechanics article on how the towers fell is complete horse shit.

I don't know how anyone can watch the buildings (especially building 7) collapse neatly into their own footprints and think it was anything other than an inside job.

It wouldn't be so bad if it didn't require so many massive leaps in logic. Notably that in order to pull everything off, you'd need the cooperation of thousands and thousands of people and not a single person let slip after all this time that they were involved with it. If the government was this hyper-competent, then they would've planted nukes in Iraq and paraded them around.

>And you'd have had every school and college in New York over there with Geiger counters
joo york is a cancer. A filthy shit hole of the most cancerous people on the planet.

no, you're delusional fags
.

But why deny they were the reason the buildings collapsed in favor of idle speculation?

What's your take on all three building 'collapses' on 9/11?

not an argument you dumb kike

assuming the WTC was brought down with a controlled demolition. who did it and why?

provide arguments or fuck off. it is pointless to discuss a topic with people like you.

>and why it's impossible due to modern design specifications
Is it not possible that those specifications came about as a result of shit like WTC? How modern were they?

because it's very unlikely that something like that happens. read as a first step the article in the first post.
especially WTC 7 is a huge mindfuck. it has never happened before, that a high rise was brought down just from fire, and at 9/11 it happened 3 times. WTC 1 and 2? maybe the airplanes did that kind of damage on the internal core structure. WTC 7? just from burning? and imploding like it happens only in perfectly planned demolitions? i doubt...

>just by fire
>this meme again

>nobody cares if faggots in NYC die
^ this guy gets it. underrated.

If it was damaged that badly structurally at one corner or one side to bring it down, it wouldn't have fucking come down perfectly straight like it did. It would have fallen over.

It would be absolutely impossible for the two towers to collapse without having some of their core structural elements deliberately compromised below the areas where the plane crashed. period. there is no debating this. you could have chopped off the bit above where plane crashed and dropped them on top of the building and it would have crumbled a couple of floors and rolled off. absolutely impossible for a vertical collapse like that. I can't say this enough. absolutely impossible.

WTC7: while I don't know the extent of the structural damage, buildings will not naturally collapse in an orderly fashion like that. The layout of that building implies a structural support system where it won't all fail at once. one side of the building might collapse, but not the whole thing. think of the OKC bombing.

>How modern were they?
the "modern" design specifications that I referenced, the specs that make it impossible for a vertical "pancaking" collapse, are from the 1950s or so. maybe 1930s. the point is that wtc would not have collapsed without severe and deliberate damage to the structural systems well below the plane's impact

what building is this in the picture?
and no, ofc not JUST from fire, also from debris and shit falling down on WTC 7. nothing explains why it collapsed tho.

...

No and no. Civil engineering didn't have any major improvements or developments in material science and structural analysis in the last century (almost).

Those buildings would withstand loads superior to their maximum up to 1.6 times more.

Another thing people don't understand is that modern steel framing structures are hyper-static. Meaning that you could hammer down multiple structural pillars and beams in the building and it wouldn't move an inch.

I'll let conspiracy theorists go retard, but I refuse to stand by willful ignorance. I don't abide it on the left and I don't abide it from conspiracy cucks.

Do your own fucking research for a change, there's millions of fucking articles and thousands of independent investigations on this shit, you have no legitimate reason for being this uninformed after this long. Even loose change shills at least brought up an argument and showed images of it.

I find the "way too complex and organized" argument to be really, really shitty. It's called 1) being paid off; and 2) getting yourself and your family whacked if you talk.

Also I don't think it's "thousands and thousands"; the number of truly complicit people could have 8 or 12, everyone else 99% in the dark. Like NORAD basically standing down that day, for instance.

Further, dozen and dozens of highly-respectable, high-authority people HAVE spoken up, but people like you just blow them off because MUH TINFOIL.

>Do your own fucking research for a change, there's millions of fucking articles and thousands of independent investigations on this shit, you have no legitimate reason for being this uninformed after this long. Even loose change shills at least brought up an argument and showed images of it.

link something or fuck off.
"do your own research" is the most retarded argument someone could bring up, because nobody knows exactly what you want everyone else to read. link something and i'm going to read it.
on the other side if you did enough "research" you would find all the flaws in the official report. see the point right here?

i can't stress enough, that i'm NOT a conspiracy theorist. but WTC is different from other bullshit like Apollo for example.

>It wouldn't be so bad if it didn't require so many massive leaps in logic. Notably that in order to pull everything off, you'd need the cooperation of thousands and thousands of people and not a single person let slip after all this time that they were involved with it. If the government was this hyper-competent, then they would've planted nukes in Iraq and paraded them around.

not really. to fake something like the moon landing you surely need tens of thousands of people. to implode a building you need a few dozen of people.

>deliberately compromised
Why deliberately? Could have been a simple planning/construction mistake as well.

I find "everyone was paid off and nobody blabbed" to be an incredibly shitty argument. Especially when shit like Operation Northwood, The Bay of Pigs and everything else gets leaked, but this somehow doesn't. Even fucking minor shit like Jade Helm gets leaked, but somehow THIS doesn't despite all the people that would have to be involved? Just niggers setting demolition charges would've been spotted as they'd have to put them throughout the buildings. Acting like you can pull something like this off with just a dozen people is the height of "MUH GUBMINT IS SUPER COMPETENT AT ERRYTHING, THAT'S WHY IT FUCKS UP ALL THE TIME IS TO MAKE PEOPLE THINK IT'S NOT COMPETENT!"

>Like NORAD basically standing down that day, for instance.

Literally didn't happen.

lmgtfy.com/?q=wtc7 collapse

No, if you can't even be arsed to look up what happened and continue to spout retarded memes of IT WAS JUST A FIRE U GOYS! you're only proving that you're willfully ignorant on the subject and don't want to do any kind of basic research on it before repeating memes. It destroys your own credibility when conspiritards do this shit.

Best report of WTC7

youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

What a clusterfuck that turned into.

>BBC using the old
>"We had a delay in our footage, we could prove this with the timestamped originals, but we lost them by pure coincidence" argument
>tfw the original footage was found, complete with timestamp and it proved they reported it 20 minutes before it happened
>tfw you realise you've never seen that reporter ever again
>tfw she's living like a hermit in the middle of nowhere and definitely wasn't murdered even though it was widely reported she had killed herself not long after 9/11
>tfw the people who tracked her down had an interview with her, but didn't take pictures so the whole "interview" isn't worth a squirt of piss

Thanks for that. One more question though if I may? How common is it in your profession for others to share the same opinion?

>lmgtfy.com/?q=wtc7 collapse

retard confirmed. i would not open such a topic if i didn't dig into it before.


and your argument with all those people being involved into a conspiracy does simply not hold in this case. all you need are a few workers in the towers. such people are around every single day in such buildings.

Jet fuel may not be able to melt steel beams, but it can ignite thermite.

>i would not open such a topic if i didn't dig into it before.

You quite literally claimed that the WTC7 only fell because of fire, despite the hundreds of pictures saying otherwise to say nothing of the numerous investigations into it by independent sources.

At this point you're the faggot that goes "Oh yeah? How do you know Kennedy was REALLY shot? There's all these people that say otherwise!" You're not even arguing grass knoll, someone on the highway, in the sewer or even the driver, you're arguing whether he was shot at all.

If you can't do even the most cursory research on your own then you don't deserve to be taken seriously.

son please just stop using the term "research" as if you ever attented any university and know shit about research.
take your daily blue pill and btfo

good question

Free fall speed as admitted by BIST. Explain it

Yeah the workers placed multiple nanothermitic devices around different support beams on different floors

>designed for planes to crash into them
Not to withstand collapse indefinitely child, so that the building could be safely evacuated. That's why it took so damn long to fall.

can't believe i have to explain this shit to scientist

>It would be absolutely impossible for the two towers to collapse without having some of their core structural elements deliberately compromised below the areas where the plane crashed. period.
Why? You sound very very certain. Mind explaining the undebatable reasoning you have behind this?

>heat travels downward

why would they buckle at the bottom first where there is less heat?

It does you stupid burger.

To what end? Why would the gov destroy two buildings they spent billions on?
>muh war
>muh oil
There's easier ways to start a war. Oil is dirt cheap here because of fracking not because of middle east oil. It doesn't make sense there's nothing to gain.

>heat travels downward
topkek