Beside the Twin Tower. Literally ever. Go ahead. I'll wait...
Name one other building that collapses from a Jet Fuel Fire
Have you ever thought maybe heating the steel causes it to bend easier, it makes it more maluable. With the weight of 10 floors of materials putting strain on the heated steel might cause it to fail.
dont forget the heavy ass plane that crashed in
OK great. Tell me one other time that happened.
>name one other city destroyed by an atom bomb
>other than hiroshima or nagasaki
go ahead ill wait
Chernobyl.
Prove me wrong.
atom bombs aren't even real. they are part of geopolitical war gaming among the elites. not even kidding. so that's a shit example. that's also for another thread.
I think maybe somewhere, somewhen some jet fuel cistern may have leaked, does that count?
>best magic trick of all time...take a bow jews.
his point is; just because it doesn't happen 20 times a day doesn't mean the explanation isn't still correct
...
The fires burning at less than 500 degrees were not intense enough to even weaken steel, and even so, it would fail to explain how a small fraction of the building could account for the entire structure coming down as if it were being unzipped.
>plane
>light enough to fly through the air
>weights 100 tons
>A WTC tower
>strong enough to hold up 110 floors
>weights 500,000 tons
get the fuck out
>people actually believe this
>atom bomb =/= technical failure leading to a meltdown
It's not like theres 100's of planes crashing into building to compare results. I'm not saying it wasn't an inside job or anything, and theres the explosions part to discuss.
I just find the jet fuel aspect to be retarded, it's not like you have to liquify the steel to cause the above floors from falling.
i believe 9-11 was a false flag because of corporate interests to make money out of war, new seciruty ecomonies and ofcourse us proxy influence of oil supplies and control opec.
that aside just because we were lied to it doesn't mean everything said becomes invalid, afterall most lies have a ring of truth to make them conviencing. it was a tall very heavy building the top half weights god knows what. you crash a plane into it that itself will cause structural damage (imagine the energy absorbtion on impact.. enough easierly to break ribits and split joins) and beams don't need to melt to be structally compromised.. just hot enough plus it's windy up there... oxygen from the wind would fuel any fire.
>comparing an exotic event like nuclear fission to a fuel fire
here is another steel framed skyscraper on fire for 20 hours!
youtube.com
The steel does eventually weaken and melt, toppling the top 6 floors
But this DOES NOT initiate global collapse
Spoiler: this tower was not rigged with explosives like WTC
well, was there ever another case of a plane flying full speed into skyscraper?
The WTC fires were oxygen starved, which you can tell from the black smoke. The towers had an air lock system to prevent the core from turning into a chimney in the event of fire.
are you saying planes never crashed into another building ever, only those two? what else is the point of your atom bomb analogy if not that?
to summeries. yes the attack was almost certainly planned and i suspect by corporate state interests. the building falling stright down and thankfully not sideways is either just a miricle or highly unlikely planned. (some people say controlled explosion... maybe if 'firefighters' could get in with bags of charges... i mean we know the sandy hook false flag and actors so anythings possible).
Both towers easily withstood the plane impacts. They were designed like mesh curtains. It would be similar to stabbing a screen door with a pencil and expecting it to fall out of the frame.
why not
metal worker here
a rubbish fire burns at about 800f
the jet fuel would have been burned up in a few seconds causing no heat dissipation
i just took a c2h2 torch which burns hotter than jet fuel to a 1/16 rod of steel for a few seconds and it didn't even turn red.
i dont know what structural beams they used but im guessing the thick ones
heat dissipation doesn't work that fast, the towers only burned for 1 hour.
>the city of (you)
chernobyl wasnt destroyed and there was no atom bomb
you might grow two heads if you go there though
>"on fire" is the same as multiple planes full of fuel crashing into it
>comparing apples and oranges
>light aircraft
>not a skyscraper
irrelevant then isnt it
1945 a plane flew into empire state building
1946 a plane flew into 40 wall street (aka Trump Building)
not a skyscrapper, but in 2010 that wikipedia article i linked...
>not building structures from reinforced concrete
The buildings were ugly anyway. The skyline looks far better without them.
i can't speak to specifics about the design of the building because i don't know.. i'm just speculating. i'm curious would the air lock system work if a huge hole has been punched through the building.. i mean we could see inside that hole and see floors and that women on the side.
your right oxygen starved fires do smoke because carbon isn't burnt fully enough to make carbon dioxide however we've seen air crashes in open fields with plenty of air (like concorde etc) and they have big fireballs and lots of smoke. not saying your point is wrong because your technically right it's just i've observed smoke from fuel fires (these fuels do have a high carbon componant)
what are ou trying to say, leaf?
learn to use google....
i posted two of them
>pathetic special pleading
Point me to a practical experiment ANYWHERE that can recreate collapse effects like we saw on 9/11 without explosives. Show me any kind of structure that will disintegrate in this way, from the top down, at constant acceleration, into its own footprint, with a small block completely destroying the entire structure and crushing itself up in the process.
Of course you cannot, because 9/11 physics defy the regular laws of physics that have existed both before and after.
rubbish fires cant dissipate enough heat into steel beams within the time frame for them to bend.
The collapse of the WTC towers was not the result of a `controlled demolition`.
However there are substantial indications of an explosive device at the base of the WTC tower as part of the terrorist attack. This explosion has not been properly investigated according to many people who looked at this evidence.
Look up "911 and War by Deception" on youtube for video evidence and eyewitness testimonies of this explosion at the base of the WTC tower.
youtube.com
And then there is a `third rail` issue about 9/11 no one seems to we willing to talk about.
The arrest on 9/11 of five dancing Israelis celebrating the attacks on the sky scraper buildings. Who where driving around in a white van from american-based company "Urban Moving systems", which is rumoured by ABC news to having been a front company for the Mossad, the Israeli secret service.
abcnews.go.com
>jet fuel alone
strawman
Let's take into account what happens on a chemical level here.
A plane is constructed mostly of aluminium
Burning fuel oxidizes and rapidly causes steel to rust
Oxygen Aluminium and Iron(Steel) create thermite
why does it need to have happened any other time?
strawmen and meta strawmen
anecdotal fallacy
yeah, and its not as if those planes were about 1/20 or less the mass of 747s
oh wait
tell me any other time the Big Bang happened.. or else its not possible.
American denial
EXPLAIN HOW WTC7 FELL WITHOUT GETTING HIT BY A PLANE
You will never get a credible answer and is the smoking gun that this was the work of Thermite Demolition
>it has to happen more than once to even be plausible
shitbaiting
dunning-kreuger
>pathetic special pleading
fallacious meta-fallacy
>jet fuel is supposed to have temperature of 1,500° celsius
>yet 15 years passed and the argument has still not melted
Explain that
Since about 1200BC.
I do some welding and have an oxy/acetaline rig. I'm far from an expert, but I have to think a bunch of papers and office junk would have to burn for a hell of a long time to heat those beams up enough to affect them in any way.
misusing fallacy fallacy
ad hom
appeal to the stone
proof by assertion fallacy
non-argument
further shitbaiting
and all in one
you get a thumbs up bud!
Shared foundations.
because mechanics
prove it. build a skyscraper and fly a plane into it. until the tin foil brigade does that they should just shut the fuck up
>EXPLAIN HOW WTC7 FELL WITHOUT GETTING HIT BY A PLANE
pure coincidence, goyim
A 747 is 1/5000th the mass of a WTC tower. That argument is not on your side by several orders of magnitude.
why should we?
it already happen 3-4 times in the past, not including wtc
911 fake as fuck
you can't even take a fucking waterbottle to an airplane. how could you highjack it?
>thermite+foul play+conspiracy
yes
that had to be the cause
because anything else doesnt fit the exciting & auto-pariah holier-than-thou "we few courageous few alone see the truth"
and if it wasnt that, well that wouldnt any fun and exciting
therefore, conspiracy+thermite, etc
plus i got my physics derploma from simple english wikipedia, so indisputable
Building 7
i didnt say fallacy fallacy, which means fallacy by fallacy
i said FALLACIOUS fallacy
as in, non fallacy, not the popular one you claim
Dont be stupid user, it wasn't the jet fuel. It was the thermite
those collapsing 6 floors don't appear to be hundreds of tons of concrete do they?
>Evil gubmit would happily slaughter thousands to further their evil plans
>Would slaughter thousands more to keep any concrete evidence secret
>Somehow feel safe exposing them
Your willingness to discuss the matter is a tacit admission that you don't really believe it.
red herring
false equivalence
false analogy
appeal to drama (exaggeration)
et al
No, YOU prove YOUR extraordinary claim before I am expected to believe it.
Reproduce any gravitational collapse of that nature with a practical experiment, or point to one that has already been done, or shut the fuck up. Show me how a small fraction of a structure, along with gravity, can destroy the entire structure and itself with constant downward acceleration and not use explosives. I dare you.
I guess some people here also think moon landing is a hoax
correlated fo 9/11 as fuck
>metal worker here
aluminum foil on cheeseburgers is not technically a metal worker
word salad
bullshitting
making shit up
WTC tower = 500,000 tons
747 = 100 tons
and?
be fucking serious
ah, yes, such in depth elaboration
you expect mere facts to sway them?
the desperation & irrationality of the human ego, plus the fact that it alone is in almost constant command of the minds of far better than 99% of the population of earth
at some point in the past these peoples ego's decided that "conspiracy is the cause, because"
and they will never ever be swayed
just like any religious nut/cultist
>YOU prove YOUR extraordinary claim before I am expected to believe it.
And neither do the lower floors, so what is your point? The further you go up a tower, the more mass there is below. Both planes hit relatively high on the twin towers.
>into its own footprint
It didn't though, they both fell partially sideways and left rubble all over the area
how long does it take?
how long do magnesium wheels burn?
they do burn at 5600f
You're a fucking idiot you bellend chav.
yeah, I was thinking of WTC7, discard that. Either way it can't be done.
The massive footprint is actually an evidence of explosive ejection.
...
>word salad
appeal to absurdity
ad hom
>bullshitting
appeal to the stone
ad hom
>making shit up
red herring
ad hom
>WTC tower = 500,000 tons
>747 = 100 tons
plus all of its kinetic energy
plus all of the chemical energy, both of fuel and all combustables on board
all concentrated in a very small section of the
PLUS all combustables WITHIN the towers
and with plenty of weight above to be held by increasingly weakening and likewise compromised full cut-through of at least 1/3 of the area of each towers cross-section
He was talking about the plane in 45/6, idiot.
*section of the towers
...
I know, and I am saying that the building is so much more massive than any plane that his objection is negligible and absurd. Simpleton.
>No, YOU prove YOUR extraordinary claim before I am expected to believe it.
retard, you are the one making the claim. It's on you to prove it.
>maluable
Stopped reading right there
Have you ever seen an explosive demolition in person? There are enormous explosions that you can hear for miles in a precisely timed sequence. The building doesn't even move until the final charge has gone off. They happen in order, reducing the integrity of the structure until a single key member is preventing cascading failure. In the history of demolition, charges which fire during the collapse have never been used because you can't predict where they'll be when they go off or if their triggering mechanisms will even be in tact. This is because you sure as hell don't want undetonated explosives in the rubble.
nice strawman
KE=1/2mv^2
>Have you ever seen an explosive demolition in person?
yes.
>There are enormous explosions that you can hear for miles in a precisely timed sequence. The building doesn't even move until the final charge has gone off. They happen in order, reducing the integrity of the structure until a single key member is preventing cascading failure. In the history of demolition, charges which fire during the collapse have never been used because you can't predict where they'll be when they go off or if their triggering mechanisms will even be in tact. This is because you sure as hell don't want undetonated explosives in the rubble.
cool story, but it has nothing to do with the fate of the WTC.
>747 = 100 tons
see this is why you are dumb, well one of the reasons. It wasn't even 747's.
steel beams are designed to hold the above floors. When you heat steel, its mechanical properties decline, therefore it cannot hold the weight of the floor above because the beams are not designed for such temperatures.
>And neither do the lower floors, so what is your point?
less falling weight. are you that stupid?
It was hit by a wing. 18 floors were gouged out of one of the corners of the building.
No I wasn't. Follow the thread. People are making impossible claims about plane crashes and fires taking causing a skyscraper to disintegrate the way we saw on 9/11. It's bullshit, and it can't be backed up with scientific experimentation.
Show me any experiment that can reproduce a similar destructive sequence without explosives.
Less resisting force. do you know anything about physics you fucking illiterate?
Yeah surely that would cause a building to fall string down you fucking retard building aren't made of playing cards you dumb shit.
>The massive footprint is actually an evidence of explosive ejection.
now i dont have the full litany of fallacies entirely memorized, but i do know plenty enough for this crap:
>causation proof by correlation
>many questions fallacy
>fallacy of single cause
probably more
>Thinks buildings should be designed to fall over sideways when compromised, so they can destroy several city blocks
>Calls other people dumb shits
>i have no idea what a strawman is
check out simple-english wikipedia
>cool story, but it has nothing to do with the fate of the WTC.
You're claiming that it was brought down with explosives, where are the bangs and why do these 'theories' madly rant about explosions happening during the collapse? If they had it would, as you like to say, have been the first time in history.
You haven't shown any of it to be fallacious.
it could easily have higher resisting force with less overall weight depending on the structural design and materials used.
i seriously need to ask:
are you or not shitbaiting?