Do you believe that every single steel girder above and below the fire melted? Aviation fuel doesn't burn hot enough...

Do you believe that every single steel girder above and below the fire melted? Aviation fuel doesn't burn hot enough. If the girders melted at point of impact shouldn't the top have toppled off leaving the bottom intact, the building came down in free fall as if no resistance below but the bottom have was intact and would have withstood the top quarter falling onto it.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA
tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
webcitation.org/5IuRwM61d
youtube.com/watch?v=_W00HXsep_c
youtube.com/watch?v=6qJQlfMMNmw
youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs
youtube.com/watch?v=XHcCbY2wY38
youtube.com/watch?v=8hWVSvzh9os
m.youtube.com/watch?v=vadSaWyiozg
m.youtube.com/watch?v=G43zl4fzDQg
nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation
twitter.com/AnonBabble

No

youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA

I believe that thermite cutter charges were placed strategically on the columns throughout the building.

>Aviation fuel doesn't burn hot enough.

It burns in up to 800C degrees, where steel has lost 65% of it's strenght.

All other materials burnt there as well and the tempereture was much high that 800C mentioned.

/thread

Explain how building seven collapsed. Demolition experts state it was a controlled explosion . Explain why a vast number of architects and structural engineers say buildings do not just collapse like that. Explain why a plane flown by amateurs managed to fly a plane into the Pentagon through the world's most protected air space and leave no debris on impact

Girders didn't melt. Floor trusses did.

That's not what they believe. The Normie's believe the heat weakened the structure overtime- not melted all the bars, still equally ridiculous though.

9/11 was an inside job every fucktard with an ounce of brain and some critical thinking skills knows this.

It gave the US an excuse to attack and invade the Middle East and turn it into a shithole so their transnational companies could suck out all resources from it and also establish geopolitical dominance in the area against Russia and China.

>thermite
>what is thermite made of
>steel structure + aluminum/magnesium flying torpedo = thermite

tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

Same, I've always through this. IF you can steal a fucking plane you can place a bomb on the 70th floor of a building. Also, weren't some of those floors empty (not rented)? It would be so easy to get a simple janitor job there and access the floors early morning or the night before.

A FUCKING LEAF

This guy gets it.

TL;DR: a metallic material begins to fail once it is stressed passed its yield point, which is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than its absolute tensile strength. The hotter a metallic material gets, the lower the yield point becomes.

People will barely remember 9/11 after what's coming

>Global false flag attacks in every major western city, blamed on (((ISIS)))
>so devastating and ubiquitous that everyone knows at least one person who died in the attacks, makes 9/11 look like a knee scrape
>Enraged goyim demand we bomb the entire middle east and wipe Islam off the face of the earth once and for all
>Syria, Iran, and the entire future Greater Israel region is reduced to ashes, with the full backing and support of all western goyim
>Federal Reserve petrodollar is secure once again, BRICS alt currency attempts are kept at bay for another few decades

Why does no one see this

>turn the middle east into a shit hole
i've got bad news for you. The middle east has always been a shit hole save a brief period of 15 years.

Ye during the Cold War but shit senpai it wasnt a smoldering shit pile of dead bodies and terrorists running around.

Structural failures shifted the weight. Why would the top have cleanly fallen to the side? Was there a big finger in the sky knocking it to the side? When the interior supporting structure fails the mass above drops down until something stops it. You also assume the damage was somehow limited to the parts of the building you see burning from the outside.

Anyway, that you're still going on about this stuff unironically in 2016 means you desperately need to get a life. How empty must your life be that you have nothing else to do but think about this retarded stuff. Jesus Christ, get a grip.

Your Bart Simpson tier insults and you unironic current yearing indicate that you are in your mid-40s and still getting paid good goy shekels to do this. Fucking pathetic. Kill yourself faggot.

Who in the past 15 years has said "get a life"? Holy shit, friendo.

"Get a grip"? Is this 1985?

Who do you work for? Who sent you to this site?

Rm = ultimate tensile strength

we had this thread yesterday. trump did 9/11 so he could have the tallest building in manhattan

Good for you stating you have no understanding of architecture or demolition, so I dont have to sift through the thread before figuring whether or not to hide it.

Iron oxide + alimunIUM oxide.

Can't remember the correct ration, 2;3 or 3;2, saw it somewhere a long time ago.

Basically, unless the plane was rusty (iron oxide) and therefore poorly maintained, it did not produce thermite.
So if thermite was involved, it was either already in the building, or the plane.
It would have been easier to smuggle thermite into a building, than it would a plane.

However, planes are pretty heavy, it's possible that the weight of the plane (or what was left of it), certainly weakened the structure.
The impact and fuel leakage would was caused heat, friction, and fire.

Considering a building with ventilation would act as a sort of kiln, it's possible the heat was trapped inside (insulated) and lead to the fire reaching higher temperatures than it would normally.
This could easily have caused enough structural damage to topple it.

Basically, it's possible it was just an act of terror, but it's also possible it was an inside job.
The only way to truelly know would be to get ahold of the unedited investigation notes and look for signs of Iron-oxide and alimIUM oxide, as that would mean thermite was likely planted.
The fact that was never disclosed would mean it's possible for it to be an inside job.

>expecting those to stay in place when a plane is flown into the building
>expecting the wiring for them to stay in place when a plane is flown into the building
>expecting your remote control detonators to stay in place and be functioning when a plane is flown into the building
>expecting all of the explosives to detonate so they aren't discovered in the rubble by firefighters

wew lad

Let's say the heat near the impact site and above was enough to deform the steel, why did everything below also collapse, and at a near free-fall rate? A few stories below the impact, wouldn't it be cool enough that the steel would be able to support itself and the structure above it. Surely the bottom ~50 stories were cool enough to stay standing if the top of the building collapsed?

Thank You for the video, sir.

AE911TRUTH.ORG
INFAMY.ORG

Ritual sacrifice for the kikes

the towers fell with the kinetic energy equal to the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It would be like being able to direct a nuclear bomb's power in a single direction, which would be utterly devastating.

Furthermore, there were flammable things in the offices, they caught fire and kept the fire burning hot. The more you go into metallurgy and physics, the easier it is to understand how and why they fell. Plus, while buildings are made to withstand planes crashing into them, to look at it another way, tank armor is made to withstand bullets and rpgs flying at it, yet bullets and rpgs still get through. You can't create an impenetrable object with penetrable materials.

Bullshit !

>firefighters

>Explain how building seven collapsed.

From NYFD's Firehouse magazine a year after the attack:

>Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

>Captain Chris Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn't know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

>Firehouse: How many companies?

>Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we're heading east on Vesey, we couldn't see much past Broadway. We couldn't see Church Street. We couldn't see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty.

>Before we took off, he said, look, if you see any apparatus, strip the apparatus for hose, nozzles, masks, anything you can get. As we headed east, we reached Church and then we were midway from there and then all of a sudden, we could see 5 come into view. It was fully involved. There was apparatus burning all over the place. Guys were scrambling around there. There were a lot of firemen, and there was a lot of commotion, but you couldn't see much that was going on. I didn't see any lines in operation yet. But we found a battalion rig there. We got a couple of harnesses out of there. We had some bottles from another rig, so we put together a couple of masks.

>We went one block north over to Greenwich and then headed south. There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street. Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up.

>A little north of Vesey I said, we'll go down, let's see what's going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what's going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.

>But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see.

>So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

>building 5&6 directly at the base of the tower
>don't collapse even tho north and south tower are falling down on it
>WTC7 barely hit by debris collapses completely in under 10 seconds

>Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

>Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

>Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

>Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

Link:

>webcitation.org/5IuRwM61d

Or maybe all the firefighters were in on it.

yes you can create an impenetrable object with penetrable materials..

>Do you believe that every single steel girder above and below the fire melted?
that's not required -- only for them to bend and buckle is needed, then the weight collapses the while structure and dominoes

>welding experienced tradie or 20 years

Because of momentum? Everything above the collision basically got a running start. When it hit the layers below the collision (which were already incredibly weakened), it kept sweeping right through. By the time it got to the part of the building that was still unaffected by the explosion, there was enough momentum build up to knock off each story one by one.

...

Bullshit !
youtube.com/watch?v=_W00HXsep_c

shut up ahmed you know your family did it. all you goat fuckers are related. its why the saudis payed to have europe take in refugees. you guys will be to inbred to reproduce in 20 years without new genetic material in your gene pool

Very interesting footage.

this doesn't sound so bad tho

Stay tuned for
>Messiah 2.0
>War of the World 2.0

>molten steel could be observed after the impact
>many witnesses say they heard a loud bang under the building seconds before it collapsed (can even be heard on some video footage)
>several witnesses report hearing several bangs completely throughout the building
>human remains are getting blown the fuck out so hard that they get found several months later
>molten steel burns for weeks

After that you will Bow
youtube.com/watch?v=6qJQlfMMNmw

Most people here have likely never been in a high rise building. Most HVAC equipment is on the roof, so a building that size would likely have multiple 4+ inch natural gas lines for building heating.
So in addition to the jet fuel you have a massive natural gas leak feeding the fire.

The ethelyene gycol and AC refrigerant would have been hot enough to ignite in the fire.

You people are retarded.

>tank armor is made to withstand bullets and rpgs flying at it, yet bullets and rpgs still get through

lol no. they had to create special bullets to get through tanks. analogy = crap

I dont bow to no one I take the Blood Eagle

LOL

Do you understand that talking about 1000 tons of building falling 10 feet and gaining momentum is different than 5 lbs falling 1 foot

wew

youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs

Structural engineer here. Can confirm. Doesn't matter whether thermite or jet fuel was used because it just needed to get the beams to around 800 degrees to make it lose most of it's strength. At that point the beams would fail. Though it falling straight down does perplex me because if you watch the video the upper part actually falls over slightly as you would expect (aka it taking the path of least resistance) then it falls into the building below. This might be due to the fact that the facade was also part of the support structure but that would mean the building would probably shift towards the impact zone and fall to the ground not into the building.
>TLDR the beams could have easily failed at those temps especially with the plane impact likely blowing off fireproofing. But the collapse pattern still confuses me.

The argument isn't saying that the jet fuel instantly melted every structural beam throughout the building, it argues that there was not enough fuel to compromise the super structure to such a catastrophic degree, it also brings up the fact that the vast majority of the superstructure, was not present in the rubble. In any other building to have suffered similar damage, the steel structure always remained somewhat intact, certainly not vaporised like at ground zero.
Key structural parts were no where to be seen in the aftermath, such as the roof caps which are the corner stone of the entire steel structure. The only way such a destruction of the structure could have occurred to cause a free fall collapse would have been with a controlled demolition using Thermite charges, targeting such critical points as the roof caps.

I'm sure friction played some role too.
A few tons of concrete and rubble tumbling over itself can produce enough heat and energy to grind steel safes and even people into dust.

Yea, and which do you think is the bowling ball in this analogy?

Which is the feather?

Or do you think WTC happened in a vacuum?

Please... you tell me 2 planes piloted by goat herders destroyed 3 buildings just no dude please for the sake of god all mighty !
youtube.com/watch?v=XHcCbY2wY38

You're changing the subject.

Here's a better question....

How does a mostly aluminium aircraft traveling at subsonic speeds have the kinetic force to penetrate a steel building.

Jet fuel thing is misdirection.

Ignorance as no limit

Thermite isn't a bomb. A bomb would have been easier and more reliable. The WTC has even been bombed before. If the feds wanted to do a false flag terrorist attack on the WTC, why use a plane that couldn't get the job done and then use thermite to finish it when you could just set off a bunch of plastic explosive on floor 50?

Ignorance know no limit

You'd know.

Changing the subject when you're backed into a corner is a common tactic to preserve one's ignorance.

youtube.com/watch?v=8hWVSvzh9os

Aluminum oxide is the waste of thermite. Thermite is rust + aluminum metal. It's feasible friction from the plane could have sheered enough aluminun against the rusty steel beams to produce a thermite reaction. But this was not required to weaken the structure of the building

But this sounds great.

No I do not. Jet fuel burns in ambient conditions at about ~700'c . Steel melts at 2500'c. So how did what we saw on tv jive with those facts. The fact is they don't and we do not recognize what we saw.

Dr.Judy Wood is into how this happened it is the beginning of understanding.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=vadSaWyiozg

Susan Lindaur begins to touch on why.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=G43zl4fzDQg

The green pill awaits you.

You did not see molten steel on TV

>the entire building and its contents was nothing but steel

You're retarded.

The Saudis are pissed that they are going to be scape goateed by the normies here in the states when there was vast loose association of different interests that knew about this happening and helped facilitate it/tried to warn higher ups in the US and were ignored.

Look up the Great Hinckley Fire of 1894.

Fueled by nothing but pine tree branches, a series of small fires met and were fed by the local wind until they became a firestorm.
Despite the fact that wood generally burns at less than 500 degrees, this firestorm, created from nothing but wood, reached a temperature of at least 2,000 degrees, evidenced by the fact that it melted the town's steel railroad tracks.

The burning temperature of a fire's fuel isn't the *only* thing that determines its heat. A lot of different factors, air currents being one of them, play a big role. That's why billows exist for furnaces.

It is certainly within the realm of possibility that, even if the only source of fire was the materials ALREADY present in the building, enough air could have blown through the breached windows to turn the building into something like a crucible, and cause the fire to become hot enough to liquefy steel.

Yes we did. Where is that video. There are NYC firemen that witnessed molten steel flowing down channels next to staircases. Also you can see it flowing out one of the corners of the facad just below the collapse point. It's all out there if you choose to look.

The beams didn't melt you cunt, they simply became malleable enough to no longer be able to support the weight of the building. HAVE YOU EVER WATCHED A BLACKSMITH WORK? WOW DID YOU KNOW IF YOU HEAT UP METAL IT'S EASIER TO BEND AND SHAPE? WOWWWWWWWWWWWW ROCKET SCIENCE

You can see a lot of sparks, which are probably from the weakening steel shearing agsinst the aluminum

Addendum: The first phrase can read "The beams didn't HAVE TO melt". It is possible that some in fact did, but regardless, full melting isn't necessary to bring down a structure that size.

>2.5 hrs
Can you tell me what the main thesis is? Why does she keep talking about part of the building disappearing?

Where does she think it goes?

>Do you believe that every single steel girder above and below the fire melted?

none of them melted, the jetfuel fire weakened the girders above which collapsed on the ones below like a matchstick building

>Aviation fuel doesn't burn hot enough.

It doesnt need to melt anything

How do you explaine away the fact that not one toilet, not one computer or phone, all file cabinets disappeared (but one from the basement). But that the content ends of those cabinets was scattered for blocks and blocks with steel turned to dust undammaged. How do you make all those file cabinets disappear but leave behind the paper undammaged?

Her main thesis is what we witnessed was a new technology at work that can turn steel to dusted without heat. It is thought provoking for an open mind.

What the fuck are you talking about? You think they counted the toilets

'Open mind' means 'thinks the world work like a Jason Bourne movie' in this instance.

This is backed up by Susan Lindaurs public testimony that here higher ups didn't warned her off going to NYCin September because they feared an atomic event. And that there were trace elements of tritium at ground zero after the event which is a byproduct of steel turning to dust.

Can you imagine how powerful you could be I this world if you could threaten a world power with a weapon that could turn steel to dust? And you could point to your work and say "behold!" All the while getting rid of pesky cia investigations of where a couple trillion dollars of government spending had gone.

Actually they didn't count anything. And that itself is a crime. The largest crime scene in the history of this country was isolated from the prying eyes and the press, and quickly shipped off to a dump on Statten Island, the steel that was left was shipped of to China and melted down. A couple of pieces that are left when viewed by people who work with steel are subjunctive of amazement and wonder because they cannot understand how the pieces were bent without cracks. The one fema person who was allowed to video tape the destruction of the crime scene has been granted asylum by Argentina.

Why is the US government so desperate to hide what happened on 911 that they have destroyed all the air traffic control tapes for that day, destroyed all the FBI interviews of all the subjects of their investigations.

Why?

pfft. everyone knows the towers were taken down by energy weapons.

Wrong. The biggest pieces were removed from the site, put onto a barges, and then brought to hangers where they were sorted and cataloged. Thousands of large pieces of metal ended up as local memorials and a lot of them have markings indicating where they were placed during construction.
Every personal artifact found was also cataloged and had some form of testing done to determine who it belonged to.

Acting like the entire site was swept up, evidence destroyed, and never accounted for is just being willfully ignorant.

You think being a fucking illiterate welder makes you more qualified than the 2500 registered architects and engineers that have put their names up refuting the official account? I mean I know that you do think that because you're a moron but you're wrong.

Didn't melt , only weaken
When you combine aviation fuel with aluminium fuselage it creates an exothermic reaction and burns hotter than the point to melt steel

It also liquifies the aluminium which is the shower of sparks you see out the window before collapse


Perhaps if you were intelligent enough to actually read up on studies with proven science applied to it, you wouldn't be making a fool of yourself irl

The government investigation into 911 stopped at the moment of impact of the airplanes (even that is in doubt now) into the buildings. It did not actually investigate the cause of the collapse of building 1, 2 and 7. Now if you were a government responsible for the construction codes of buildings in major cities, don't you think you would be even a little bit concerned about why a fire on a three or four floors managed to free fall a 110 story building into its foot print but only leave behind 20 floors of rubble. Don't you think you would be a little bit concerned? A reasonable government lackey would be mightily concerned.

They were concerned when a B-25 Mitchell flew into the Empire State Building in the 1940 and burned a couple of floors (and the building didn't free fall into its footprint.)

Why are they not concerned now? Why?

You are a moron and a sheep

Imagine how angry you'd be if someone falsely accused you of rape.

Now can you imagine how much more pissed off you'd be if people were accusing you of literally doing 9/11?

If Larry Silverstein was innocent, then he'd be angrily screaming from the hilltops about how all these false accusations made against him are false. He'd be issuing takedown notices and suing left and right for libel. He'd make constant public appearances in media to scold anyone who believed they were controlled demolitions.

Instead, he's been completely fucking absent from the public eye for 15 years. Huh, it's almost like he's trying really hard not to draw any attention to himself.

Decepticons or fake beams

Steel beams heated up to the temperature kerosine burns at lose 80% of their inherent strength, you know this fact right?

Or are you just going to ignore it because it doesn't fit your tin foil hat theory?

Molten metal

Jet fuel + aluminium fuselage

How are you not getting this, you retard

kek dude

There aren't many other buildings that were built like WTC 1 & 2. And the collapses were investigated. NIST did an extensive report about the buildings under regular conditions, what the damages the aircraft's impact did, what the fire conditions were like, and how it ultimately lead to collapse.

nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation

>Compares a 1940s concrete building and 1940s small ass plane to a passenger jet slamming into a steel skyscraper.

Wew. Lad. Not like chunks of the building where literally falling off before the collapse. Just might be an issue of structural integrity yeah?

We didn't need an excuse to invade, it was happening no matter what.

No debris at pentagon???

Are you fucking retarded or are you purposely ignoring photos of half the fuselage sitting in the lawn and photos of the planes landing gear inside the pentagon??

You are also ignoring footage from the news cams going out live on the day that shows part of the fuselage on the lawn

You know I've always wondered about the south tower. The "plane" that struck the south tower struck off to one side so one can assume that facad columns and the core steel columns were damaged on that side. But when the building came down it pancaked. If it was severely damaged by the plane after an asymmetric hit, why did the building free fall straight down? Why?

>jet fuel would have burned away relatively quickly
>the remaining fire would be from office materials

Office chairs melt steel beams?