How does a building collapse in a perfect downwards demolition

>>714480498
Even if we lived in a fantasy world where two planes could take down a multibillion-dollar skyscraper

How is it possible that two planes hit and three buildings collapsed
First tower, second tower, WTC building?

>>714480498
Did you expect the building to shoot out like a compressed spring when the top several floors basically blitzed the thing?
Show me an example of a building toppling over like Godzilla hit it or something.


>you're a fucking tool

>>714480809
>3 buildings collapsed
>2 planes hit

You just cant make this shit up

Thr planes stopped inside the towers, which were not built to hold up a fucking jet airliner inside of them

>>714481035
>110 storys high building holding hundreds of thousands of people, equipment and other assorted bullshit doesn't have the strength to an airplane a fraction of its size

Reminder that 3 building collapsed and there was only 2 planes

>>714480498
>perfect downwards

This is basic physics. To tip something sideways, you need a torque. The only external torque was an airplane, which is tiny in impulse compared to the moment of the building as a whole. As for internally torques, there weren't any of those either, since whole floors of structural steel failed uniformly, without preference for one side or another.

Only remaining force is gravity, which is straight down.

Protip: Don't learn physics from Godzilla movies.

man 9/11 conspiracy bullshit really makes me miss the younger days of the internet

it seems so innocent in retrospect.like people really thought they were going to change the world by sharing loose change

now we're in some kind of hyperweird mainstream internet culture war against the backdrop of the inevitable end of the free and open internet.

>>714480969
The third building caught fire when some burning ruble from one of the twin towers hit it, causing a fire to break out where the sprinkler system was located. Then, the combination of all of the firefighters dealing with the twin towers and the fire caused the building to collapse from the inside out. If you watch the video of it collapsing, you can see the middle of the roof go down first then the outsides.

>>714480498

Huh, TIL that skyscrapers are made of Jenga blocks! Doesn't really sound all that structurally similar to how skyscrapers seem to be built, but I'm no engineer.

>>714480776

WTC7 is the linchpin of the conspiracy, for me, in that it shows that there wasn't one.

I mean, think about it. The conspiracy's done at the highest levels in utmost secrecy. Years of planning, all the evidence in place to frame al queda (or manipulating them into taking part, whatever). Get the right people on the right plane, and have them go nuts. Shoot a missile at the pentagon and pretend it's a plane too because we kinda have a theme going here, and then cover that up too. Everything accounted for.

And then... WTC7. What happened there? They go through all that trouble to extensively plan every bit of it and they get to how they want to destroy WTC7 and then they're like... "Um... I don't know... we'll figure something out"?

I mean, come on! If WTC7 comes down via conspiracy, that means someone had to put bombs in there. That, right there, that's your cover! Have those people dress up suspiciously! Boom, suspicious people sighted, building goes down, no questions asked.

But no, apparently the plan the masterminds came up with is "I dunno lol"

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

Tinfoil hat faggots need to be sterilized.

>>714481480
> yet no other buildings caught on fire

You do realize how much bullshit is spewing from your mouth right
Billions of dollars of concrete steel and titanium supports do not Melt Away in a basic fire.

>>714480498
there is a documentary explaining your exact question, the architect that designed the building made its like that to prevent two huge towers falling on other building killing more people.

>>714480498
Better yet. How and why did building 7 collapse? It was not hit by anything.

>>714481421
You do realize that building has four corners and that the planes hit the centers of the building right?

Even if one of the supports was destroyed multibillion-dollar buildings do not give out so easily. The main Corner supports when not even touched and even if a center support was somehow destroyed it would be impossible for a structure like that to collapse.

>>714480498
It's called progressive collapse or pancaking you fucking moron.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse

>>714482637
Please educate yourself.
>>714482000

>>714480498


you're right, it should have fallen just like a jenga tower

because the science behind them both is the same


you're a fucking idiot, stay in the basement

>>714482749
Hey, please show us your degree in structural engineering that makes you right and every other fucking engineer wrong.

>>714481746
Jenga blocks on merely a comparison

But here's the thing they know that stupid people like you are willing to believe whatever the government tells you. Because the act of saying anything that contradicts the plot line story perpetuated is seen as an insult by most American sheep.

People are willing to believe whatever they want if they are told in fear.
Oh yeah and a sloppy Story Only means that they're mocking us.

You still haven't explained how two planes hit 3 buildings collapsed built with over two billion dollars

File: images-20.jpg (25KB, 474x310px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 474x310px

jew lightning.

>>714482749
>four corners

Ignorance is bliss, ain't it? WTC 1 and 2 were an innovative structure held up primarily by their skin. Corners didn't matter much for structural support.

>one of the supports was destroyed
If it were just one gone, the building wouldn't have collapsed. There were a couple of floors *all* of whose posts failed simultaneously. Not surprising if the temperature were anything like homogeneous on the floor.

>>714483029
>>714482958
Yet you still can't disprove me
I'll show you my Civics engineer degree when you show me yours

I think I've made my point in this thread

>>714483269
>WTC 1 and 2 were an innovative structure held up primarily by their skin. Corners didn't matter much for structural support.

Where is your fucking source, did you make the building? A multibillion-dollar building does not have one structual source because it's a multibillion-dollar building and that's fucking retarded.

Im calling bullshit you shill

>>714483675

Can't admit that anybody knows more than you, can you? Sad.

>>714483874
You got that source anon?

>>714480498
Yeah it must be the illuminati, because jenga toootally = stuctural engineering of gigantic fucking skyscrapers.

>>714483874
Disregard him. Just another brainwashed millennial that knows everything.

I'm sure this has been brought up already, but HAARP's role in this thing gets overlooked a lot. Directed earthquakes within a few meter range anywhere on the globe (2004 tsunami, 2008 china, 2011 japan 5 meltdown event). Debunkers want to talk about all the impossible stuff to throw people off. What about directed weather force using ionospheric manipulation?

Let me guess, you also think Obama is jacking off two your 2 tb of cp on you PC, right?

>>714482596
HAHAHAHAHA

> I'm just gonna make sure that this building is designed so that when it ever collapses totally, it will do so in a downward motion

>>714483412
This post right here disproves you, you fucking moron.
>>714482000

>>714484010
I'm putting no effort into convincing /b/tards of facts. Look it up yourself if you care.

No sense in pissing in an ocean of piss.

>>714484304
That doesn't mention how its support structures are made at all your full of shit.
Your such an obvious shill

>>714484516
Where's that source anon?
Reminder that this
>>714484612
>>714484304
Has already been disputed

Just look up Hussein bin Obama and Ramzi Yousef Indonesia madras connection. This goes deep.

>>714483257

So if people are willing to believe anything, why bother coming up with a conspiracy in the first place? Just bomb the stupid buildings and you're done, make up whatever excuse you want.

What I'm pointing out is that the conspiracy's entirely top-notch and then... what, they give up?

> Oh yeah and a sloppy Story Only means that they're mocking us.

So your thinking is the conversation went a bit like:

"How do we explain WTC7?"

"Eh, we won't bother, it'll be funny."

"Funny? We spent how much money and are killing how many people to make this work, and you're going for lulz?"

"Sure! It'll be hilarious!"

"Okay, how about this - you know the guys we've got going into WTC7 to blow up the place?"

"Yeah."

"Why don't we just claim they're terrorists and that they did it?"

"Not funny enough. Dress them up like clowns or don't bother."

>>714482838

Progressive collapse usually does not lead to clean, perfectly vertical collapses. In order for that to happen a single central main element must fail, or all radial iterations of the failing element must fail at the exact same time or very nearly the same time. Twin towers did not have central supports, and the odds of any ubiquitous, simultaneous radial failure of elements is unbelievably unlikely, even if a plan crashes into it. All independent demo experts consulted on this matter have confirmed that this looks suspiciously like controlled demo.

>>714484797
You making up a lot of bullshit but you still haven't explained how to 3 buildings Collapse by two planes

>>714484917
Holy fuck you idiot, There is a link in the fucking thread that explains all of that and you just fucking ignore it. God damn you conspiracy fucktards are so god damn stupid its fucking mind boggling.

>>714484612
Please an hero, youre too fucking stupid to be allowed to live and reproduce.

>>714484797
Because the specific motivation employed justified to the USAmerican public our involvement in the middle east war over oil, which is a resource that some groups in the USAmerica desperately want (but do not need).

>>714485083
Bullshit link, already disproven

You mad :]

>>714485184
You mad :]

>>714485233
>>714485289
Fuck off samefag.

>>714485204
Don't argue with him he's nothing but a paid shill

>>714485354
You ......mad......:]

I don't see why anyone is still arguing. People who believe in this shit conspiracies won't be convinced otherwise no matter how much proof you present. Don't you know, they're all structural engineers with more experience and knowledge than the ones who all said how the buildings collapsed.

>>714485386
not arguing, just presenting a possibility that makes sense.

>>714485595
*discuss*

>>714485233
Please explain how it was disproved, ya know besides you just saying so.

All this talk about planes and collapses that just put insurance money in the pockets of the jews takes away from the potential talk about what exactly "hit" the "pentagon" that "day". I say rail gun slug based on the 3 grainy "security" camera frames that were released. I've calculated that "it" had to be travelling at over 21,0000 mph.

>>714485204

You don't need to crash planes into WTC to get a war started over oil. Hell, if dubya's any guide you don't need any reason whatsoever! Claim there's WMD's. Done. That's what a populace that believes anything the government tells them gets you, no need to blow up a thing.

>> 714484917

I'm not trying to explain a thing about it. I'm just trying to picture how the conspiring went down. If you don't like the bullshit I'm making up, go ahead and write your own script! I'd very much like to know why you think they didn't bother coming up with a story for WTC7. Bound to be entertaining.

I mean, the bombs are *right there!*

>>714485872
It's not in the link bitch

Clearly you aint got shit. Im outtahere

>>714486084
Great argument there buddy, and yes everything discussed in this thread is in that link. Stop being so assblasted that it disproves your stupid little conspiracy theory.

>>714483675
Sources? Where do you think you are reddit? Also where the fuck are your sources? if that's what you need to make an argument.

>>714486282
Your ass is blasted pal.

>>714486282
>>714486490

Assblasters took down WTC.

Too accurate for sand people.

>>714484099
Seriously? You're going to try and make the argument that not only did the government do it but they did it with weather control?

>>714486030
They weren't trying to start the war. The war was already going.

They were trying to get the public to approve of our involvement in the war; nobody supported US involvement until terrorists "made it personal", then everybody was like "yeah kill those goat fuckers" and the US could get involved and start doing sketchy shit without anyone batting an eye because the middle east "deserved it".

They needed to do something drastic, and perpetrated by middle eastern terrorists in order to get the US on board. The specific what wasn't important. It could have been a severe train bombing, it could have been a massive hacking scheme, etc... whatever they just needed something that would get a lot of people pissed off. The thing they chose was a really good choice because it barely interrupted nyc's economy at all, but it got serious global attention and pissed all USAmericans off to almost no end.

File: Qtjfv.jpg (98KB, 900x1154px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 900x1154px

>>714484903
>Twin towers did not have central supports,

I dont believe you.

>>714486839
What are elevators for 500

>>714486839
obviously shopped. buildings aren't made of clear.

>>714486839

Those are the elevator shafts, sheathed with two layers of drywall. Some supports, there, buddy.

ITT: faggots ignoring inconvenient facts in order to hold onto their ignorant feeling of superiority.

>>714487347
Hey man don't be so mean to yourself

>>714481423

>
now we're in some kind of hyperweird mainstream internet culture war against the backdrop of the inevitable end of the free and open internet.

I'm not alone. Except....do you hate the world because of this pattern of nonsense?

>>714487045

There were 43 steel core support columns in the middle of the buildings running from the bottom to the top. Ignore the facts at your own peril.

>>714480498
Haven't we all agreed already that it was Obama and the Jews?

>>714486725

But we didn't need any of that for Iraq, just the we-say-so of the government and off everyone went. That, to me, is a sign that they didn't need it for Afghanistan, either.

Regardless, I can see how they might not have realized the utter gullibility of the populace and orchestrated an attack. That I get. I just don't get it being plotted perfectly at some points and then they just forget the rest.

"Hey, they bought the planes thing!"

"Sweet! And what about the 'terrorists plant bombs in WTC7 story?"

"That was Frank's job."

Fucking Frank. Always slacking off.

>>714481480
nope. watch the videos. the 3rd building falls at random while the other one is falling.
it doesnt even have time to catch on fire, let alone burn long enough for the entire thing to come down

>>714480498
diamond is the hardest metal.

>>714487430
Were you trying to
>greentext?

>>714487489
Correction those were elevator shafts elevators stairwells and possibly some extra internal supports

Implying one plane can destroy all those supports in your claim please you just proved my point

>>714487489
43, not 1. and these 43 supports were supposedly encased in a concrete pillar.

Again with the symmetrical radial failure argument: it's extremely unlikely even given the circumstances.

>>714487569
No it was Bush you 12 year old

>>714487777
That was the joke........nice quads.

>>714480498
>when OP has no idea what confirmation bias is

>>714487712
>yes

>>714487843
Oh yeah I forgot that people sometimes pretend to be retarded on here.

Thx

File: i'm bout to do sumthin.png (231KB, 304x366px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 304x366px

Barack Obama is an alien from Uranus and he destroyed the twin towers with his butthole death ray. Try and prove me wrong faggots ;)

>>714481423
I felt the same here anon.
>sees loose change
>feel like i just stumbled upon a grand conapiracy
>be 10 years older in college studying social psychology with an emphasis on cognitive bias research
>realize I was an idiot

>>714487635
We didn't need to acquire it for Iraq because everyone in the US already hated the entire middle east. We didn't need acquire it it for Iraq because we already had it.

The WTC7 thing got swept under the rug pretty goddamn well, but even so with something like this there are lots of possibilities for things to go wrong. Damage control almost never ends up being clean, and can sometimes be manipulated to actually silence dissenters, as you seem to be doing.

Also also, you're assuming you can conceive of a plan and it's purpose that is likely beyond your expertise in almost every imaginable way, and every unimaginable way.

Amazing. Oswald managed to take down all three twin towers with a single magic bullet. Million to one shot.

>>714480498
Because the planes didn't cause the collapse, the burning jet fuel did. And the third building went down from a host of factors, including burning rubble falling on it.

And before you start "jet fuel can't melt steel beams," I must remind you that it is more than hot enough to turn those steel beams to play-doh.

>>714487760
>supposedly encased in a concrete pillar.

no. that was misreported by the BBC. They were not:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=14&MMN_position=20

Nonetheless, the original claim I was responding to was that the buildings had no central support and it is a claim that is demonstrably false...as I have shown.

>>714488585
Have you even heard of the fake moonlanding/oswald connection?

>>714482453
Yeah but when the weight of the top of the building is forced through all the floors it's gonna collapse stop being dumb

>>714488664
>I must remind you that it is more than hot enough to turn those steel beams to play-doh.

Actully the temps of jet fuel don't get high enough, not even in special chambers

No jet fuel was in the third building cus nothing hit it. Watch the video. Its not even on fire when it collapsed

Your full of shit and a shill

>>714488998
No, but at this point I would not be surprised to learn that Oswald had a hand in the Lincoln assassination.

>>714489124
I think there was something more going on with the towers, but as a blacksmith I can tell you that holding a piece of iron in just bed of charcoals will very noticeably soften it.

>>714489121
>All supports on sepperate sides and corners of the building melted by one plane

You are so full of shit dumbass.

If were talking about WTC then that didn't even catch on fire. Watch the video you retarded shill

>>714488441

> there are lots of possibilities for things to go wrong

Not planning ahead is not one of those things. The conspirators wanted to destroy WTC7. They knew they wanted to do this. They planted bombs to accomplish this. And then they... what, forgot?

I'm not trying to silence dissenters, I'm trying to figure out what the hell they were thinking. Again, the bombs are right. there. Say terrorists planted them. That is literally the only thing that needs to be done and you've got it covered.

Why didn't they do that?

>>714489381
Well good thing there was no Charcoal in the towers huh?

>>714489124
>Actully the temps of jet fuel don't get high enough,

structural steel loses half its strength at 600f - the fires in the WTC were estimated to be at least twice that. No steel melted. No steel had to melt for the joist connections to become so weak that they could not hold their load.

File: edna.jpg (45KB, 390x365px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 390x365px

>>714489381
not hot enough to 'soften' this woman

Dude with the weight of the top and all the people moving around in it I think it'd fall

File: 911_A_is_A.jpg (115KB, 1116x599px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1116x599px

If you look at how the outside walls were put together, and look at the slow motion video of the collapse, you will see that it peeled like a banana, with each floor collapsing down as it did.

>>714488714
At least I did not say "central support". I said "single central support" which will have a different destructive dynamic than multi-support central support. See symmetrical radial failure.

>>714489449
>If were talking about WTC

if you talking about WTC7 then you are high on crack. It was damaged significantly by the collapse of WTC1 and caught fire and burned unfought for 8hrs. Try facts. They are useful.

>>714489549
You dont get it do you shill, you can't argue that the WTC building caught on fire when it never caught on fire in the first place.

And even if it did a regular fire as incapable of melting even iron partly. It requires fuel sources other than office supplies in wood

File: 1975fire.jpg (45KB, 280x250px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 280x250px

>>714489549
none of the steel was weakened in the '75 fire

>>714489775
Yeah jet fuel dumbass

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/05/504414306/oakland-warehouse-recovery-efforts-paused-over-fear-of-collapse

What about the steel beams in this warehouse fire?

The building is under threat f complete collapse because the fire was hot enough to soften the steel, and it twisted and in some areas melted a bit.......

Assholes

File: 1480713816766.jpg (33KB, 612x610px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 612x610px

>pic related

>>714489520
Maybe they did forget. Maybe the detonation didn't go off for some reason. Maybe a bunch of other possibilities. Maybe they actually wanted the evidence to get out because it served someone's purpose in some way or it was going to be an ace in the hole or something for some facet of the plan that I can't conceive of because I'm not operating at a global scale.

I don't know. But it's certainly premature to suggest that because I can't think of anything, there's nothing there.

>>714489543
Whoah now, I'm not arguing with you. But you get enough fuel burning in a closed area like that and you can get some impressive temperatures. I just think talking about this heat effect on beams is misguided. Lets talk about what really happened to those buildings that day. Lets talk about Roswell and the pyramids if you aren't too scared to talk about the real truth of the matter.

>>714489711
it never caught fire you lying asshole
First off it was never hit secondly there is no debris other than smoke that touched any other buildings. What debree fell off that was so hot that it caused NO OTHER building but the WTC to catch fire. Cuz it sure as hell is not the glass. Or the smoke.

>>714489668
>symmetrical radial failure.

but it wasnt at all like a traditional controlled demolition starting at the bottom...It clearly started right at the impact zone...and supposed explosives would have had to survive a fully loaded jet plane crashing into at 500 mph and catching fire.

>>714490083
>debree

Wants to argue over semi-difficult to understand forces of science and nature.

>>714480809
>>714481421

Samefag

>>714489857
How did jet fuel get from the inside of the TT to the inside of WTC7 without getting on the outside of WTC7 first?

>>714489857
The the WTC was never hit with any plans therefore there was no jet fuel in it you fucking retard

File: 1473556187934.jpg (60KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 960x960px

>>714489711
wtc1 and wtc7 are six hundred feet apart from one another
>you're advocating for an explosion not a collapse

>>714490224
You got nothing
Pointing out minor grammatical errors on a Cantonese basket weaving forum only proves you got nothing

>>714490083
>it never caught fire you lying asshole

Walternate?

Seriously, either your a trolling asshat or you just an incredibly ignorant asshat-

Which is it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

>>714481746

Well there was a third plane that could have been meant for WTC7, but the hijackers were overpowered by passengers and the plane ended up crashing in the woods.

If the towers were rigged for controlled demolition and automated to go down one after the other for maximum emotional impact, that could explain what happened.

Also keep in mind that there was an accident with a plane hitting a skyscraper way back in the days, and t the WTC buildings were specifically designed to be able to withstand a plane hitting them.

>>714490061
Well too bad cause jet fuel even in special containers made for increasing its heat doesn't get nearly hot enough faggot :p

>>714490188
Well the whole level didn't catch fire. Plus you can put pretty much anything in flame-retardant protection.

I do agree that it was a progressive failure that brought down the whole building, but it was a controlled progressive failure, where the initial failure happened in all radial supports simultaneously *because of the control*.

>>714490516
Everything on TV that day was CG.

>>714490045

The building was destroyed, so clearly the detonation did go off. If they actually wanted the evidence to get out then all they had to do was not put bombs in the buiding.

> it's certainly premature to suggest that because I can't think of anything, there's nothing there.

... that's literally what's happening elsewhere in this thread. "Why did WTC1 and 2 collapse" and, when the answers aren't sufficient, then the explanations fail.

Apply those same standards of evidence to this question: "Why didn't the conspiracy have a story for WTC7?"

Why is it that lack of evidence disproves the people 'silencing the dissenters' but does nothing to your own case?

File: images (1).jpg (7KB, 230x219px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 230x219px

NIST admits that all the jet burnt up on impact
>sorry faggots

>>714483412
The point that you're talking out your ass, as we all are here, and that we should leave it to the engineers?

The engineers that show it wasn't a conspiracy?

>>714490413
>you're advocating for an explosion

no. you are putting words in my mouth.

The facade of WTC 1&2 clearly peeled off as the floors collapsed down...there is significant energy released in the collapse and the result is a lot of ejecta. 600 feet is not that far when falling from 1300 feet.

>>714490642
Now what kind of special containers are you talking about son? You got refractory cement lining those?

File: 1454292003238.gif (85KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 375x375px

>>714488371
underrated post

>>714489775
Iron and steel aren't water, you faggot. It's not a matter of "solid or liquid," there is an entire gradient from cold steel to melted steel. Steel melts at about 2700 degrees, jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees, and it wasnt Exactly burning out in the open, it was burning inside a building

>>714490941
collapses go down....not 600 ft sideways taking out nearby buildings
>stop believing in fantasies

>>714491196
Doesnt understand how something can fall outwards when falling towards the ground

>>714490674
>pretty much anything in flame-retardant protection.

what about 500 mph 20 ton plane crash retardant protection?

dont be blind. the collapse initiated EXACTLY where the impact was...the likelyhood of rigging explosives so they could survive the crash and the resulting fires for over an hour and...and making the plane crash in Exactly the right spot is...impossible.

www npr org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/05/504414306/oakland-warehouse-recovery-efforts-paused-over-fear-of-collapse

All of you sheep are forgetting the oakland warehouse fire, that just recently happened.....pay the attention holy shit....It also happens to be one of many cases where a fire gets hot enough to melt and damage steel beams

>>714490516
I've actually seen that video it says World Trade Center 7 burning when it's too short to be the World Trade Center 7, also even if that was the world.trade center you still haven't proven how or what debris could make another the WTC building catch on fire. Is the it glass or smoke?
>>714491172
>wasnt Exactly burning out in the open, it was burning inside a building

Well it definitely wasn't a sealed container

Explain to me how jet fuel is going to enter the Twin Towers blow up on impact and then splash inside of the World Trade Center directly on all of the support structures internal and external including the foundation.

>>714490609

I like this one! At first I was like "But then people are going to ask 'why fly a plane into WTC7?'". It'd just bring more attention to the building than anything else, whereas with bombs you can easily attribute it to a terror campaign.

But then I think - they don't fly it directly into WTC7. They fucking land it in the streets and tear apart half the buildings there in the process. Nobody even knows WTC7 was the target, it's perfect.

But there's a backup - WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 are wired to blow because, dammit, we want those things coming down no matter what. So what if, instead, WTC1 isn't it? It still goes down, so there needs to be an explanation in place.

And we have one: Someone had to go in there and plant the bombs. Those false flaggers are our conspirators. In this timeline, WTC2 and many smaller buildings in downtown manhatten get planed and WTC1 gets bombed. People can even testify that they saw strangers going into the building doing weird stuff like setting up bombs (Because, you know, they were).

So why not use that same cover story for WTC7?

>>714491353
>you mean being propelled outwards
you can't have both ways...
collapses go down
explosions go?

>>714491196
>collapses go down..

maybe controlled demolitions do...chaotic, unprecedented events? anything is possible

you cant have it both ways...either its a controlled demolition that goes straight down neat and tidy....or it has a lot of debris flying everywhere because its not controlled.

>>714491452
>What is thermite found in the debris of the World Trade Center

> what is a controlled detonation

The only thing that can straight up melt steel is something called Thermite. That's a government weapon that used to cut into underground bunkers and burn through tanks. It burns hotter than the surface of the sun and can cut a steel beam in half in less than a second.

>>714491948
True

>>714491948
dumbass

http://www npr org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/05/504414306/oakland-warehouse-recovery-efforts-paused-over-fear-of-collapse

>>714491791
then you agree . the only way the wtc 7 could be damaged is due to explosions

File: 070.jpg (608KB, 1536x1024px) Image search: [Google]

608KB, 1536x1024px

>>714491589
>I've actually seen that video it says World Trade Center 7 burning when it's too short to be the World Trade Center 7, also even if that was the world.trade center you still haven't proven how or what debris could make another the WTC building catch on fire. Is the it glass or smoke?


wtf? there are literally 100s of videos of wtc 7 burning and 1000s of pictures...put aside the bias and look at the facts:

starting at the 30 second mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4SEhMpbo74

>>714492281
Cold day in hell before I swallow the shit npr is shoveling.

>>714491858
>>What is thermite found in the debris of the World Trade Center

its a false claim- thats what it is.

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/page-19#post-195119

File: 1465793003904.jpg (67KB, 584x960px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 584x960px

to everyone in this thread, thank you for reducing my already dwindling supplies of brain cells

>>714484903
>muh perfectly vertical collapse
it wasn't perfectly vertical. but really how many times have you watched planes collapse after getting hit by planes?

>>714492719

Toss up between "Quran Quran" and "Sunni and Cher"

>>714492517
wait a minute...why was wtc7 even on fire?
some debris hit its facade and poof!
>>714492741
Actually NIST admits that all three building collapsed due to fires . they were built to survive multiple plane strikes

>>714491948
>The only thing that can straight up melt steel is something called Thermite

Who said steel melted? Do you understand that steel didnt have to "melt" for it to be significantly weakened by fire? Seriously...are you a dumbfuck or just retarded?

The "official story" makes no claims about melting steel.

"In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires"

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

>>714492517
All right you got me on the WTC building catching on fire but it still doesn't explain how it caught on fire in the first place and what's it got caught on fire with

It didn't catch on fire with jet fuel that already got burned up and its initial explosion in a completely separate building. So what did I blow up with shattered glass or smoke

>>714481746
It could be that WTC 7 housed the explosives used in the demo. If so it would have been crazy full of evidence including chemical residue. You would have to destroy it

>>714481401


The plane took out several beams and overall damaged the structure so that the upper floors collapsed on their own weight and fell down onto lower floors creating a downwards domino effect.

Imagine if you're holding an overhead press perfectly and somebody dropped a plate over your head, you'd fucking fall down to the ground even if you were strong enough to hold the weights

>>714493157
When there are claims of "pools of molten steel" is when steel was melted, there are multiple accounts of people reporting that.

And wasn't NIST the group that avoided everyone questioning on why there was a report on WTC 7 falling before it was actually down?

>>714493157
Why would a government website tell you the truth about what happened when the government was in on this thing? Who's retarded now?

>>714480498
Have you ever played Jenga where the weight of the pieces are so immense, they pulverized the pieces below once the structural integrity is removed? Didn't think so. I read one line of your nonsense and couldn't waste my time going any further.

>>714493322

Heh, the best thing about disposing of explosives is that you can use the explosives to do it! They practically clean up after themselves!

For a very broad understanding of the word 'clean', of course :)

Building 7: Part 1

1. Things conspiracy believers do not want you to know:
(a) WTC7 underwent a slow, internal progressive collapse, plainly observable in the full-length CBS video, which is rarely shown on conspiracy sites.
(b) WTC7 actually did NOT collapse straight down or "into its own footprint." Three buildings, across the 4-lane Barclay St., was heavily damaged. See photo: http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7pile.jpg
(c) The "experts" at ae911truth.org are mostly electrical and chemical engineers, residential architects, students, etc. with little or no experience in steel skyscraper construction.
(d) The NIST study was done in cooperation with the SEI/ASCE, SFPE, AISC, and SEAoNY -- actual engineering experts in the field, all of whom would have to be in on this conspiracy, even to this day.
(e) The "explosive traces" or "thermite" claim comes from non-chemist Steven E. Jones, who analyzed samples sent to him privately with no chain of custody. His paper appeared in a journal that charges $800 to publish; Google "CRAP Paper Accepted by Journal" to read about its "peer review" process. Jones, a devout Mormon, also published "evidence" that Jesus visited America; Google "Behold My Hands."
(f) No "molten metal" was ever collected from WTC7 and analyzed.
(g) Rigging a large building for demolition cannot be done "over the weekend," nor would such preparation escape the notice of office workers. Demolition professionals laugh at this claim.
(h) Thermite cannot be used to demolish a building.
(i) There exist NO peer-reviewed papers supporting controlled demolition, anywhere.

>>714493157
towers built to 5X's their load capacity...so a little 'weakening wouldn't do fuck all.
besides the '75 was far hotter and no steel was 'weakened then .
>total bullshit

>>714493636
Building 7: Part 2

2. Examples of intellectual dishonesty or ignorance:
(a) "The fires did not burn hot enough to melt steel." Nobody claims that fire melted steel. Steel framing members expanded beyond tolerances, subjecting connections to failure. The heat also reduced the steel's capacity to support loads. No melting required.
(b) "BBC reported WTC7's collapse before it happened." Firefighters had predicted the collapse. Apparently the reporter made an error. CNN also reported that the Washington Mall was on fire; do we ask why no scorch marks were later found?
(c) "The 9/11 Commission Report didn't even mention WTC7." It was done years before the WTC7 study was completed.
(d) "NIST changed its story several times." Science refines its position over time. This is a strength, not a weakness. Alternatively we can start with a story, stick to that story, and look only for evidence that supports that story. The latter is what creationists and conspiracy believers do.
(e) "Larry Silverstein ordered to 'pull' WTC7, a slang term in the demolition industry." He was referring to pulling back firefighting efforts, as the building was considered lost. "Pull" is not demolition slang. Larry Silverstein is a real-estate investor, not a demolition worker.
(f) "Why bother demolishing with explosives when you can just light a fire?" Most demolitions are of old concrete structures where this would not work. In an all-steel structure like WTC7, fire could in fact be used. But detonation is more predictable and controllable.
(g) "You are working for the government." This is a case of believing a bold premise with no evidence, merely because it fits the believer's worldview. Not an effective way to get closer to the truth.

>>714493728
Building 7: Part 3, can I go to sleep now?

3. Simple fallacies of logic:
(a) "No tall building had ever collapsed from fire. Therefore WTC7 could not have collapsed from fire." There is a first time for everything. Equivalent: "No species before humans had ever invented the computer. Therefore humans could not have invented the computer."
(b) "Other tall buildings burned without collapsing; therefore WTC7 could not have collapsed due to fire." Besides the fact that these other cases were more fire-robust than the all-steel-framed WTC7, just because something does not always happen does not mean it will never happen. Equivalent: "There exist primates that have not invented computers. Therefore humans could not have invented the computer."
(c) "The government has lied before, therefore it must have lied about 9/11." Just because A has done B does not imply that A always does B. Equivalent: "The government must have also lied when it said aspirin is safe and effective."
(d) "Prove that it wasn't a controlled demolition." The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. Equivalent: "Prove that humans are not descended from reptiles of the planet Nbiru."

>>714493325
2 problems first off your metaphor is shit
Second the first floor could not collapse in the first place because all of the supports could not have have been destroyed or melted in a perfect vertical demolition. All the jet fuel burned up in its inital explosion, but apperenty not hot enough to even hurt this woman>>714489597
Edna.

Oh yea and back in the thirtys the Empire State Building got hit with a plane and stuff with minimum damage

>>714492450
>then you agree . the only way the wtc 7 could be damaged is due to explosions

On the contrary...given the evidence. The collapsing WTC 1&2 were so uncontrolled that they ejected large amounts of the debris that were OBSERVED hitting WTC7 and the physical damage is well proven by photographic and video evidence.

Office buildings have a lot of flammable materials in them. It them hard enough they will catch fire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEgPNNcdtu4

File: P9100023_1450.jpg (262KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 640x480px

"HURR DURR, THERE WERE NO PLANES"

>Show the conspiracy neckbeards this photo

>>714493636
you're a fag and an idiot

>>714493904
Actually NIST has admitted that the damage was only to its facade .
>sorry..try harder kiddo

>>714493904
What material is it anon?

Its not jet fuel, that already burned up in intial impact.
Was it the glass and smoke that caught fire?

>>714493997

Do people seriously claim there were no planes? I mean, I've heard the "it was a missile that hit the pentagon and not a plane" conspiracy, which seems a little strange given that there was in fact a plane missing at the time. But planes go missing every now and then, and people who are actually looking for them have trouble finding them (the recent malasia air one, for instance) so I could at least see the thinking there.

But no planes at all? They're... visible. On the tape. On everyone's tapes. Every recording ever of those towers at that time shows planes (or, if the planes themselves are obscured by one of the towers, *something*) hitting the towers.

I mean, I've heard the planes weren't piloted by the terrorists, I've heard the planes were backed up by bombs, I've heard lots of stuff, but no planes at all? That's new to me.

>>714493586
I'm talking about crates, cord, spare detonators, boxes of gloves, hazmat suits or whatever you would need to get away with it. You go plant the charges, come back to WTC 7, wait for the planes to crash, sabotage the sprinklers and burn down WTC 7. It's not fucking rocket science.

>>714494226
I have never had a shill explain how glass concrete and steel hitting another structure causes it to burst into flames

>>714494784
And they never do

manhatten has hundreds of miles of underground tunnels,buildings minus the sudden weight of the 2 x towers collapsing would have lasted a hundred years.
the 2x towers themselves, 1500 degrees was enough to WEAKEN bending enough to cause floors to plop,one on top of the other,like pancakes
how many people would it have taken to plant charges,how come no hacker/genius has thought to search for the culprits get in their email,
inside job inside schmob

next HOW DID 6 SHEEPFUCKERS GET INTO THE MOST POWERFUL NATION IN HISTORY,,PREPOSTEROUS LIES THE JEWS DID IT
no the pope did it
the illuminati did it
kissinger did it
the,,who else,the freemasons did it the bushes did it\

yo mama did it

>>714493249
>still doesn't explain how it caught on fire in the first place and what's it got caught on fire with

I guess the real question is why you dont understand how a huge chunks of a collapsing, burning building falling 1000feet down onto its neighbor building tearing a 20 story gash down its side WOULDNT catch on fire...especially considering all the flammable materials in a modern day high rise.

Other buildings also caught fir that day

>>714494673

Great! We've got WTC loaded with stuff that proves someone put bombs in it.

The cover story: Terrorists did it. This is where they have been hiding out. Dig a secret tunnel if you need to (you probably do just to sneak the stuff in there yourself, so there's your entrance/exit).

"That's an awful lot of materiel for terrorists to have on them, seems a bit of a stretch."

Seems a bit of a stretch that terrorists hijacked 3-4 planes and simultaneously crashed them into buildings, but that cover story seems to have worked.

Seriously, if WTC7 was the storage point for the stuff to blow everything up with then it *got there somehow*. Use that fact! Lies are so much easier to tell that way. All the evidence suddenly backs you up, and the 'terrorists' are too dead to refute you. It's win/win!

such a long wtc thread and no mention of the flowing molten metal in the basement for days after, or the many witnesses reporting explosions before the planes hit?

>>714493431
>people reporting that.

people reported molten metal...could have been aluminum

melted steel was never a supposed reason for collapse.

Nobody talks about all that missing gold anymore.

>>714494784

to seem to be ignoring that the building that collapsed into WTC7 was ON FIRE.

Moreover, the kinetic energy involved in such a collapse that might cause any number of flammable and combustible items found in office buildings to catch fire.

I mean really?

>>714495494

Oh no, no, that's the Black Blood of the Earth

>>714484903
A controlled demolition on that scale would take many months of careful on site work. More importantly the wiring and explosive placement would be nearly impossible to hide from anyone with even the most casual access to the building. Watch some documentaries on how implosions are done.

For those who believe the conspiracy theories. Their method was also sloppy. Best method?

Use the planes, with a few terrorist sympathisers on board or govt agents or whatever. More importantly however, use a few strategically placed car bombs in the towers, better versions of the 1994 WTC bombing.
Why? Because it ties it to the '94 Al Qaeda bombing better and more importantly if done well it will trap many more people in the tower more effectively. Those car bombs go off just after the planes hit.

The higher the death toll the better...

On the flip side consider two things:
OBL had a degree in civil engineering.
His family started a construction company in 1931 that has had multiple billion dollar contracts since.

>>714495494
>the many witnesses reporting explosions before the planes hit?

Besides William Rodriquez....name one.

Prove that jet fuel didnt travel the elevators shafts and explode in the lobby.

What does an elevators falling 10s of storys to the ground sound like?

Nobody remembers Bush nearly choking to death on a pretzel earlier that year. Not saying he killed 3000 Americans and started a war for the next several decades to make everyone forget. Probably just a coincidence.

>>714495354
why is it a stretch to think 4 planes could be hijacked simultanesly?
Think about the difference in airport security now versus 20 years ago. Now read the reports of how regularly the TSA fails independent audits and what the auditors can "sneak" past security.

>>714495351
Concrete and steel does not cause a fire neither does glass or smoke you're full of shit.

>>714496181
I used to work in an office, offices are mostly paper, plastic, cardboard & cheap pressed wood. A fire in that sort of environment takes over with frightening speed and ferocity.