If a jet were to shoot down a hijacked airliner how would it

File: IMG_1177.jpg (828KB, 3000x1921px) Image search: [Google]

828KB, 3000x1921px

>>33135552
Jets were scrambled you idiot.

This is tail number 82-0929. First jet scrambled. I don't know how old you are but things happened very quickly that day; and before then, hijackings usually meant you were taking a detour to South America or something

>>33135552
One well placed AAM oughtta do the job.

Jets were scrambled, but there weren't a whole lot of jets on standby as it was because peacetime. Cheney allegedly gave a shootdown order for Flight 93, but before it could even be disregarded because he didn't have that authority, the plane had crashed in PA.

File: njrsyj1YTP1t90ue7.jpg (104KB, 500x331px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 500x331px

>>33135552
>Shooting the engines with machinegun fire or blowing the whole thing up with missiles?

Ruskies check both options with pic related against B707 and B747. The missiles were more fun

>>33135552
It would be done with a missile of course, but nothing stops you to have some fun and shot 1 or 2 30mm bursts into the cabin before.

File: 6 seconds before impact and plane is invisible fucking mossad niggers.webm (2MB, 712x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 712x480px

>Anyone know what happened between the control towers and USAF on 9/11?
Distraction bullshit to keep the fighters away from imaginary planes.

the Hijacked planes on 9/11 were actually just cheap CGI to have a cover story on why the buildings blew up the way they did.

just sayin

File: 1466613471884.jpg (44KB, 690x460px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 690x460px

>>33135878
>bush did 9/11

>>33135552
>machinegun

Modern jet fighters don't carry machine guns. They carry cannon.

File: SlzS3hX.jpg (76KB, 750x611px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 750x611px

>>33136102

Why did Bush knock down the towers?

The F-16s that were sent to chase down the plane over Pennsylvania were not armed since they were on a training run. They were actually ordered to ram the jet. I saw an interview with one of the pilots and he said he decided he would try first and would attempt to bail out just in time before the fighter hit the passenger plane. The other pilot would then try if the first attempt failed. luckily for them the passengers already crashed the plane with no survivors before they could catch up with it.

>>33136140
At what point does a bullet's caliber size tell you if it's an autocannon and not a normal gun?

>>33138632
Can it be handheld? Gun.
Can it be not handheld? Cannon.

>>33138632
Use of soft metal belts to engage in the rifling vs the whole bullet having the soft outside to engage the rifling.

File: download.jpg (13KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 275x183px

>>33138806
Wrong

>>33138601
>They were actually ordered to ram the jet.
I demand proofs.

>>33135552
One was scrambled. He was unarmed and the confusion delayed his deployment.

>>33135552

9/11 was the catalyst for the majority of security processes and procedures both in the states and across the world.

There was actually no communication between the hijackers and controllers. So until pilots began reporting that aircraft had impacted the World Trade Center they just thought they were dealing with aircraft with radio failure.

As far as I'm aware none of the aircraft involved were on the same frequency or same airspace. Unless a NORDO aircraft is going to impact on somebody elses traffic or airspace you keep it to yourself/sector.

Back then there was a lot less inter-agency communication so when people did realise the day wasn't a normal day of aviation mishaps there was either no direct lines of communication or a fantastic amount of red tape that limited anybodies ability to get things going quickly.

The other issue as someone already mentioned was that prior to this the only reason to hijack an aircraft was for some form of gain. Not to use as a weapon so the thought process of the time was, where will it land, what will they want.

>>33135878
>just cheap CGI

9/11 'truthers' should be gassed like the rest of the mentally ill.

>>33138632
Bullets larger than 14.5mm are usually considered cannon rounds.

>>33135878
Nigger I lived in NY at the time and the towers were clearly visible in the distance in my apartment window, and I heard the first plane hit and watched the second hit. CGI my ass.

>>33139772
I think I saw the same interview. I don't think he was actually ordered to ram it but they were actively comunicating ideas on how to stop it if they caught up to it in time, and ramming was considered. The pilot was then trying to figure out the best way to do that when the Saudi hijackers saved him the trouble.

Just google "marc sasseville" or "f16 pilot 911" or any combination there of. Very good read.

http://people.com/celebrity/911-f-16-pilot-marc-sasseville-was-prepared-for-kamikaze-mission/

>>33135552
The controllers failed to identify that the aircraft in question had been captured by the terrorists and when they realized it was already too late.

>>33138806
But thats retarded, m2 is a machine gun, try shouldering one.

>>33135552
Modern missiles tend to get ahead of the aircraft then detonate and fill the flight deck with frag

>>33140172
but that's not true at all

>>33138601
>crashed the plane with no survivors

for you

There was no need since the whole event was orchestrated to increase governmental overreach.

In a hypothetical scenario involving a genuine terrorist hijacking I believe a missile would be more likely.

>>33139930
Please dont gas me in the same chamber.

I might be mentally Ill but I dont want to be associated with truthfags.

>>33135579
This. There were a shit ton of hijackings done by commies and Palestinians in the second half of the 20th century. With Palestinians, standard procedure was generally to hijack the plane and reroute it to Africa or the Middle East, where all non-Jewish passengers would generally be released. The Japanese Red Army landed in Pyongyang seeking asylum in their commie paradise and all passengers except for some South Korean businessmen and officials were released back to their home countries. Usually these kinds of things either sorted themselves out when passengers were just released or countries the hijackers planned on being friendly to their cause deny their airspace to them or only allow them to refuel before being sent on the roundabout. Either that, or they would end when various countries' counter-terrorist units would storm the plane. Hell, back in the day terrorists often weren't as bad as the radical jihadis we have today. Ever heard of Lima Syndrome? It's Stockholm Syndrome in reverse. The terrorists that took control of the Japanese embassy in Peru ended up identifying so much with their captives that they just let them go. Shit has changed.

>>33135878
you are wrong, this was expensive, they used state of the art nvidia gpus to render it.

>>33135552
fragmentation missile, you don't need to explode it you just need to hit a few vital things - hopefully the crew, but hydraulics are acceptable

>>33138632
A gun becomes a cannon when the projectile is large enough that its primary purpose is to use the projectile as a vehicle to deliver a munition. This is context dependent, but to call 50 BMG a cannon in certain contexts would not be that much of a reach.

>>33142668
What about revolutionary war era cannon using solid shot?

>>33138632
When they stop counting tenths of a millimeter.

File: AIM-9X.webm (368KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 480x360px

>>33140184
It's a tiny bit true, in that modern IR missiles DO aim further forward than older missiles did. In the old days, seekers would just home in on the hottest thing in sight, which was usually the exhaust plume; modern seekers are smarter and higher-resolution and aim for the airframe itself.

>>33139997
Fuck you bitch. I was on both and I know it was all CGI.

>>33135878
You're that same German Nigger from /pol/, aren't you?

>>33138632
15mm and above is a cannon.

>>33143553
>trying to shoehorn obsolete guns into doctrinal classes
anon pls
>using solid shot
What you're shooting at the moment isn't really relevant to determining what it's capable of, is it?

>>33135552
Due to the way that munitions were stored, it would have taken too long to arm the jets that were scrambled on 9/11. Some of them that made it in the air were apparently hoping to ram the airliners, and eject just in time to escape the collision.

>>33139997
Part of the conspiracy!

>>33135878
I've posted a helpful link for you to follow:
>>>/pol/

Or if you really want to do a service, post your full name and address and if I live close enough I can come over and help to weed your retarded seed from the gene pool. Get ass cancer and die you fucking conspiritard.

>>33138601
Was he a big guy?

>>33144190
At least two of the pilots who were in the air said they thought about ejecting, but were worried their jets would miss, so they had agreed they would ram the airliners and not attempt to eject until impact. Basically committing to suicide.

File: su-15 & korean boeing.jpg (2MB, 4000x2567px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x2567px

>>33135552
>how would it be done?
How it was always done.

Missiles do not "blow up" aircraft. Fixed wing and ESPECIALLY rotary wing aircraft are incredibly fragile pieces of machinery, and ESPECIALLY civilian aircraft. A single well placed rifle round could take one down.

AA missiles (with the exception of long range SAMs) only contain a few pounds of explosives, equivalent to 2-5 hand grenades. They detonate with a proximity fuse several yards away from the aircraft to pepper it with shrapnel hopefully rendering control surfaces, and other machinery inoperable.

Jets were scrambled on 9/11, but scramble can take 30 minutes or more, by the time the event was over, F16s were barely getting off the ground.
There was an unarmed F16 pilot who was doing training who was enough route in intercept flight 93 with the intention of ramming his aircraft into the underside of the wing, pulling his eject handle and the same time, hoping for the best. 93 crashed in Pennsylvania before he could intercept.

>>33147277
Russian just really fucking hate Boeing airliners, don't they?

File: DHL SAM.jpg (18KB, 580x435px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 580x435px

>>33147299
>A single well placed rifle round could take one down.
Your general point about the fragility of civilian airliners is correct, but I don't think this specific assertion is. There is still a lot of redundancy built into civvie planes.

>>33147308
There are many cases of rotary wing craft being brought down from a single .30 round in the middle east, and many cases of fixed wings being brought down by a single 20mm.
That being said, aircraft have also survived being practically ripped in half with hundreds of AA rounds AND eating a SAM while still managing to make it home.

>dat shot placement
>not only for people

The Israeli's once used the guns of AH-1 Cobras to bring down a Lebanese plane that got into their airspace

The only example of choppers downing fixed wing aircraft outside of an incident in the Iran-Iraq War IIRC

>>33147577
And on top of that I believe it was a wire guided, or TV guided anti tank missile that made the kill

Here at Sigonella we are instructed to get close to the airplane,open the canopy,unleash the Lupara,make sure that pilots is well aware of it,if not then we fire at his tires first and if he doesn't cooperate we are free to blast him off

>>33138632
In FDF it's when your munition is carrying the explosives.
So usually over 30mm, and over 40mm diameter is when they're called grenades.

>>33135878
I've had plenty of discussions about this with my friends (who are all engineers) and the conclusion everytime is that what happened on 9/11 is next to impossible by just flying the aircraft into the buildings.

>>33147836

>having a degree in a thing means you're incapable of being wrong on that matter

>>33147865
>Having multiple structural professors openly doubting 9/11 during my studies.

Apart from that anyone with any common sense should be able to tell 9/11 was the biggest practical joke ever pulled. I really dont know anyone in my field who can comfortably say that a plane can bring down a skyscraper like on 9/11, let alone three of them.

>>33147894
Common sense dictates that a 100 ton plane full of fuel smashing to the side of a skyscraper doesn't have a chance of collapsing the tower?

>>33147913
common sense dictates that it doesnt perfectly free fall into its own footprint after that. Heck, building 7 is a fucking textbook perfect demolition and it wasnt even hit by a plane.

If anyone tried to down a airliner with a fighter or interceptor it'd just be a repeat of KAL 007

File: 1477774019757.gif (2MB, 280x211px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 280x211px

>>33138601
Funny, I interviewed miners who saw the crash, they said something came up behind the plane and then there was an explosion, then it crashed. I do believe they shot down 93(?). I don't think BD911, but I think we shot that plane down, which was the right call.

>>33147894

Correct me if I'm wrong, but controlled demolitions require lots of planning and setup right? Wouldn't anyone have noticed before hand that anyone was setting up explosives inside the building? They were very busy skyscrapers.

Plus wouldn't the burning fuel be enough to heat up the super structure and cause it to fail to support the weight of higjer stories?

>>33148005
All im saying is those buildings didnt just collapse by themselves, who how or why i wouldnt be sure about. i dont think the fire would have been enough to bring the building down, even if it would have the top part of the building (above the impact) would have fallen over. instead what you see is that the entire building (even the undamaged middle and lower section) just falls straight down.

Just compare the collapse to a controlled demolition, theres no doubt in my mind that the collapse somehow was prepared or assisted. Its even more obvious on building 7, since there you can see the center of the building collapse first and then the outer walls fall inwards.

>>33135671
>nothing stops you to have some fun and shot 1 or 2 30mm bursts into the cabin before.
Not having a 30mm stops you.
20mm, though...

All Truthers should be hanged for treason.

>>33135552
>If a jet were to shoot down a hijacked airliner how would it be done?

Typically with a missile if you ask the Soviets and Americans.

>>33138632
Generally everything above 15mm is a cannon. The FN BRG and MG151 are the highes caliber guns I can think of which aren't referred to as cannon.
I think there may be some international agreement which formally defines it as 20mm and above, but I'm not certain.

>>33140172
You're full of shit.
Not only do they not 'aim ahead' to detonate there, 99% also don't carry frag warheads but rather expanding rod warheads. Which are actually ideal for bringing down bomber-sized airliners.

>>33147577
They also got kills with Skyhawk guns and unguided rockets dogfighting Syrian MiGs over Lebanon. Fantastic shit.

>>33147931
>Implying they collapsed perfectly within their footprint.
Hell, building 7 is a fucking textbook perfect example of what happens to buildings next to a collapsing skyscraper.

File: image.jpg (185KB, 600x345px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 600x345px

>>33147577
>The only example of choppers downing fixed wing aircraft outside of an incident in the Iran-Iraq War IIRC

That's where you're wrong, kiddo.

>>33148184
cant believe people can actually be this ignorant.

>>33148033
>the government was willing to kill thousands of people for the luls
>but they did it so the buildings full of people they were killing didn't fall over and kill other people even though it makes the official story less believable

>>33148208
as i said i wouldnt know the exact motives, but from a technical standpoint 9/11 is such a joke.

>>33148208
Thanks JIDF

>>33148214
>from a technical standpoint
I for one would love to hear more about your civil engineering degree.

>>33148230
civil engineering is for plebs, aerospace engineer here.

>>33148131

Kinda effing it up here but far what I know the expanding rod is indeed useful against a bomber or a transport plane but it maybe not be as useful against a fighter jet,for what I know SAM do have expanding rods but most AA missiles have frag,maybe russians are still using ER in theirs and also everyone possibly has a stock of missiles with ER warhead,but as for now every live missile I have seen comes with frag warhead

>>33148005

Ok so as they said all the fuel contained in the midst of fuselage went down in the elevator shaft,started a smokeless fire on the underground levels and the damage done was so equal that everything collapsed like a controlled demolition and columns turned themselves into thermite due heat and stress fatigue

>>33148424
Most of the fuel is strored in the wings, only 10% or so in the fuselage. smokeless fires in this case are bullshit considering the amount of plastics/rubber/carpet and other stuff around. steel doesnt just turn into thermite when heated. if all of this was true i'd still highly doubt it, good thing it isnt.

did this happen on all three buildings by the way? what a fucking coincidence!

>>33135552
They'll shoot the whole thing up with a missile or with guns if they don't have missiles, or they'll just crash into the enemy jet if they don't have either. Without engines an airliner at cruising altitude can still glide for >100 miles.

>why wasn't any jets scrambled?
Jets were scrambled, but the only ones nearby were on a training mission and weren't armed with real weapons; they tried to catch up and crash into the airliners, but couldn't get there fast enough.

>>33148454

So if fuel is contained on wings as I was sure it was on fuselage due Ryanair pilots closing down frontal and real rows of seats to balance/idgaf issues,it doesn't make any sense at all as the wings are more frail than fuselage so all the fuel was nearly instantly wasted in the crash and not dumped inside the shaft.

As far it goes the other building were hit by debris,someone said that an engine pod with a shitton of fuel hit B7 and it went in full alchemist mode turning steel rods into thermite and explosive charges,making it to fall apart as per usual

We all know that american cars explode for any given reason,even the most stupid,so it's a common occurrence for skyscrapers too,they're lucky that during hurricanes wind doesn't turn into fire

File: strengthcurve.jpg (21KB, 389x282px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 389x282px

>>33148664
as I said, about 90% of the fuel is stored in the wings, for a couple of reasons. Since the wings are close to the center of gravity the size of the tail can be reduced by keeping your fuel there aswell. another reason is because of the weight of the fuel, since the wings are loaded upwards, the weight of the fuel relieves some of the stress, making the structure lighter. another reason is that the fuel is stored as far away as possible from the cabin incase of emergencies.

About the weakening of the structure, here is some detail:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

Jet fuel can indeed get hot enough to melt or severly weaken steel. however, considering the amount of redundancy in buildings like the world trade center and the low amount of actual fuel there is no way that this would have led to a collapse.

To put things into perspective: aircraft have a 1.5 times redundancy factor on the once in a lifetime maximum load. since weight is much less of an issue in civil engineering i would not be surprised if this number would have been around 4 to 5 for the wtc.

>>33148758
>>33148664
The 10% of fuel not in the wings is between the wings (and plenty of jets have zero fuel in the fuselage), unless you count the <1% of fuel that is in the piping leading to the APU in the tail.

The reason they move passengers forward / aft is based on how much cargo / baggage is loaded and where - most planes have 2 main cargo bays; they load the forward bay first, then aft.

If the cargo turns out to be heavier than predicted (they do things like assume the average bag is 30lb when working out where to load them), they might move people aft.

Some jets only have the front cargo bay pressurised and some can only fit specialty cargo up front, meaning that if there's a bunch of pets, the front can be heavier, or if there's express industrial cargo it'll go up front, or if there's human remains (dead bodies headed from a morgue to a funeral) they'll travel up front.

>>33148810
Some planes like the 747(-800?) and airbus a340 i believe also have some extra tanks in the tail which can be used for trimming.

>>33148758
>Jet fuel can indeed get hot enough to melt or severly weaken steel
>i would not be surprised if this number would have been around 4 to 5 for the wtc.
Even if they did have a safety factor of 5, the steel (and only the steel on a single floor or majority of a floor) would only have to get to ~700C. Jet fuel burns at about 1000C and they just dumped 100,000-150,000lb of fuel into each tower.

>>33148835
first of all, that factor is based on the once on a liftime load, which is considerably higher than the static loads usually experienced.

second: 'only' 700 degrees C?

thirdly: for the steel to actually get to that temperature it would have needed to be directly exposed to the fire for an extended period of time. considering the amount of ventilation, the spreading of the fuel, the actual low amount of fuel (not even close to 100.000lbs) and size of the building itself I would be surprised if the average temperature of the structure on the floor of impact would have gotten above 200 to 300C or so.

Again, even if you were completely right and all assumptions are true it still would not explain the perfect (and convenient) style of collapse.

>>33148916
Safety factors are multiples of *expected* loads. Also, the "even if they did have a safety factor of 5" is the key point in my statement; do you have a source on 4 or 5? Wikipedia states that they typically only use a safety factor of 2 for building structural members: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_of_safety

>the amount of ventilation
would increase fuel burning temperature
>the spreading of the fuel
see above
>the actual low amount of fuel (not even close to 100.000lbs)
My bad, it was 10,000gal / 68,000lb of fuel per plane / tower; that's still a fuckload of fuel though; about 1.5x the max fuel capacity of a Boeing 737-800 though.

>even if you were completely right and all assumptions are true it still would not explain the perfect (and convenient) style of collapse.
How so? How else could / would they have collapsed?

File: mission accomplished 2.jpg (24KB, 474x424px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 474x424px

>>33140416
>Shit has changed.

>>33149030
allright let me give you another argument.

because the weight supported by the structure becomes less as you go up, the bottom of the structure is much stronger than the top. the impact was at about 80% of the height. even with just a safety factor of two. the unaffected 80% bottom part should easily have been able to hold up the 20% above it. what could have happened is that structure above the impact would indeed have been damaged enough to fail, but considering what i just said (plus the tower was also damaged asymmetrically) it should have fallen over to one side. leaving the rest of the building standing.

Probably the biggest issue with the way the building came down was the speed at which it did, near free fall. now, it should be quite obvious that the rest of the building should not fall down like there is nothing but air beneath it. though it did. funny thing is the only way to be able to achieve this effect (and not damage any surrounding buildings, which would have happended in a normal sideways collapse) is bycontrolled demolition.

Im serious about this, go look at a number of controlled demolition videos and then look at the collapse of the wtc. there is absolutely no possibility of denying that it is not the same. its especially noticeable in building 7 because of the more rectangular shape of the building.

last thing to note about the fuel itself, is that a lot of it is instantly burnt during impact. also if you watch the videos you can see that the large fire causes by the actual fuel only lasts at most a few minutes.

>>33135552
thank you for the hearty KEK

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71l_vIEJkiY

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608
NORAD basically had no idea what was going on with the hijacked planes, it was a real shitshow.

>>33149130
here are some videos to support my statements:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0O18pQUzS8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I

>>33148758
>since weight is much less of an issue in civil engineering i would not be surprised if this number would have been around 4 to 5 for the wtc
Actually, when building skyscrapers weight is a pretty major issue.
But more to the point, skyscrapers (and buildings in general) are designed to take mostly static loadings (wind effects ecluded as they tend to be quasistatic). Shock loadings (say, from the impact of 100 tons of assorted materials) can easily exceed rated loads. Also, the static safety factor doesn't account for things like half your support columns on one side of the building suddenly not existing. The greatly reduced second moment of area of the remaining structure would concentrate the compressive forces from the upper floors on the remaining nearby columns; they, being weakened by fire and the loss of the lateral beams (which give the structure stability) would probably fail first, once weakened enough. Once they fail, all the rest does as well.
With regards to the buildings falling down (and not sideways), most people fail to realize something very simple- buildings have very little shear strength, and so they don't fall like a pile of building blocks- once the forces become non-perpendicular, the structure disintegrates and then the whole thing freefalls, after the bits only got a little sideways speed. This prevents the building from 'toppling over'. The center would be falling slower than the external debris due to having to 'jackhammer' through the rest of the floors. So you get quite a bit of spread around the buildings, but most of it concentrated near the footprint due to lack of forces to send it further.
t. Mech. Eng.

File: 1475954484569.gif (1MB, 480x358px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x358px

You guys are fucking lunatics, silent controlled demolition is it? Where are the explosion sounds other than the plane hitting the building, where are the broken windows/ dust from an internal explosion, other than the fucking plane. I'm sorry i didn't take an engineering class that makes me the authority on the science of a passenger plane hitting a fucking skyscraper, but grasping at ebil gubmint conspiracy is just fucking lazy, shame on you.

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

>>33149130
> the unaffected 80% bottom part should easily have been able to hold up the 20% above it.
And it did; hence why the tower didn't collapse from the bottom. What happened though is that when one floor gave out, those (lets pretend there were 100 floors) 20 top floors fell onto the 79th, which had no hope of withstanding that much force. Then it was 21 floor's worth of mass dropping onto the 78th floor, 22 floor's dropping onto the 77th floor, etc.

>but considering what i just said (plus the tower was also damaged asymmetrically) it should have fallen over to one side.
The weakest part of the towers were between the tower perimeter and tower core. Like you said, the fuel spread out across the floor, heating them all reasonably evenly. When a floor gave way, it would have fallen inward, between the perimeter and core, like we saw.

>now, it should be quite obvious that the rest of the building should not fall down like there is nothing but air beneath it.
For the most part there was nothing but air beneath it.

>is that a lot of it is instantly burnt during impact.
Just because it gets obscured by smoke it doesn't mean it's not still there burning; all that smoke limits the combustion.

>>33149188
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAKmluuJoqY

seek Psychiatric help, asap

>>33149305
>Assuming the fire weakened the structure.
>Assuming half of the building is unable to carry loads.

I somewhat agree on the point you made about the shear forces, however considering the building lasted a full hour before collapsing I dont see how this is relevant. I am quite familiar with the concept of mulitple parts failing due to not being able to carry the load because a single part failed, however, you have to consider here that the bottom 80% should have been near unaffected by the impact. The thing that doesnt make sense is the fact that it falls in free fall, since this suggests that all structural parts happen to instantly fail at nearly the same time.

To be fair i dont see how (apparently even educated ones) can be so short sighted, since there is so much simple evidence that 9/11 simply cant have happened the way it did.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vadSaWyiozg

Dr Judy Wood was right

>>33149396
>>33149363

I dont even know why i keep trying to convince people like you, ignorance is bliss i guess.

>>33148916
>perfect
>convenient
It was neither.
Dust and debris everywhere, starting fires in another structure.
That isn't how controlled demolition works and you it is simply impossible to rig a building like one of the WTC's for demolition without anyone noticing.
They'd have to lay miles of fuse, thousands of pounds of explosives, thousands of pounds of sandbags etc to contain the blast so it wasn't wasted sideways (i.e. to focus the force onto a support pillar etc). Just moving the material in would have been impossible to do secretly, let alone knocking down drywall, laying explosives and det cord then putting all back in again.

>>33149130
>the unaffected 80% bottom part should easily have been able to hold up the 20% above it
Under normal conditions it does, it is not, however, designed to take the force of that 20% falling on it.

>>33138806
WRONG

<20mm
Gun
>20mm
Cannin

>>33149487
Of course there was dust and debris everywhere, its massive fucking buidling in the middle of a massive city. i agree that the setup would have been extremely complicated but you just cant ignore the facts because of that.

by starting a fire in another structure you mean the one that also happened to collapse? what a fucking joke.

>>33149493
so the building just free falls like its not there at all?

>>33149413
>however considering the building lasted a full hour before collapsing I dont see how this is relevant
Why? Please, explain to me why one hour is too long.

>To be fair i dont see how (apparently even educated ones) can be so short sighted,
>since there is so much simple evidence that 9/11 simply cant have happened the way it did.

TL:DR BLUH BLUH BLUH I'LL JUST CALL YOU SHORT SIGHTED BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE AN ARGUMENT.

>>33142668
>>33144137
By that retarded logic a 120mm firing an APFSDS round wouldnt be a cannon? Stop smoking Crack you nigger motherfucker

>>33149413
>considering the building lasted a full hour before collapsing I dont see how this is relevant
The shear forces only really come in when the building starts falling. Until then,the upper structure is mostly intact and the lower is mostly unaffected. The impacted area is the one which is changing over time.
>The thing that doesnt make sense is the fact that it falls in free fall, since this suggests that all structural parts happen to instantly fail at nearly the same time.
No, the disintegrated parts freefall. The center 'Jackhammers' the rest of the builing. Think of it this way:
>Building is designed to carry twice rated load
>Plane impact leads to greatly reduced and eccentric second moment of area (A determiner of stress distribution)
>Most stressed components are exposed to fire, weakening them; also exposed to whatever else is going on at the impact zone.
>eventually they fail, and very quickly the rest of the circumference fails
>whole top starts falling
>hits next floor with the force of a thousand suns
>Next floor collapses under the impact of 20 floors falling on it
>hits the next
>it too collapses near instantly
So what you'd get is that the debris falling out of the footprint is falling marginally faster (neglecting air drag. Light particles would float down far slower, leaving billowing dust clouds). But the whole bulding vollapses like a set of dominoes, floor after the one above.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1V1SCWOXJbc
In the vid, notice how much of the external structure was destroyed in the impact, and the manner in which the towers collapse.

>>33149523
>ignore the facts
They're not. You're ignoring a mountain of evidence against your theory. Such as that it would have been impossible to pull off. Impossible.
Please though, do explain how they managed to set that all up with nobody who works there noticing the incredibly extensive construction work that would have been required.

>a catastrophic fire and physical damage caused by falling chunks of skyscraper made a building collapse
>what a fucking joke
Not really know, that would be entirely logical.
>>33149536
Do you think skyscrapers are completely solid?

>>33148194

Imagine how fucking fun that would have been.

Like real-life Battlefield.

File: 1483692574108.png (495KB, 800x602px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 800x602px

>>33149473
convince us of your illogical thought process, and ebil gubment conspiracies? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh.

>>33147894
Look you dumb nigger, the design of the Twin Towers was specifically NOT airplane impact resistant, the original selected design had been but it was rejected for an alternative for nepotism reasons. So while most modern structures may not collapse like the Twin Towers, they had substandard build quality.

>>33149554
That's the exact opposite of what he is saying. The 120 mm cannon is capable of using munitions where a meaningful part of the destruction comes from chemical energy instead of kinetic energy. This makes it a cannon, regardless of the chosen munition.

File: 16711588_10154222703955969_3392772492084210327_n.jpg (30KB, 480x621px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x621px

>>33149606

This is the only "conspiracy" that works at all, some NY Jew cheaped out on the building and it shit itself.

>>33149547
>>33149558
>>33149574
Thanks for arguing those tards into silence. You're doing world a service.

>>33147339
>>not only for people
I really wish games like Battlefield got this right.
>M98ing havoks in the tail rotor...

Didn't Crysis at least let you shoot out tires, blow up external gas tanks, etc?

>>33148758
>>33148810

thanks I'm more into military planes than civilians so I was sure that whatever worked for military was nearly identical for civilian flights despite the obvious differences

>>33143821
Ace Combat as we know it will come to an end...

>>33142622
Or just use any standard missile carrying an expanding rod penetrator, which will guaranteed fuck up the aircraft severely, and almost certainly kill it. Fragmentation is basic bitch shit, these days.

>>33147299
First off, planes are fragile, but not as fragile as you think. Only if that bullet hit something structural could it take down any plane with more than one engine. Even then, aircraft are generally very overbuilt to prevent catastrophic structural failure. In fact, the Korean Air flight the Soviets shot down took the missile hit admirably, with a lot of evidence pointing towards the pilots maintaining control all the way to where they likely tried to ditch the aircraft. Unfortunately for them, ditching at night is pretty much a guarantee of death.

Secondly, modern missiles don't use fragmentation, because that's ineffective on destroying redundant systems. Instead, they use continuous rod penetrators (which you should look up) because they'll destroy everything between where they detonate and major structure, and possibly the structure itself, perpendicular to the warhead. This means if they hit a wing they'll either pop it off or sever every line, tank, wire or small structure in there, or worse for the fuselage.

>>33147836
And yet I, an engineer, and all of my friends, some of whom are civil engineers and one of which is a material engineer, think you're retarded.

>>33147960
Even if we did, they wouldn't be able to see the missile. Way too small and way too fast. Either way, it's better to believe the passengers were real American badasses.

>>33148033
>All im saying is those buildings didnt just collapse by themselves
You're right anon, planes crashed into them.

>>33148377
AIM-9 and AIM-120 both use CRP warheads. Frag is for plebs who want to damage the enemy instead of killing them.

>>33149413
kill yourself

>>33149130
20 floors falling for one second increase the energy they hit the floors beneath them with by four times. It's, in fact, really easy to see how the floors beneath them could not hold up 4x the weight they were designed to, especially as an impact, rather than a steady load.