>he thinks jet fuel can melt steel beams

>>132828618
kek

File: riddle of steel.png (154KB, 600x434px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 600x434px

>>132828618
Not melt, but soften to the point of failure.

File: 1493252080793.jpg (98KB, 712x534px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 712x534px

>>132829036
Soft enough to melt the bedrock underneath the towers.

>>132828618
That's right, /pol/. Stop blaming all of your problems on Muslims. It was the Republican government who did 9/11.

>>132828618
>he thinks metal goes instantaneously from solid to liquid
american education, everybody

>>132829036
>while simultaneously weakening the undamaged structure below the impact to the point where a mere 1/5th of the top of the building pulverizes the rest that was designed to withstand a load multiple times the weight of the entire tower

File: 1461550591698.jpg (70KB, 668x400px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 668x400px

>>132828618
AE911truth.org

>no plane hits building 7
>randomly collapses in the exact way that a building collapses during a controlled demolition

can someone explain this meme to me?

>>132829404
>building designed to withstand longitudinal stress
>collapses when hit with huge shear stress
gee i wonder why

File: giphy-facebook_s.gif (93KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 480x270px

its honestly been months since ive seen a jet fuel thread

File: tytytyyty.png (22KB, 631x547px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 631x547px

>>132828618

>>132829680
it actually did catch fire. fireproofing spray (foamy, gray stuff on metal beams) lasts for a couple hours before it fails, thats how its designed. after being on fire internally for a few hours, it fell.

or a controlled explosion by the cia. who knows.

can jet beams melt steel fuel?

>>132829997
There were large fuel tanks within building 7. They were there to power generators in the event of a blackout. They were ruptured by the falling trade center and fed the building 7 fire.

>>132829768
>as if the impact of the plane did any damage to the remaining structure below at all

>>132829680
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeuQqP-NLnE

>>132830237
that produced a perfectly even burn such that every load bearing column failed simultaneously allowing the building to free fall into its own footprint?

File: squib.gif (1MB, 68x286px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 68x286px

>>132829768
>building designed to survive direct impact from 707s and continue to stand
>completely destroy themselves in 56 minutes and 102 minutes respectively from fire in a localized area
Impressive if true, you could start a cheap demolition company and out compete the rest. No need for explosives, just start a fire with some kerosene and run.

If a steel engine can melt enough to not function at 130degrees celcius, what's so hard understand. I think it should've bent, though, this controlled explosion look is sketchy as fuck. I bet wtc7 caught some jet fuel as well. Wtc1 did collapse like there was a fire(or an explosion) where supposedly a plane hit. Wtc 2 did too, they collapsed from the top to bottom, but they both collapsed in a straight line.

>>132830359
when you hold a rod at the ends and bend at one end, does just the tip bend or the entire rod?
>>132830667
>what is highly flammable insulation in the entire building

>>132829952
>>132829036
What on earth are you 2 faggots talking about? Whether steel is weakened or not doesn't matter, the truth is that steel DID melt and jet fuel couldn't have done it. So what did?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA

Idiots like the above miss the entire argument and start talking about steel weakness. To make a comparison argument, let's say that a lake freezes over at night. The next morning you see it's frozen, so you know the temperature dropped to 32F at least. You point out that it dropped to freezing temperature to another person, to which they respond "not necessarily, water is most dense at 39F". Does it matter that water is dense at 39F? No, you've missed the point. The lake is frozen, just like the beams melted, offering an explanation that avoids the fact in front of you makes no fucking sense.

See: >>132829156

>>132830813
WTC 1 collapsed the opposite direction of the impact damage. It collapsed facing south instead of north. It also began collapsing at the roof, which never suffered damage.
WTC 2 pivoted around the 85th floor and should have fallen onto the streets intact. Instead it tore itself apart mid air while the rest of the tower collapsed even though nothing was falling onto it.
It has never been explained how 90% of the remaining undamaged structure was destroyed within 15 seconds. That is impossible from the way the building was designed (specifically the core and mechanical floors which would have resisted the collapse wave)

>>132831589
I'm confused what you're trying to suggest. Did the entire building catch fire inside and no one noticed?

File: wtc-r09.091601.usgs-thermal.jpg (315KB, 595x1487px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 595x1487px

>>132832476
>muh soften steel though!
Something definitely melted enough to be caught on thermal imaging a week 5 days later (and fueled fires that burned for 3 MONTHS)

>>132832858
>a week 5 days later
Scratch that, should just be 5 days later

>>132829404
Impulse loading, the tower was hit with force of thors hammer